&EPA
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment
for the Registration Review of Glufosinate
Glufosinate
CAS 77182-82-2 PC Code 128850
26 January 2013
Prepared by
Catherine Aubee, Biologist
Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)
Environmental Risk Branch IV
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mail Code 7507P
Washington, DC 20460
Reviewed by
Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor
James Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist
Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief
-------
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 5
2. Problem Formulation 6
2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action 6
2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution 6
2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor 6
2.3. Receptors 8
2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects 8
2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 8
2.4. Assessment Endpoints 10
2.5. Conceptual Model 10
2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses 10
2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram 11
2.6. Analysis Plan 12
2.6.1. Measures of Exposure 12
2.6.2. Measures of Effect 15
2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects 15
3. Analysis 17
3.1 Use Characterization 17
3.2. Exposure Characterization 20
3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization 20
3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 24
3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 32
3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization 42
3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment 42
3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization 52
3.3.3. Review of Incident Data 57
4. Risk Characterization 58
4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values 58
4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms 59
4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms 64
4.2. Refinements for Scenarios that Failed the Screen 76
4.2.1. EECs and RQs for Aquatic Nonvascular Plants Using Avg. Application Rates 76
4.2.2. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs for Average
Application Rates 76
4.2.3. Refinements for Terrestrial Plants 83
4.3. Risk Description 83
4.3.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms 83
4.3.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms 88
5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) 99
6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern 100
6.1. Action Area 100
6.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 100
6.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses 104
7. Conclusions 104
8. References 105
8.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies 107
8.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies 108
-Page 2 of 135-
-------
Tables
Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Glufosinate 7
Table 2.2. Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Potential Effects of Glufosinate 9
Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class 16
Table 3.1. Glufosinate maximum application rates for labeled uses 18
Table 3.2. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Glufosinate (OPP/BEAD) 20
Table 3.3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Glufosinate 21
Table 3.4. Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies 24
Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure Assessment (PRZM/EXAMS) 26
Table 3.6. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure
Assessment 28
Table 3.7. PRZM-GW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate 28
Table 3.8. SCI-GROW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate 29
Table 3.6. Surface Water EECs for Labeled Uses of Glufosinate 30
Table 3.7. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening-Level Terrestrial EECs for Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
32
Table 3.8. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, and
Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5) 35
Table 3.9. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses
of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5) 37
Table 3.10. Screening-level Dietary-based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles,
Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5) 39
Table 3.11. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Glufosinate Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2).40
Table 3.12. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its Degradates.
43
Table 3.13. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates 44
Table 3.14. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates 45
Table 3.15. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates 46
Table 3.16. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Fish Exposed to Glufosinate 47
Table 3.17. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Including
Molluscs) Exposed to Glufosinate 49
Table 3.18. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate
and its Degradates 51
Table 3.19. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Glufosinate 53
Table 3.20. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data for Rats Exposed to Glufosinate 54
Table 3.21. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate 55
Table 3.22. Summary of Tier II Toxicity of Glufosinate to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants 56
Table 4.1. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI 59
Table 4.2. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI..59
Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish, Amphibians, and Invertebrates from Spray Drift
Only of Glufosinate End-use Products (EPs) 60
Table 4.4. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI 61
Table 4.5. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates from Spray Drift Only
of Glufosinate End-use Products (EPs) 62
Table 4.6. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI 62
Table 4.7. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from Glufosinate
TGAI 63
Table 4.8 RQs for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular1 Plants from Spray Drift Only of Glufosinate End-use
Products (EPs) 64
Table 4.9. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Animals 64
-Page 3 of 135-
-------
Table 4.10. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians of Different
Feeding Classes (T-REX v. 1.5) 65
Table 4.11. Acute Dose-based RQ values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5) 67
Table 4.12. Chronic Dose-based RQ Values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5) 69
Table 4.13. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals of Different Feeding Classes 71
Table 4.14. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Plants 72
Table 4.15. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Ground Spray) 73
Table 4.16. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Aerial Spray) 75
Table 4.19. Mean Kenaga Dietary EECs (mg ai/kg diet) for Birds, Reptiles, Terrestrial-phase Amphibians,
and Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5) 77
Table 4.20. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs1 for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians Based on
Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5) 77
Table 4.21. Mean, Dose-Adjusted Kenaga EECs (mg ai/kg bw) for Mammals Using Average Application
Rates (T-REX v. 1.5) 79
Table 4.22. Acute Dose-based RQs1 (Mean) for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average
Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5) 80
Table 4.23. Chronic Dose-based RQs1 for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average
Application Rates (T-REX v.1.5) 81
Table 4.24. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average
Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5) 82
Table 4.25. Comparison of T-REX EECs (Upper Bound Kenaga Nomogram) to the Non-definitive Endpoint
for Acute Contact Toxicity to the Honey Bee {Apis mellifera) 94
Table 4.26. Possible1 Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Glufosinate through Spray
Drift Only, Based on the Most Sensitive Crop Species in Submitted Toxicity Studies 98
Table 6.1. Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the
Registered Uses of Glufosinate, Based on Best Available Data 102
Appendices
Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of Glufosinate and its Degradates 112
Appendix B. Scenario Descriptions for Surface Water Modeling (PRZM/EXAMS, PFAM) 113
Appendix C. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data 121
Appendix D. Example T-REX (v. 1.5) Input and Output for Glufosinate 124
Appendix E. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Glufosinate 128
Appendix F. STIR Results 129
Appendix G. SIP Results 130
Appendix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Glufosinate 131
Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for Glufosinate 133
Appendix J. Results of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies for Glufosinate 135
Attachments (Separate Electronic File)
Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (April 2012 Refresh)
Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (April 2012 Refresh)
-Page 4 of 135-
-------
1. Executive Summary
The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with
labeled uses of the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate [ammonium-(2RS)-2-amino-4-
(methylphosphinato) butyric acid], based on the best available scientific and commercial
information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of glufosinate on nontarget
organisms. This PRA includes two major components. First, a screening level assessment is
presented, consistent with prior assessments for glufosinate pesticide registration actions.
Second, a refined analysis is presented and integrated into the risk description to further
characterize potential risk to wildlife and plants. Additional lines of evidence which, once
available, may be useful to further refine the risk profile for glufosinate are briefly described.
The screening level assessment with preliminary refinements concludes that the use of
glufosinate in accordance with registered labels results in chronic risk to mammals that exceeds
the Agency's chronic risk Level of Concern (LOC). Adverse effects in mammals following
chronic exposure to glufosinate in laboratory studies include reductions in growth and in
offspring fitness and viability; these effects are seen across generations and in multiple species.
Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, risk is expected for nontarget
plants exposed to spray drift and runoff. Some uses of glufosinate may also result in acute risk
to mammals and chronic risks to birds, reptiles, and amphibians exposed to glufosinate in the
diet. The potential for acute risk to birds, reptiles, and amphibians exposed through a terrestrial
diet is based on sublethal effects (lethargy and diarrhea) observed after force-feeding glufosinate
at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg bw); acute risk under natural conditions is uncertain given the
relatively high dietary exposure levels that would need to occur for animals foraging on a treated
field to approach the equivalent oral dose. No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in
subacute dietary toxicity tests with birds at the limit dose (5,000 mg/kg diet).
Off-site transport of glufosinate to surface water presents risk that exceeds the LOC for listed
species of aquatic nonvascular plants (e.g., algae). While there are currently no listed species of
aquatic nonvascular plants, the degree to which algicidal or algistatic effects in the aquatic plant
community may result in indirect effects on other organisms is uncertain. Fish kill incidents
have been reported in association with nearby terrestrial applications of glufosinate. Given the
low toxicity of the glufosinate technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) to fish, it is plausible that
these fish kill events may be the result of indirect effects such as water column oxygen depletion
due to decreased photosynthesis and increased biochemical oxygen demand from decaying plant
material, or perhaps from ammonium toxicity if the watershed contained other significant
sources of ammonium (e.g., fertilizer runoff, decaying organic matter). Finally, formulated
glufosinate is generally more toxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals than is the TGAI. Direct
application of formulated glufosinate to rice paddies may result in acute risk to fish, amphibians,
and aquatic invertebrates in the paddy or in waters into which treated paddy water may be
discharged; this risk exceeds the LOC for listed species of fish and amphibians and for both
listed and nonlisted species of aquatic invertebrates.
-Page 5 of 135-
-------
2. Problem Formulation
The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and
ecological risk assessment being conducted for the representative labeled uses of glufosinate-
ammonium, which are summarized in the most recent Label Use Information System (LUIS)
report compiled by the Benefits and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) (May 5, 2012). The
problem formulation sets the objectives for the risk assessment and provides a plan for analyzing
the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA 1998a). As part of the Registration Review process,
a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D345696) for this risk assessment was published to
the docket [Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190] in March 2008. The following section
summarizes the key points of that document and discusses any differences between the analysis
outlined there and the analysis conducted in this risk assessment.
2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action
The risk assessment is conducted as part of the Agency's Registration Review process for
pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA 1995).
2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution
2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor
Glufosinate-ammonium [ammonium-(2RS)-2-amino-4-(methylphosphinato) butyric acid; CAS
77182-82-2], hereafter refered to as glufosinate, is a non-selective, foliar herbicide that acts by
inhibiting glutamine synthetase needed for the ammonification of glutamate to the amino acid
glutamine (MRIDs 40345632 and 40345633). The disruption in the production of this key
amino acid leads to disruption of the cell membrane, build up of excess ammonium, and death of
the cell. Although this metabolic pathway exists in animals as well as in plants, compensation
for toxicity to animals may occur when alternative sources of glutamine are available in the diet.
Glufosinate has an organophosphate moeity; however, unlike the organophosphate insecticides,
which act primarily on acetyl cholinesterase (AChE) receptors in animals, glufosinate exposure
is not generally associated with detectable AChE inhibition.
Glufosinate is primarily a foliar-active herbicide with limited systemic activity; plants that have
not emerged will not be controlled and there is reported to be no residual activity (Datta 1988).
Glufosinate salt dissociates to produce ammonia and glufosinate acid, a racemic mixture of ionic
isomers; of these, only the L-isomer (or (S)-enantiomer) mimics the enzyme glutamine
synthetase and, therefore, is herbicidally active. It is unknown whether the introduction of
ammonia via dissociation of the glufosinate salt enhances the herbicidal action of the application.
The product labels and most submitted studies refer to the salt racemate as the active ingredient.
There is uncertainty regarding the environmental fate and relative nontarget toxicity of the
individual components (isomers or enantiomers) of the racemic mixture because data specific to
the enantiomers of parent glufosinate have not been submitted. Fate and ecotoxicity data have
-Page 6 of 135-
-------
been submitted for the glufosinate ammonium salt, racemic mixture. Therefore, the racemic
mixture of the ammonium salt is assessed in this document.
The chemical profile of glufosinate is provided in Table 2.1. Chemical names and structures of
the isomeric mixtures of glufosinate and its degradates, as they are formulated in standards used
in submitted environmental fate studies, are listed in Appendix A. As described in Section
3.2.1.4, this screening level ecological risk assessment focuses on glufosinate parent only.
Previous exposure modeling and recently reviewed ecotoxicity data for glufosinate degradates
(Section 3.3) generally demonstrate that potential exposure to and effects from glufosinate
degradates are expected to be of equal or lesser magnitude than from parent glufosinate.
Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Glufosinate.
Common name
Glufosinate
IUPAC name
ammonium-(2RS)-2-amino-4-(methylphosphinato)butyric
acid
CAS name
(RS)-2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid
monoammonium salt
Structure
nh2
O X OH
nh4+
Pesticide type
Herbicide
Chemical class
Phosphinic acid (organophosphate herbicide)
CAS number
77182-82-2
Empirical formula
C5H15N2O4P
Molecular mass
198.2 g/mol
2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage
Glufosinate is an active ingredient in several formulated products registered for preplant and
post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds in a variety of crop and non-crop areas; it is also used
as a defoliant and as a means of conducting chemical burndown. Glufosinate is registered for
use on apples, berries, canola, citrus, corn, cotton, currants, grapes, grass grown for seed, olives,
pome fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit, sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for non-
crop areas include golf course turf, residential lawns, ornamentals, and a variety of industrial and
public areas. Both aerial and ground spray is allowed for most uses, although some applications
are limited to methods using hand wands and backpack sprayers. Application rates vary
considerably by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed by most labels, although the
interval is not generally specified, with an annual maximum rate of up to 4.5 lbs ai/A for
orchards and vineyards. Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1.
-Page 7 of 135-
-------
2.3. Receptors
2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects
The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA 1998). Consistent
with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses
a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of glufosinate. Toxicity data generated from
surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are
used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these
taxonomic groupings.
Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the
available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of glufosinate to aquatic and
terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA's database ECOTOX
(http://cfpub.epa. gov/ecotox/), which provides a source for locating single chemical toxicity data
for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.
Table 2.2 provides examples of taxonomic groups and the surrogate species tested to evaluate
potential ecological effects of pesticides to these nontarget taxonomic groups. The table also
provides a summary of the acute toxicity classifications of glufosinate, any tested end-use
products (EPs), and any tested degradates for each described taxon; note that ecotoxicity data for
animals are routinely required for the TGAI only.
2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk
The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify
specific ecosystems at the screening level. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at
risk could include the treated site and areas immediately adjacent to the treated site that may
receive drift, runoff, eroded sediment, or discharged subsurface (ground) water. Such areas
could include the treatment site itself, other cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows,
meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other uncultivated areas.
Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from the
treated area and may include natural or impounded lentic systems such as ponds, lakes and
reservoirs, and lotic (flowing) waterways, i.e., streams and rivers. For the use on rice, the
treatment area itself is also considered. Aquatic ecosystems supplied by groundwater, such as
cave ecosystems and areas supplied by natural springs, may be at risk if a compound has the
potential to leach into the subsurface. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat includes estuarine
and marine ecosystems. Within water bodies, the water column, sediment, and pore water are all
compartments of potential concern.
-Page 8 of 135-
-------
Table 2.2. Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Potential Effects of Glufosinate.
Taxonomic Group
Examplc(s) of Surrogate Species
Acute Toxicity Classification
TGAI
Tested EPs
Dcjjradatcs
Birds1
Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)
Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus)
Practically nontoxic
No data
No data
Mammals
Laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus)
Practically nontoxic
Moderately toxic
Practically nontoxic2
Insects
Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)
Practically nontoxic
Practically nontoxic
No data
Freshwater fish3
Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Practically nontoxic
Slightly to
moderately toxic
Practically nontoxic up
to limit of solubility
Freshwater invertebrates
Waterflea (Daphnia magna)
Practically nontoxic
Slightly to
moderately toxic
Practically nontoxic to
slightly toxic
(acidification) up to
limit of solubility
Estuarine/marine fish
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
Practically nontoxic
Moderately toxic
No data
Estuarine/marine
invertebrates
Mysid (Americamysis bahia)
Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Practically nontoxic to
moderately toxic
Moderately to highly
toxic
No data
Terrestrial plants4
Monocots - onion (Allium cepa)
Dicots - carrot (Daucus carota)
Not classified
Not classified
No data
Aquatic plants and algae
Duckweed (Lemna gibba)
Freshwater blue-green alga (Anabaena flos-aquae)
Not classified
Not classified
No data
Abbreviations: End-use product. Technical grade active ingredient.
1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.
2 Based on data reviewed by HED and the ROCKS Committee, not further described in this assessment.
3 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.
4 Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans.
-Page 9 of 135-
-------
2.4. Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental values that are to be protected, defined
by ecological entitities (species, community, etc.) and their attributes or characteristics (USEPA
1998). For glufosinate, the ecological entities assessed include the following: birds, amphibians,
reptiles, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and
terrestrial and aquatic plants. The attributes for each of these entities may include growth,
survival, and reproduction. (See Table 2.3 in Section 2.6.2, the Analysis Plan, for further
discussion).
The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community
structure within ecosystems and hence relate to ecosystems at risk. If risks are identified for
given species/taxa based on a screening-level assessment, then such risks might be expected to
translate to higher levels of biological organization.
2.5. Conceptual Model
For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically
significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the
environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete,
it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of
exposure for ecological receptors, and a plausible route of exposure. The conceptual model is
intended to provide a written description and visual representation of predicted relationships
between glufosinate, potential routes of exposure, and the effects related to the Agency
assessment endpoints. The conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk
hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).
The conceptual model used to depict potential ecological risks associated with the foliar uses of
glufosinate relies on previous assessments and the Agency's current understanding of the
environmental fate and ecological effects of the chemical. Consistent with the intended use of
glufosinate as an herbicide, potential risk to nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plants is expected.
Effects on plants, which are the primary producers in most ecosystems, may result in potential
indirect effects on consumers. The model assumes that glufosinate is capable of affecting
terrestrial vertebrates and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, provided that environmental
concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result of glufosinate's current uses (Figure 2.1).
Previous risk assessments (DP Barcodes: 280453, 318746, 318747, 368799, 372624, 382673)
have identified potential direct acute risk to listed terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species and
potential direct chronic risk to avian species and mammals.
2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses
For glufosinate, the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk
assessment:
Given the registered uses of glufosinate and its environmental fate properties, there is
possible acute and chronic exposure to nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
-Page 10 of 135-
-------
Previous risk assessments have identified risk to terrestrial plants, vertebrates, and listed
species of both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Potential risk to other nontarget
organisms has been identified as uncertain or below the Agency's Levels of Concern.
This assessment tests the hypothesis that, when used in accordance with the label,
glufosinate exposure may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and
reproduction of nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals.
2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram
The potential exposure pathways and effects of the registered uses of glufosinate are depicted in
Figure 2.1. Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines
depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely for glufosinate. The application
methods for the registered uses of glufosinate involve ground and aerial applications. Ecological
receptors that may be exposed to glufosinate following such applications include terrestrial and
semi-aquatic wildlife {i.e., mammals, birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates,
and reptiles) and plants. In addition, aquatic receptors {e.g., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish
and invertebrates, aquatic-phase amphibians, and plants) may be exposed as a result of
movement of glufosinate via spray drift and runoff from the site of application or from direct
application to rice paddies that may intermittently serve as aquatic habitat. The conceptual
framework for assessment of potential ecological risk associated with glufosinate use is depicted
in Figure 2.1; potential endpoints, stressors, and ecological effects are identified based on this
model.
For terrestrial organisms, the primary route of exposure assessed at the screening level is the
dietary route, via consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have glufosinate
residues as a result of spraying. The assessment considers exposure of nontarget terrestrial
invertebrates through oral ingestion and through contact, e.g., as a result of direct deposition or
spray drift. Direct contact and root uptake are the major routes of exposure considered for
terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants.
Based on glufosinate's vapor pressure (< 7.5xl0"9 torr), the chemical is not expected to readily
volatilize. The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) (see Section 2.6.2), which compares
inhalation exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian toxicity data, confirms this
assumption, so this assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in estimating
environmental concentrations. While the Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) conservatively
indicates that drinking water exposure alone could be a potential pathway of concern, the means
to quantify such exposure are currently not available; therefore, the current assessment does not
evaluate potential risk to wildlife through drinking water exposure. Similarly, this ecological
risk assessment does not account for possible ingestion of glufosinate residues in contaminated
grit or from preening activities of terrestrial animals, and it does not evaluate potential uptake
through dermal absorption.
For aquatic assessments, the major routes of exposure for aquatic animal species are considered
to be through the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Organisms in habitats supplied
primarily by groundwater discharge {e.g., seeps, springs) may receive different levels of
-Page 11 of 135-
-------
exposure than organisms in surface rivers, streams, lakes, and other impoundments (e.g.,
reservoirs). Similar to terrestrial organisms, exposure of aquatic organisms to glufosinate may
also occur through ingestion of residues in sediment and forage. However, glufosinate is
hydrophilic, with an octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) of <0.1 (Accession Number
00263025), and does not bioconcentrate in fish (MRID 41323130); therefore, although
glufosinate residues may be present in prey and forage, bioaccumulation potential is low.
Aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption.
2.6. Analysis Plan
2.6.1. Measures of Exposure
2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure
Measures of exposure to aquatic animals and plants are concentrations in surface water and pore
water simulated by the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2, May 12, 2005) and Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, Apr. 2005), coupled with the input shell pe5
(August 2007), to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of glufosinate that
may occur from use on adjacent crops at maximum use rates. The EECs used in assessment of
acute risk are l-in-10 year return frequency daily maximum values (referred to as "peak"
values). For chronic risk assessment, mean concentrations over a specified duration are
generated. In both cases, each modeled site is selected to represent a site expected to be more
vulnerable to runoff than most locations where use may occur (e.g., based on the crop being
grown). Concentrations in groundwater (which may also be a source of irrigation water) were
derived with PRZM-GW (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, June 28,
2012) and SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration in Groundwater, version 2.3, July 29, 2003).
PRZM-GW outputs represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable aquifer that is located
directly beneath an agricultural field. Similarly, SCI-GROW output represents the pesticide
concentrations that might be expected in shallow, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which
is the groundwater expected to be most vulnerable to pesticide contamination through leaching.
As PRZM-GW is currently undergoing a period of evaluation, the SCI-GROW estimates are also
generated for comparison purposes. For rice uses, the Pesticide Flooded Application Model
(PFAM, v. 0.7, Sep. 2011) was used to generate EECs in water released from a rice paddy.
2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure
Terrestrial wildlife are exposed to glufosinate via consumption of residues on food items
generated by spray applications. For spray applications, the T-REX model (Terrestrial Residue
EXposure model; v. 1.5; March 22, 2012) is used to predict dietary exposure to glufosinate
residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher
(Hoerger and Kenaga 1972, Fletcher et al. 1994). A default 35-day foliar dissipation half-life is
-Page 12 of 135-
-------
Figure 2.1. Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Nontarget Species From the Registered Uses of Glufosinate. Solid arrows depict the routes of
exposure and effects which are assessed for parent glufosinate based on the available data; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not
considered likely.
-Page 13 of 135-
-------
used for terrestrial exposure modeling in this assessment. Foliar dissipation data specific to
glufosinate (e.g., Willis and McDowell 1987) are not available and magnitude of residue data,
submitted under Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Guideline
860.1500, have been deemed inappropriate for use, usually because the studies are missing
residue values for Day 0. Estimated exposures of terrestrial insects to glufosinate are evaluated
in terms of the insects' potential relevance as dietary items for terrestrial vertebrates and for use
in risk characterization for listed terrestrial invertebrates.
The TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial
and wetland plants exposed to glufosinate as a combination of spray drift and runoff. The model
employs the assumption that default fractions of the intended application are transported to an
adjacent. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a fraction of the mass of the
glufosinate applied to the treated field.
To characterize potential nontarget plant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in
AgDRIFT (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to estimate how far off-site spray drift exposure
might occur at a level known to cause adverse effects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies. Labels
for glufosinate specify that the product should be applied using nozzles and pressures that
generate a Medium (about 250 to 350 microns) spray droplet size category. For Tier I aerial
applications, this corresponds to an American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
(ASABE, formerly ASAE) Medium-to-Coarse droplet size category. For Tier I ground
applications, this corresponds to ASAE Fine-to-Medium/Coarse droplet size category. As non-
burndown applications of glufosinate by ground spray are meant to kill weeds and not
surrounding crops, ground spray applications in AgDRIFT were modeled using a low boom.
The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v. 1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate
an upper bound estimate of exposure using glufosinate's vapor pressure and molecular weight
for vapor phase exposure as well as the maximum application rate and method of application for
spray drift. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies including acute oral and
inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the "six-pack" of core studies, which are a series
of six guideline studies that are submitted to the Registration Division of the Office of Pesticide
Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide (LD50 = 3,030 mg/kg bw/day,
MRID 00142430; and inhlation LC50 > 2.12 mg/L, MRID 46279004, respectively) as well as the
most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (bobwhite quail LD50 > 2,000 mg/kg bw, MRID
00142451). Based on the results of the STIR model (Appendix F), exposure through inhalation
of spray drift or the vapor phase of glufosinate was not determined to be a potential pathway of
concern for either avian or mammalian species on an acute exposure basis.
The analysis of the inhalation route in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other
exposure pathways such as dietary, dermal, or drinking water may contribute to a total exposure
that has a potential for effects to nontarget animals. However, the Agency does consider the
relative importance of other routes of exposure in situations where data indicate that pesticide
exposures through other routes may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk
(USEPA 2004). The risk characterization section (Section 4.3), discusses the impact of
consideration of other routes of exposure that have been identified as potentially important and
-Page 14 of 135-
-------
the degree of certainty associated with screening-level risk assessment conclusions. Detailed
information about STIR v. 1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on EPA's website
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models pg.htm#terrestrial).
The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0, released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an
upper bound estimate of exposure using glufosinate's solubility (1 x 106 mg/L, MRID
00263025), and compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic avian and mammalian toxicity
endpoints (see Table 3.22 and 3.23, respectively). Drinking water exposure alone was
determined to be a potential pathway of concern for mammalian species on both an acute and a
chronic exposure basis and for avian species on a chronic exposure basis. The potential for
exposure through drinking water to present a concern on an acute exposure basis was not
determined because the LD50 value for birds is a nondefinitive value (LD50 > 2,000 mg/kg bw).
For a sample of the output generated by SIP v. 1.0, please see Appendix G.
2.6.2. Measures of Effect
Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies which were
conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species (Table 2.2). The test species are not
intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected based on their
ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment
utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the
U.S. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in August 2012 to identify
whether additional, more sensitive ecological effects data were available for glufosinate;
however, no more useful data were identified (USEPA 2012).
The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment are the LD50 (Lethal Dose),
LC50 (Lethal Concentration), EC50 (Effects Concentration), and IC50 (Inhibition Concentration).
These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested
organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed
Adverse Effects Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level).
Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and
invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and other terrestrial invertebrates. The
endpoints used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and
were classified as "acceptable" (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be
scientifically valid) or "supplemental" (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results were
considered to be scientifically valid).
2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects
The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse
ecological effects on nontarget species. For the risk assessment of glufosinate, the risk quotient
(RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ
method involves dividing EECs by point estimates of the most sensitive acute and chronic
toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOC)
-Page 15 of 135-
-------
(USEPA 2004) (Table 2.3). These criteria are used to indicate when applications of glufosinate,
as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to nontarget organisms.
Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class.
Risk Class
Risk Description
RQ
LOC
Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)
Acute
Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute
exposures
Peak EEC/LC501
0.5
Acute
Restricted Use
Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures
Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification
Peak EEC/LC501
0.1
Acute Listed
Species
Listed species may be potentially affected by acute
exposures
Peak EEC/LC501
0.05
Chronic
Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from
chronic exposures
60-day EEC/NOAEC
(fish)
1
21-day EEC/NO AEC
(invertebrates)
Aquatic Plants
Non-Listed
Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures
Peak EEC/LC501
1
Listed
Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures
Peak EEC/NO AEC
1
Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds)2
Acute
Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute
exposures
EEC/LC50 (Dietary)
0.5
EEC/LD50 (Dose)
Acute
Restricted Use
Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures
Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification
EEC/LC50 (Dietary)
0.2
EEC/LD50 (Dose)
Acute Listed
Species
Listed species may be potentially affected by acute
exposures
EEC/LC50 (Dietary)
0.1
EEC/LD50 (Dose)
Chronic
Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from
chronic exposures
EEC/NOAEC
1
Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants
Non-Listed
Potential for effects to nontarget, non-listed plants from
exposures
EEC/EC25
1
Listed Plant
Potential for effects to nontarget, listed plants from
exposures
EEC/NOAEC
1
EEC/EC05
LC50 or EC50.
2 EEC based on upper bound Kenaga nomogram values for foliar exposure.
The Agency uses the probit dose-response relationship as a tool for providing additional
information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic
animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA 2004). As part of this
evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual
event (i.e., mortality or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species
with sensitivity to glufosinate on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation.
To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose-response relationship
available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each
taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated
-Page 16 of 135-
-------
with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose-
response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean,
upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in
the slope, if available. If no dose response information is available to estimate a slope for this
analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used, with lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9
(USEPA 2004).
Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool
IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such
calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the confidence bounds of that estimate) as
the slope parameter in the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the probability of an individual
effect is entered as the listed species LOC or based on the calculated acute RQ, if available.
3. Analysis
3.1 Use Characterization
Maximum use pattern information is presented in Table 3.1. Glufosinate is an active ingredient
in several formulated products used for preplant and post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds
which grow within a variety of crops and non-crop areas. Products include Derringer® (Reg. No.
432-1228), Derringer® F Herbicide (Reg. No. 432-960), Finale® Super Concentrate (Reg. No.
432-954), Finale® Ready-to-Use (Reg. No. 432-955), Finale® Concentrate (Reg. No. 432-956),
Finale® Herbicide (Reg. No. 432-1229), Glufosinate 280 (Reg. No. 88685-2), Liberty® (Reg. No.
264-660), Liberty® ATZ (Reg. No. 264-668), Liberty 280® (Reg. No. 264-829), Rely® (Reg. No.
264-652), and Remove® (Reg. No. 264-663), along with 8 special local needs (Section 24c;
SLN1) labels. Glufosinate is registered for use on apples, berries, canola, citrus, corn, cotton,
currants, grapes, grass grown for seed, olives, pome fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit,
sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for non-crop areas include golf course turf, residential
lawns, ornamentals, and a variety of industrial and public areas. Both aerial and ground spray is
allowed for most uses, although some applications are limited to methods using hand wands and
backpack sprayers. As glufosinate is designed primarily to control broadleaf weeds, applications
are normally ground applications, to prevent damage to crops. Aerial application is considered a
viable option for genetically modified crops (e.g., canola, corn, cotton, rice, sugarbeets, and
soybeans) that are resistant to glufosinate's herbicidal properties, and for burndown applications.
In addition to the crop burndown uses described in this assessment, some use patterns
categorized as "non-agricultural" may also involve burndown applications.
Application rates vary considerably by use pattern. The highest registered application rate for
broadcast spray (ground) is 1.5 lbs ai/A for use patterns including control of understory weeds
for orchard nuts and fruits (e.g., almonds, apples, and hickory), grapes, grasses grown for seed
1 Section 24c - A section of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that authorizes states
to issue special local needs (SLN) pesticide registrations. Under the authority of §24(c) of FIFRA. states may
register an additional use of a federally registered pesticide product, or a new end use product to meet special local
needs. Although SLNs can be approved for many different reasons and application sites, most involve use on crops.
-Page 17 of 135-
-------
and golf course turf. The maximum rate for cotton applications is 0.79 lbs ai/A (also labeled at
0.52 lbs ai/A), for rice is 0.73 lbs ai/A, and for sugar beets is 0.55 lbs ai/A. Corn and soybean
broadcast applications are a maximum of 0.44 lbs ai/A. There are numerous other applications,
including turf and patio applications, labeled for 0.03 lbs ai/A. Multiple applications are allowed
by most labels, although the interval is not generally specified, with an annual maximum rate for
agricultural crops of up to 4.5 lbs ai/A for orchards and vineyards. In situations where the
retreatment interval (RTI) is not specified on the label, an RTI of 3 days was assumed. Where the
maximum annual use is not specified, the product was assumed to be applied 26 times, except
when model limitations (e.g., PRZM-GW) limited the number of applications, at which point the
maximum number of applications was set to the model limit of 11. This assessment focuses on
the highest application rates for the uses evaluated by BEAD (LUIS Report; May 5, 2012) and
on broadcast (aerial and ground) spray, because these combinations are expected to result in the
highest off-target exposure. Uses have been categorized as agricultural, seed propagation,
burndown, and non-agricultural. Agricultural uses of glufosinate refer to applications made to
eliminate weeds growing alongside the associated crop. Seed propagation uses refer to
applications made to the respective crops in order to select out susceptible plants that are not
tolerant to glufosinate during seed propagation. Burndown uses refer to glufosinate application
prior to planting or prior to emergence of any conventional or transgenic variety of the associated
crop to eliminate weeds. Non-agricultural uses refer to applications of glufosinate to non-crop
bearing areas to eliminate weeds. For use of glufosinate on fallow fields and noncrop areas, as
labels were vague on the maximum number of applications and maximum use amounts, aquatic
exposure was modeled based on estimated maximum use rates as well as registrant submitted
information on best agronomic practices (labeled EFED and registrant, respectively, in the table
below).
Table 3.1. Glufosinate maximum application rates for labeled uses.
Crop
Max Single App
Rate
lbs ai/A
Max
Number
of Apps
Max Seasonal
App Rate
lbs ai/A
Minimal Interval
Between Apps
(days)
App Method
Agricultural
Blueberry
1.50
2
3.00
NS
Ground
Canola
0.4
2
0.8
7
Aerial
Citrus4
1.50
3
4.50
NS
Ground
Corn
0.4
2
0.8
14
Aerial
Cotton
0.53
3
1.59
10
Aerial
Grape vineyard
1.50
3
4.50
NS
Ground
Olives
1.50
3
4.50
NS
Ground
Pome fruit5
1.50
3
4.50
NS
Ground
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
1
0.38
NA
Aerial
Rice2
0.44
2
0.89
10
Aerial
Soybean
0.4
2
0.8
14
Aerial
0.66
2
1.19
10
Aerial
Stone fruit6
1.50
2
3.00
NS
Ground
Sugarbeet
0.55
2
1.10
NS
Aerial
Tree nuts7
1.50
3
4.50
NS
Ground
Seed Propagation
-Page 18 of 135-
-------
Max Single App
Max
Max Seasonal
Minimal Interval
Crop
Rate
Number
App Rate
Between Apps
App Method
lbs ai/A
of Apps
lbs ai/A
(days)
Corn
0.52
2
1.04
NS
Aerial
Cotton
0.52
2
1.04
NS
Aerial
Rice2
0.73
2
1.46
10
Aerial
Soybean
0.52
2
1.04
NS
Aerial
Burndown
Corn
0.66
1
0.66
NA
Aerial
Cotton (preplant)
0.79
2
1.32
10
Aerial
Cotton (postharvest)
0.79
2
1.32
10
Aerial
Rice
0.66
1
0.66
NA
Aerial
Soybean
0.66
1
0.66
NA
Aerial
Sugar beet
0.66
1
0.66
NA
Aerial
Non-agricultural3
Conifer/hardwood trees
Scenario 1
1.5
3
4.5
NS
Aerial
Scenario 2
0.3
3
0.9
NS
Aerial
Fallow field
- EFED
0.53
NS
NS
NS
Aerial
Registrant
0.4
5
2
10
Aerial
Lawns/gardens
1.36
NS
NS
NS
Ground
Farmstead / Noncrop areas
- EFED
1.5
NS
NS
NS
Ground
Registrant
1.5
2
3
10
Ground
NS - not specified. App-application
1. Where the retreatment interval (RTI) is not specified on the label, an RTI of 3 days was assumed. Where the
maximum annual use is not specified, the product was assumed to be applied 26 times.
2. For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A was
applied to a flooded 8-inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7-day holding period. For modeling applications for
rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A was applied, the first
application to a dry field, the second application to a 4-inch flooded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 5 5-day
holding period.
3. See scenario descriptions for assumed application rates and RTIs.
4. Citrus includes lemon, orange, grapefruit, lime, mandarin, tangerine, tangelo, calamondin, kumquat, and pummel
trees.
5. Pome fruit includes apple, pear, crabapple, loquat, mayhaw, and quince trees.
6. Stone fruit includes apricot, cherry, peach, nectarine, and plum trees.
7. Tree nuts include almond, filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut, bush nut, pecan, pistachio, and walnut trees.
According to the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) provided by the Biological and
Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) in 2012 (Table 3.2), the majority of glufosinate is used on
corn with 1.3 million pounds of active ingredient applied. Almonds, cotton, and grapes are also
appreciable uses reported in the BEAD analysis. Uses which have not been calculated do not
imply zero use, though they are likely low in comparison to those uses that are quantified in
Table 3.2. Stone fruits, such as peaches, cherries, and plums/prunes, are new uses which were
approved in 2012. Registered non-agricultural uses, such as fallow fields, lawns and gardens,
conifer tree areas, and non-crop areas (e.g., farmstead building foundations, shelter belts, along
fences, etc.) are not captured in the above data. These data do not include non-agricultural uses.
-Page 19 of 135-
-------
Table 3.2. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Glufosinate (OPP/BEAD).
Crop
l.hs. ai
Percent Crop Treated
Average Single
A pp. Kale
flhs ai. 1 j
Average Number
of Apps.
Average
Maxim ii ill
Almonds
200,000
15
40
0.96
NR
Apples
4,000
<1
<2.5
0.82
NR
Blueberries
10,000
5
15
NR
NR
Canola
100,000
25
35
0.37
1.0
Cherries
1,000
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Corn
1,300,000
5
10
0.38
1.0
Cotton
200,000
5
10
0.40
1.4
Fallow
<500
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Grapes
200,000
15
30
0.91-1.05
NR
Hazelnuts
6,000
10
25
0.71
NR
Peaches
2,000
<2.5
10
0.79
NR
Peanuts
1,000
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Pecans
1,000
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Pistachios
50,000
20
45
1.01
NR
Plums/Prunes
2,000
<2.5
10
0.55
NR
Potatoes
30,000
10
20
0.36
1.1
Rice
5,000
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Soybeans
100,000
<1
<2.5
0.43
1.2
Sweet Corn
<500
<1
<2.5
NR
NR
Walnuts
30,000
10
20
0.87
NR
All numbers rounded. App(s).: Application(s). NC: Not calculated. NR: Not reported.
Data sources: Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), OPP/BEAD, 19 March 2012; EPA Proprietary Data: 2007-
2011, C. Doucoure, OPP/BEAD; any proprietary data have been obscured from their source(s).
3.2. Exposure Characterization
3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization
Chemical and environmental fate characteristics of the parent compound glufosinate are listed in
Table 3.3 and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. It should be noted that, as
mentioned earlier, the fate properties discussed below are for the racemic mixture of the (R)- and
(S)-enantiomers of glufosinate ammonium, despite the understanding that the (S)-enantiomer is
actually the herbicidally active substance.
-Page 20 of 135-
-------
Table 3.3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Glufosinate.
Property
Value
Sou rcc
Study
Classification
Comments
Chemical Name
Ammonium-(2RS) -2 -amino -4 -
(methylphosphinato)butyric
acid
-
--
-
Molecular Weight
(g/mol)
198.2
-
--
-
Solubility in Water
(mg/L, 20°C)
1.37xl06
Acc No
00263025
Acceptable
-
Vapor Pressure (torr,
25°C)
<7.5xl0"9
MRID
44032901
Acceptable
-
Henry's Law Constant
(atm-m3/mole)
<1.43 x 10"12
-
Estimated using
vapor pressure,
molecular weight
and solubility.
Octanol-water
partition coefficient
(Kow)
<0.1
Acc No
00263025
Acceptable
-
Hydrolysis Half-life
(25°C) (days)
No significant degradation at
pH 5, 7, and 9
MRID
40345656
Acceptable
-
Aqueous Photolysis
Half-life (@ pH 7
(days)
No significant degradation
MRID
41323115
Acceptable
-
Soil Photolysis Half-
life (days)
17
MRID
41920102
Acceptable
-
Aerobic Soil
Metabolism Half-life
(days)
8.5 (sandy loam)
8.7 (silt loam)
8.8 (loamy sand)
MRID
41323119
Acceptable
1.62 ppm applied
20.6 (sandy loam)
21.4 (silt loam)
23.0 (sandy loam)
MRID
40345659A
Acceptable
7.23 ppm applied
Anaerobic Soil
Metabolism Half-life
(days)
37 (silt loam)
MRID
40501014
Acceptable
Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half-life
(days)
38 (sand)
57 (silt loam)
MRID
40345660
Acceptable
8.3 ppm applied
11 (loam)
87 (sand)
MRID
45204402/01
Acceptable
1 ppm applied
1 (sand)
Acceptable
0.1 ppm applied
Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half-life
(days)
415
MRID
46258601
Acceptable
-
Organic Carbon-
Normalized Soil
Partition Coefficient
(mL/goe) (Kfoc)
16.5 (sand)
268 (silt loam)
605 (silt loam)
MRID
40345662/
483941011
Acceptable
--
Fish Bioconcentration
Factor (28 d)
0.19x (whole fish)
0.13x (edible)
MRID
41323130
Acceptable
Terrestrial field
dissipation half-lives
(days)
8 (cropped plot)
MRID
43110402
Acceptable
-
16.5 (cropped plot)
15.1 (bare ground)
MRID
43766915
Acceptable
-Page 21 of 135-
-------
Property
Value
Sou ree
Study
Classification
Comments
10.3 (cropped plot)
10.6 (bare ground)
MRID
43766916
Acceptable
14 (grapes)
MRID
47542601
Acceptable
Aquatic field
dissipation half-lives
(days)
<7 (soil, 1st application, LA)
12 (soil, 2nd application, LA)
3 (water, 1st and 2nd
applications, CA)
MRID
45204403
Supplemental
-
1 Based on comments from the registrant (MRID 48394101), the organic carbron partition coefficient (Koc) values
used by EFED in previous assessments were based on organic matter and not organic carbon content. The values
reported in this table have been corrected.
3.2.1.1.
Transport and Mobility
Glufosinate is soluble in water (1.37x10 mg/L at 20°C; Acc No 00263025) and will not
volatilize significantly due to its low vapor pressure of <7.5 x 10"9 torr (25°C; MRID 44032901).
Glufosinate is an ammonium salt, with an octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) of <0.1 (Acc
No 263025) and does not bioconcentrate in fish (MRID 41323130).
Glufosinate is mobile to highly mobile, with a Freundlich organic carbon partition coefficient
(Kpoc) of 16.5 to 605 mL/g0C in soils representative of use sites (MRID 40345662). Mobility of
glufosinate residues in soils is a function of organic content, as evidence by the fact that the
coefficient of variation (CV) across four soils of the Freundlich organic carbon partition
coefficient (99.7%) is less than that for the Freundlich soil-water partition coefficient (116%).
As such, the mobility of glufosinate in soil may be less for soils with higher organic carbon
content.
3.2.1.2. Degradation
Glufosinate does not significantly degrade via the abiotic mechanisms of hydrolysis or photolysis
(MRID 40345656, 41323115) and is thus considered stable to such processes. The compound is
biodegraded moderately rapidly in aerobic soils, with some evidence of sensitivity to
concentration: at higher application rates (7.23 ppm applied) aerobic soil metabolism half-lives
for glufosinate ranged between 20.6 and 23.0 days (MRID 40345659A), while at a lower
application rate (1.62 ppm applied) shorter half-lives of 8.5-8.8 days were observed (MRID
41323119). Biodegradation occurs less quickly in anaerobic soils (ti/2 = 37 days; MRID
40501014) and in aerobic water (ti/2 range = 38-87 days; MRIDs 40345660 and 45204402/01),
and is insignificant in anaerobic water (MRID 46258601).
-Page 22 of 135-
-------
3.2.1.3.
Field Studies
Several terrestrial field dissipation studies of glufosinate have been submitted. In these studies,
glufosinate dissipated from the upper 6 inches of soil with half-lives of 8-17 days. This range of
dissipation rates is generally consistent with the degradation rates observed in submitted fate
studies. Rates of aerobic soil metabolism (the major route of degradation) in particular are
similar to these. Despite the fact that glufosinate is expected to be mobile, the compound
apparently did not leach further than 6 inches into loam or clay soils, or further than 24 inches
into a sandy soil. Leaching may have been slowed by the presence of relatively high (2-3%)
organic matter in the three soils tested (MRID 43110402, 43766915, 43766916).
A supplemental aquatic field dissipation (AFD) study (MRID 45204403) was conducted to
simulate applications to rice. Two applications of 0.45 lb ai/A (0.50 kg ai/ha) of glufosinate
were made to bare ground (a drained rice paddy) in Louisiana in late August, followed by
flooding 24 hours after the second application and holding of the water for 60 days.
Additionally, two applications of 0.45 lb ai/A of glufosinate were made 14 days apart to a
flooded, non-cropped paddy in California in late August. At both test sites, the plots were
maintained under static water conditions after flooding, and the water was maintained at a depth
of 12 inches by the addition of water as neeeded. Paddies were drained 60-days after the second
application in Louisiana, and 90-days after the second application in California. At the
Louisiana site, the maximum concentration of glufosinate in the flood water was 31 |ig/L (4 days
after the second application). In California, the maximum concentration of glufosinate in the
flood water was 96 |ig/L (on Day 0 after the second application).
3.2.1.4. Transformation Products
Major aerobic metabolism degradates of glufosinate include MPP (3-methylphosphinico-
propionic acid), MPA (2-methylphosphinico-acetic acid), NAG (2-acetamido-4-
methylphosphinico-butanoic acid), and carbon dioxide (chemical names and structures are
tabulated in Table 3.4). Two minor degradates have also been identified, HOE 086486 [3-
methylphosphinico-3-oxo-propionic acid] and HOE 065594 [4-methylphosphinico-2-oxo-
butanoic acid],
OPP's Health Effects Division's (HED) Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee
(ROCKS) met in January 2012 to re-evaluate the inclusion of MPP, MPA, and NAG into the
drinking water assessment, as had been done in previous assessments. Per the recommendation
of the ROCKS, only MPP was retained as a degradate of concern in drinking water assessments
(DWA) for human health; the ROCKS committee concluded that MPP is likely to have a lower
mammalian toxicity than glufosinate, but that its toxicity was not low enough to exclude it from
consideration in the DWA. However, the ecological exposure in this assessment was limited to
residues of parent glufosinate only because previous exposure modeling of MPP indicated that
MPP EECs were generally of the same order of magnitude as glufosinate EECs. Recently
reviewed ecotoxicity data with MPP, MPA, and NAG support the conclusion that these
compounds are generally equally or less toxic than parent glufosinate, although high
concentrations of MPA and MPP (up to 100,000 ug/L) in unbuffered aquatic test systems were
-Page 23 of 135-
-------
associated with toxicity attributed to acidification (pH < 4) (see Section 3.3). Environmental
exposure to glufosinate degradates is not expected to reach these levels given that the highest
peak surface water EEC for parent glufosinate is 390 ug/L (based on use for rice seed
propagation), and EECs for most other uses are an order of magnitude lower (see Table 3.9).
Table 3.4. Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies.
Common Name
Chemical Name
Study in Which Found
(Maximum % of Parent, or
equivalent)
Reference
MRID
MPP
OH
ho>^A
3 -methylphosphinico-
propionic acid
Soil photolysis (60%)
Aerobic soil (55%)
Anaerobic soil (42%)
Aerobic aquatic (80%)
41920102
40345659A
40501014
45204402/01
MPA
"XV
o ch3 oh
2 -methy lpho sphinico -
acetic acid
Aerobic soil (28%)
Aerobic aquatic (20%)
41323119
45204402/01
NAG
CH,
A
CV NH
HO\ y}\./0
-------
flow out of the flooded field. Changes in water body conditions (temperature, water levels, wind
speed, etc.) and resulting changes in degradation rates occur on a daily time step. Pesticide
application and flooding sequences are mapped onto the time series in 1-year cycles for the
length of a simulation. As PFAM runs for rice applications had been recently completed for the
glufosinate drinking water assessment (D387412 dated 5/30/2012), the results from those model
runs were used in this assessment.
Concentrations in groundwater were derived with PRZM-GW (version 1.0, June 28, 2012) using
GW-GUI (version 1.0, June 28, 2012) and SCI-GROW (version 2.3, July 29, 2003). PRZM-
GW is a one-dimensional, finite-difference leaching model that accounts for pesticide fate in the
crop root zone by simulating transport and degradation through the soil profile after application
to an agricultural field. The model also estimates resulting concentrations of pesticide in
groundwater. PRZM-GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up
to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known
to be vulnerable to groundwater contamination, were used with PRZM-GW for risk assessment
purposes. The PRZM-GW output values represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable
groundwater supply that is located directly beneath a rural agricultural field. The SCI-GROW
model is a regression-based screening tool also used to estimate pesticide concentrations found
in groundwater. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90-day average high
concentrations from Prospective Groundwater monitoring studies. The RILP is a function of
aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition coefficient. The output of SCI-GROW
represents concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy
soils, representative of groundwater expected to be maximally vulnerable to pesticide
contamination.
3.2.2.2. Selection of Crop Scenarios
The scenarios listed in Table 3.5 are those currently approved for Tier II modeling which most
closely represent the labeled uses for glufosinate. Scenario input parameters and application
methods are described in Appendix B. For use of glufosinate on fallow fields and noncrop
areas, as labels are vague on the maximum number of applications and maximum use amounts,
aquatic exposure were modeled based on estimated maximum use rates as well as registrant
submitted information on best agronomic practices.
3.2.2.3. Aquatic Modeling Inputs
Application parameters were chosen based on the likely method of application at the maximum
application rate as indicated in the proposed label instructions. Where retreatment intervals were
not specified on the proposed labels, a retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed. This duration
was estimated as the minimum amount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the
effects of the application, and determine if subsequent applications are required. Chemical
property and model input values (Table 3.6) were chosen according to the current Input
Parameter Guidance, (USEPA 2009). Based on EFED guidance, aerial spray of liquid
formulations are assumed to have 95% efficiency and 5% spray drift, and ground spray is
expected to have 99% efficiency and 1% spray drift. Based on the proposed uses for glufosinate,
-Page 25 of 135-
-------
a variety of locations and PRZM/EXAMS scenarios were run to simulate national use of the
pesticide. Descriptions of how application dates, application methods, and chemical application
methods (CAMs) were selected are provided in Appendix B. Parameters used in rice modeling
with PFAM are also included in Appendix B.
Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure Assessment (PRZM/EXAMS)
Use1
PRZM/EXAMS
Scenario
Single
Application
Rate
(lbs. ai/A)
No. of
Application1
Rctrcatmcnt
Interval
(days)
Application
Start Date
(month/day)
Agricultural
Blueberry
OR berries
1.50
2
31
5/31
Canola
ND canola
0.4
2
7
5/30
Citrus
CA citrus
1.50
3
31
6/1
FL citrus
6/1
IA corn
6/24
IL corn
7/11
Corn
MS corn
0.4
2
14
6/16
NC corn
6/21
OH corn
7/14
PA corn
5/25
Cotton
MS cotton
0.53
3
10
5/15
NC cotton
6/15
CA grape
2/15
Grape vineyard
CA wine grape
1.50
3
31
3/16
NY grape
6/16
Olives
CA olives
1.50
3
31
2/24
CA fruit
2/23
Pome fruit
NC apple
1.50
3
31
4/17
OR apple
4/25
PA apple
4/28
Potato vine dessication
ID potato
0.38
1
NA
9/22
ME potato
10/12
Rice2
PFAM
0.44
2
10
Soybean
MS soybean
0.4
2
14
4/30
MS soybean
0.66
2
10
4/30
CA fruit
2/23
Stone fruit
GA peaches
1.50
2
31
4/7
MI cherries
6/3
Sugarbeet
MN sugarbeet
0.55
2
31
5/30
CA almond
4/24
Tree nuts
GA pecans
1.50
3
31
7/4
OR filberts
3/23
Seed Propagation
Corn
MS corn
0.52
2
31
6/16
Cotton
MS cotton
0.52
2
31
5/15
Rice2
PFAM
0.73
2
10
Soybean
MS soybean
0.52
2
31
4/30
Burndown
Canola
ND canola
0.66
1
NA
4/16
Corn
IA corn
0.66
1
NA
4/25
-Page 26 of 135-
-------
Use1
PRZM/EXAMS
Scenario
Single
Application
Rate
(lbs. ai/A)
No. of
Application1
Retreatment
Interval
(days)
Application
Start Date
(month/dav)
IL corn
4/1
MS corn
3/11
NC corn
3/16
OH corn
4/1
PA corn
3/17
Cotton (preplant)
MS cotton
0.794
2
10
4/1
NC cotton
5/2
Cotton (postharvest)
MS cotton
0.794
2
10
9/29
NC cotton
8/8
Rice
PFAM
0.66
1
NA
Soybean
MS soybean
0.66
1
NA
3/16
Sugar beet
MN sugarbeet
0.66
1
NA
4/16
Non-agricultural"
Conifer/hardwood trees
Scenario 1
CA Forestry
1.5
3
31
6/1
Scenario 2
CA Forestry
0.3
3
31
6/1
Fallow field
- EFED
MS Cotton
0.53
26
71
3/21
Registrant
MS Cotton
0.4
5
10
3/21
Lawns/gardens
CA residential &
CA impervious
1.36
26
71
3/21
Farmstead / Noncrop areas
- EFED
CA right-of-way &
1.5
26
71
3/21
Registrant
CA impervious
1.5
2
10
3/21
1. In some instances, the retreatment interval or maximum use rate was not specified on the proposed label, so a
retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed. This is estimated as the minimum amount of time necessary to apply
the pesticide, evaluate the effects of the application, and determine if subsequent applications are required. Where
the maximum annual use is not specified, the product was assumed to be applied 26 times with an RTI of 7 days.
2. For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A was
applied to a flooded 8-inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7-day holding period. For modeling applications for
rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A was applied, the first
application to a dry field, the second application to a 4-inch flooded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 5 5-day
holding period.
3. See scenario descriptions for assumed application rates and RTIs.
4. The first application is at 0.79 lbs ai/A, while the second application is at 0.53 lbs ai/A.
-Page 27 of 135-
-------
Table 3.6. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure
Assessment.
Input Parameter
Value
Sou rce/ to m men t
Molecular weight (g/mol)
198.2
Vapor pressure (torr @ 25 °C)
7.5E-9
MRID 44032901
Solubility in water (mg/L @ 20°C)
1.37 xlO6
Accsn # 00263025
Hydrolysis half-life (t/2 in days)
pH 5: stable (0)
pH 7: stable (0)
pH 9: stable (0)
MRID 40345656 (no degradation)
Aqueous Photolysis half-life (t./2 in
days)
0
MRID 41323115 (no degradation)
Aerobic Soil metabolism half-life (t/2
in days)
19
MRIDs 41323119 and40345659A. Represents the
90th percentile upper-bound confidence limit on the
mean(t/2=15)of6 aerobic soil metabolism half-life
values.1
Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-
life (t./2 in days)
1245
MRID 46258601. 3 times the anaerobic aquatic half-
life.1
Aerobic Aquatic metabolism half-life
(t./2 in days)
63
MRIDs 40345660 and 45204402/01. Represents the
90th percentile upper-bound confidence limt on the
mean (t./2 =39) of 5 aerobic aquatic metabolism half-
life values.1
Organic carbon normalized soil
partition coefficient Koc (mL/g0C)
296.5
MRID 40345662. Average of three Koc values.
Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol)
1.43E-12
Calculated from vapor pressure and solubility where
HENRY = (VAPR/760)/(SOL/MWT),
Decay rate on foliage (day"1)
0
No foliar data available, assumed stable (0)
Foliar extrcation (cm"1)
0.5
Default wash off rate constant.
Accsn # - Accession Number.
1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/input parameter guidance.htm
Exposure concentrations in groundwater were estimated using SCI-GROW and PRZM-GW
using the parameters provided in Tables 3.7 and 3.8. Model runs were conducted for the
maximum agricultural foliar application (citrus; 3 applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A) and
nonagricultural foliar application (fallow fields; 11 applications at 0.53 lbs ai/A).
Table 3.7. PRZM-GW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate.
Input Parameter
Value
Source/comment
Hydrolysis half-life (t./2 in days)
0
MRID 40345656 (no degradation)
Surface Soil Metabolism half-life (t./2
in days)
19
MRIDs 41323119 and40345659A. Represents the
90th percentile upper- bound confidence limit on the
mean (t./2 =15) of 6 aerobic soil metabolism half-life
values.1
Sorption coefficient Koc (mL/g0C)
296.5
MRID 40345662. Average of three Koc values.
Application scenarios
Citrus (1.5 lb ai/A x 3,
RTI = 3 days)
Fallow fields (0.53 lb
ai/A x 11, RTI = 7 days)
Maximum use rate scenarios that were chosen for
groundwater assessment. The number of
applications for fallow fields was reduced from 26 to
11, as this is the maximum number of applications
allowed in PRZM-GW. See discussion above for
first application dates.
-Page 28 of 135-
-------
Input Parameter
Value
Sou rce/ to m men t
Groundwater scenarios
FL citrus
FL potato
GA peanut
NC cotton
DELMARVA sweet corn
WI corn
Six standard scenarios in PRZM-GW designed to
generate conservative groundwater estimates for
vulnerable areas.
EFED input parameter guidance is located at: :
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/input parameter guidance.htm
Table 3.8. SCI-GROW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate.
Input Parameter
Value
Source
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Half-life (days)
14.7
MRIDs 41323118, 40345659A
Median of 6 values per EFED guidance.1
Organic Carbon Normalized
Partition Coefficient KFOc
16.5
MRID 40345662, Three KFOc values
showed greater than 3-fold variation; used
lowest value per EFED guidance.1
Application Rate
Citrus = 1.5 lbs ai/A
Fallow fields = 0.53 lb ai/A
Label
Maximum No. of
Applications/Y ear
Citrus = 3
Fallow fields =11
Label. The number of applications for fallow
fields was reduced from 26 to 11, as this is the
maximum number of applications allowed in
PRZM-GW. See discussion above for first
application dates.
EFED input parameter guidance is located at: :
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/input parameter guidance.htm
3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Surface
Water
The EECs listed in Table 3.9 reflect l-in-10 year surface water concentrations based on
maximum application rates for labeled uses of glufosinate. For conifer/hardwood tree, fallow
field, and farmstead/noncrop area uses, where the maximum number of applications and
minimum retreatment intervals are not specified on the existing labels, typical use information
provided by the registrant (email from K. Cain, Bayer Cropscience to K. Weyrauch, USEPA,
June 4, 2012) is used to calculate EECs for comparison to the screening level EECs using
maximum application rates and default assumptions. The typical use information for these
scenarios is reportedly based on best professional judgment of the submitter.
In some cases, formulated glufosinate is more toxic than the technical grade active ingredient.
As such, peak exposure estimates from spray drift alone were developed {i.e., by setting the
application efficiency in the respective PRZM/EXAMS runs to 0) to characterize the potential
for acute risk to aquatic organisms from formulated product (Table 3.9). Chronic exposure
concentrations resulting from spray drift of the formulation were not calculated. The
components of a formulation have different fate and transport properties, which result in changes
to the mixture as a function of time, such that only a peak concentration for the formulated
product can be estimated.
-Page 29 of 135-
-------
For aquatic invertebrates that may potentially be exposed to sediment in rice paddies, PFAM
provides daily values of the pore water concentration. The 90th percentile of the annual
maximum daily pore water concentrations was estimated for agricultural and seed propagation
uses of glufosinate on rice. Pore water concentrations ranged from 0.0004 to 0.00007 ug/L.
Table 3.9. Surface Water EECs for Labeled Uses of Glufosinate.
Use(s)
Ap|).
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Scenario
Ap|).
Method
1-in-
10
year
Peak
EECs
(Hg/L)
Peak EECs
Spray Drift
Only'
(lig/L)
1-in-1.0-vear
21-day
average
(Hg/L)
1-in-10-year
60-day
average
(lig/L)
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
OR berries
Ground
3.29
NA
2.97
2.66
Canola
0.44
ND canola
Aerial
6.97
NA
5.90
5.13
Citrus
1.50
FL citrus
Ground
60.6
2.42
45.3
32.2
Corn
0.44
MS corn
Aerial
17.6
NA
13.6
9.84
Cotton
0.53
MS cotton
Aerial
21.2
NA
18.2
14.0
Grape
vineyard
1.50
NY grape
Ground
20.2
NA
18.0
16.1
Olives
1.50
CA olives
Ground
2.80
NA
2.48
1.96
Pome fruit
1.50
NC apple
Ground
20.7
NA
18.4
15.0
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
ME potato
Aerial
3.69
NA
3.38
3.09
Rice2
0.44
PFAM
Aerial
375
NA
335
274
Soybean
0.66
MS soybean
Aerial
16.3
NA
13.0
10.5
Stone fruit
1.50
MI cherries
Ground
11.5
NA
10.1
8.24
Sugarbeet
0.55
MN sugarbeet
Aerial
7.30
NA
6.17
5.04
Tree nuts
1.50
GA pecans
Ground
74.7
2.47
54.6
37.3
Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
MS corn
Aerial
20.7
NA
16.0
11.6
Cotton
0.52
MS cotton
Aerial
23.0
NA
19.9
15.0
Rice3
0.73
PFAM
Aerial
390
NA
348
285
Soybean
0.52
MS soybean
Aerial
16.2
NA
14.4
11.1
Burndown Uses
Canola
0.66
ND canola
Aerial
6.73
NA
6.16
5.34
Corn
0.66
MS corn
Aerial
15.6
NA
12.7
9.88
Cotton
(pre-plant)
0.79
MS cotton
Aerial
48.5
3.55
32.5
23.8
Cotton
(post-
harvest)
0.79
MS cotton
Aerial
29.9
3.55
25.3
19.1
Rice
0.66
PFAM
Aerial
74.0
NA
66.0
54.0
Soybean
0.66
MS soybean
Aerial
11.6
NA
10.2
8.41
Sugar beet
0.66
MN sugarbeet
Aerial
5.37
NA
4.90
4.25
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood
trees
1.50
CA Forestry
Aerial
15.4
NA
14.2
12.6
0.305
4.36
NA
4.02
3.61
Fallow
field
0.53
MS Cotton
Aerial
69.8
14.74
57.5
51.7
0.40"
11.8
NA
9.64
7.08
Lawns/
1.36
CA residential
Ground
7.26
NA
57.5
51.7
-Page 30 of 135-
-------
1-in-
App.
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
10
Peak EECs
l-in-10-vear
l-in-10-vear
Use(s)
Scenario
App.
Method
year
Peak
EECs
(lig/L)
Sprav Drift
Only' '
(Hg/L)
21-day
average
(lig/L)
60-dav
average
(jig/L)
gardens
CA impervious
Farmstead/
1.50
CA right-of-way
CA impervious
10.6
NA
9.78
9.18
noncrop
areas4
1.50s
Ground
9.08
NA
8.31
7.41
Abbreviations: pp Application. Not applicable. Pesticide Flooded Application Model
1 Surface water EECs from spray drift only were calculated to better characterize potential risk to aquatic organisms
from exposure to the end-use product (EP). Spray drift EECs were calculated only for the uses (other than rice)
which resulted in the highest peak surface water EECs (PRZM/EXAMS) for spray drift and runoff combined. The
use of these values is discussed further in the Risk Description (Section 4.2).
2 For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lbs ai/A were
applied to a flooded 8-inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7-day holding period.
3 For modeling applications for rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73
lbs ai/A were applied, the first application to a dry field, the second application to a 4-inch flooded paddy, with a
RTI of 10 days and a 5 5-day holding period.
4 EECs are reported for the highest percent treated area for residential (50%) and right-of-way (25%) uses.
5 Typical use rate scenarios provided by registrant.
3.2.2.5.
Monitoring Data
Glufosinate is included as one of the analytes monitored in U.S. surface and groundwater under
the USGS's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program
(http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). In surface water, glufosinate was detected as recoverable, filtered
glufosinate (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) a total of 6 times out of 1,150 samples, at a maximum
concentration of 3.23 |ig/L. In groundwater, glufosinate was detected as recoverable, filtered
glufosinate (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) a total of 6 times out of 827 samples, at a maximum
concentration 4.49 |ig/L. Data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's
(CDPR) indicate that 14 surface water samples were collected from the San Joaquin River and
analyzed for glufosinate, and all results were below the detection limit of 0.02 |ig/L. Sediment
samples were not collected. It should be noted that there is uncertainty in the specific use
patterns (e.g., application rates and timing, crops) associated with the agricultural areas where
the monitoring occurred. While they are assumed to be representative of potential glufosinate use
areas, the monitored concentrations may not be representative of the maximum application rates,
use sites or meteorological conditions used in the aquatic modeling scenarios.
3.2.2.6.
Estimated Groundwater Concentrations
PRZM-GW concentration estimates for vulnerable areas were greater than corresponding
estimates generated using SCI-GROW, so they were used in this assessment. For groundwater
used as irrigation water, the estimated concentration of glufosinate using PRZM-GW for
applications to citrus is 21.4 (J,g/L, and the estimated concentration for fallow field applications is
26.4 (J,g/L. Estimated concentrations for application to citrus and fallow fields using SCI-GROW
are 1.04 [j,g/L and 1.35 (J,g/L, respectively. All these estimates represent concentrations that
-Page 31 of 135-
-------
might be expected in shallow, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which are expected to be
most vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure
3.2.3.1. Ingestion of Surface Residues by Birds and Mammals
Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals by
emphasizing the dietary exposure route of uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These
exposures are considered to be surrogates for exposures to terrestrial-phase amphibians and
reptiles. For exposures to terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues
on food items are estimated based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide
residues as a function of the pesticide use pattern. For glufosinate, application methods for the
registered uses include broadcast, banded, and directed spray of liquid formulations for all crops,
and aerial spray for burndown applications and to crops that have been genetically modified
(e.g., canola, corn, cotton, rice, sugarbeets, and soybeans) for resistance to glufosinate.
Therefore, potential dietary exposure for terrestrial wildlife in this assessment is based on
consumption of glufosinate residues on food items following spray applications.
T-REX (v. 1.5) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of glufosinate residues on food
items for mammals and birds generated by spray applications for the labeled uses. Input values
for deriving EECs using T-REX are located in Table 3.10. Upper-bound Kenaga nomogram
values are used to derive EECs for glufosinate exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds (Table
3.11), based on a 1-year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feeding
strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. Dose-based
exposures are estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g, 100 g, and 1000 g) and three
weight classes of mammals (15 g, 35 g, and 1000 g).
Table 3.10. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening-Level Terrestrial EECs for Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
Use(s)
Maximum
Single App. Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Minimum Reapplication
Interval (days)
Maximum
No. of App.1
Foliar
Dissipation
Half-Life
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
32
2
Canola
0.44
7
2
Citrus
1.50
32
3
Corn
0.44
14
2
Cotton
0.53
10
3
Grape vineyard
1.50
32
3
Olives
1.50
32
3
Pome fruit
1.50
32
3
353
Potato vine
0.38
NA
1
dessication
Rice2
0.44
10
2
Soybean
0.66
10
2
Stone fruit
1.50
32
2
Sugarbeet
0.55
32
2
Tree nuts
1.50
32
3
-Page 32 of 135-
-------
Use(s)
Maximum
Single App. Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Minimum Reapplication
Interval (days)
Maximum
No. of App.'
Foliar
Dissipation
Half-Life
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
32
2
Cotton
0.52
32
2
353
Rice3
0.73
10
2
Soybean
0.52
32
2
Hum down Uses
Canola
0.66
NA
1
Corn
0.66
NA
1
Cotton (pre-plant)
0.79
10
2
Cotton (post-harvest)
0.79
10
2
353
Rice
0.66
NA
1
Soybean
0.66
NA
1
Sugar beet
0.66
NA
1
Non-agricultural Uses4
Conifer/
1.50
o2
"3
hardwood trees
J
J
Fallow field
0.53
32
265
Lawns/
1.36
T2
265
353
gardens
J
Farmstead/noncrop
1.50
32
265
areas
Abbreviations: pp Application(s). Genetically modified organism. Not applicable.
1 The maximum number of applications at the maximum single application rate, based on the maximum annual
application rate. Values are rounded up to the next higher integer.
2 The retreatment interval was not specified on the proposed label, so a retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed
for terrestrial exposure modeling, consistent with previous glufosinate risk assessments. This is estimated as the
minimum amount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the effects of the application, and determine if
subsequent applications are required. Note that terrestrial and aquatic exposure modeling in this assessment
arbitrarily used different default values for retreatment intervals; the PRZM surface water default is 7 days.
3 The default foliar dissipation half-life value of 35 days is used in the absence of foliar dissipation data.
4 Typical application rate information (in Table 3.9) is not used for screening-level calculations of terrestrial
exposure but is used in refinements presented in Section 4.2.
5 For the screening-level terrestrial risk assessment, when a maximum annual application rate or maximum number
of applications is not specified on the label, a default maximum value of 26 applications per year is assumed unless
otherwise specified.
Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications cannot be assessed with the
current T-REX model; exposure and risk estimates from the T-REX model are considered
relevant to both application scenarios. Other uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily
associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces.
Foliar dissipation data specific to glufosinate (e.g., Willis and McDowell 1987) are not available
and magnitude of residue data, submitted under OCSPP Guideline 860.1500, have been deemed
inappropriate for use, usually because the studies are missing residue values for Day 0. When
data are absent, as in this case, EFED assumes a default 35-day foliar dissipation half life, based
on the work of Willis and McDowell (1987). Similarly, when the maximum annual application
rate or maximum number of applications is not specified on the label, the screening-level
assessment assumes a default maximum value of 26 applications per year (corresponding to the
maximum number of reapplications that can be modeled for aquatic EECs using currently
-Page 33 of 135-
-------
available tools), unless otherwise specified. When the minimum retreatment interval (RTI) is not
specified on the label, a default RTI of three days is assumed for terrestrial modeling, which is
assumed to be the minimum amount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the effects
of the application, and determine if subsequent applications are required. As shown in Tables
3.11 through 3.13, the absence of a label restriction on cumulative annual applications results in
EECs for lawn-and-garden and farmstead/noncrop area uses that are approximately four times
higher than other uses with the same maximum single application rate (1.5 lbs ai/A). An
example output from the T-REX model is provided in Appendix D.
-Page 34 of 135-
-------
Table 3.11. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses
of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Si/.c ->
Small
Med
Large
Small
Med |
Large
Small |
Med |
Large
Dietary Items ->
O
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
¦o
ft*
5«
es
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
— +-
¦a a
"O C?
a*
5/5
5/5
O
Tall Grass
'S
4j Ł
¦a a
&
"O C?
§.*
Arthropods
Seeds, grains
, rfc.
Use(s) ^
*
©
JS
in
« .2
© &
ffl
Ł %
*5 ^
P
u.
t;
o
A
m
cs a
Ł S
as
Ł -3
'3 ^
P o
u.
r
©
m
SS
Ł E
CO
3 -a
"3 «
F
-------
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Inseetivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Small
Med
Large
Small | Med | Large
Small | Med | Large
Seeds, grains, etc.
Dietary Items ->
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broad-leaf
Plants
Fruits, pods,
seeds, etc.
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broad leaf
Plants
Fruits, pods,
seeds, etc.
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broad leaf
Plants
Fruits, pods,
seeds, etc.
>
S-
C/5
Use(s) ^
Rice
363
166
204
23
207
95
117
13
93
43
52
6
142
81
36
5
3
1
Soybean
276
127
155
17
157
72
89
10
70
32
40
4
108
62
28
4
2
1
Hum down Uses
Canola
180
83
101
11
103
47
58
6
46
21
26
3
71
40
18
3
1
1
Corn
180
83
101
11
103
47
58
6
46
21
26
3
71
40
18
3
1
1
Cotton (pre-plant)
393
180
221
25
224
103
126
14
100
46
56
6
154
88
39
5
3
1
Cotton (post-
harvest)
393
180
221
25
224
103
126
14
100
46
56
6
154
88
39
5
3
1
Rice
180
83
101
11
103
47
58
6
46
21
26
3
71
40
18
3
1
1
Soybean
180
83
101
11
103
47
58
6
46
21
26
3
71
40
18
3
1
1
Sugar beet
180
83
101
11
103
47
58
6
46
21
26
3
71
40
18
3
1
1
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1160
532
653
73
662
303
372
41
296
136
167
19
455
259
116
16
9
4
Fallow field
1976
905
1111
123
1127
516
634
71
504
231
284
32
774
441
198
27
16
7
Lawns/
gardens
5070
2324
2852
317
2891
1325
1626
181
1294
593
728
81
1986
1132
507
70
40
18
Farmstead/noncrop
areas
5591
2563
3145
349
3188
1461
1793
199
1428
654
803
89
2190
1249
559
78
44
20
-Page 36 of 135-
-------
Table 3.12. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Small
Med
Large
Small
Med |
Large
Small |
Med |
Large
Dietary Items
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
"O C?
ft*
U
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
&
a*
5/5
5/5
U
Tall Grass
'S
-a a
a*
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) ^
t
o
JS
m
© &
«
Ł %
P O
u.
t:
o
-=
m
e« et
8 S
as
Ł -S
*5 ^
F v
u.
r
o
JS
m
cs a
Ł E
CO
2 -S
P O
u.
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
667
306
375
42
461
211
259
29
107
49
60
1
261
180
42
9
6
1
Canola
188
86
106
12
130
60
73
8
30
14
17
2
74
51
12
3
2
<1
Citrus
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
Corn
177
81
100
11
122
56
49
8
28
13
16
2
69
48
11
2
2
<1
Cotton
302
139
170
19
209
96
118
13
48
22
27
3
118
82
19
4
3
1
Grape vineyard
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
Olives
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
Pome fruit
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
Potato vine
dessication
87
40
49
5
60
28
34
4
14
6
8
1
34
24
5
1
1
<1
Rice
183
84
103
11
127
58
71
8
39
13
17
2
72
50
12
3
2
<1
Soybean
275
126
155
17
190
87
107
12
44
20
25
3
108
74
17
4
3
1
Stone fruit
667
306
375
42
461
211
259
29
107
49
60
7
261
180
42
9
6
1
Sugarbeet
244
112
138
15
169
77
95
11
39
18
22
2
96
66
15
3
2
1
Tree nuts
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
231
106
130
14
160
73
90
10
37
17
21
2
91
63
15
3
2
1
Cotton
231
106
130
14
160
73
90
10
37
17
21
2
91
63
15
3
2
1
Rice
304
139
171
19
210
96
118
13
49
22
27
3
119
82
19
4
3
1
-Page 37 of 135-
-------
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Inseetivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Small
Med
Large
Small
Med |
Large
Small |
Med |
Large
Dietary Items ->
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
"O C?
5«
U
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
tt
5/5
5/5
~-
u
Tall Grass
'S
aj
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) ^
©
JS
m
« ,3
© &
«
Ł %
P O
to
t:
©
-=
m
e« et
8 S
as
*5 ^
P o
%
to
t;
©
cs a
Ł E
CO
2 -S
P
to
Soybean
231
106
130
14
160
73
90
10
37
17
21
2
91
63
15
3
2
1
Hum down Uses
Canola
151
69
85
9
104
48
59
7
24
11
14
2
59
41
9
2
1
<1
Corn
151
69
85
9
104
48
59
7
24
11
14
2
59
41
9
2
1
<1
Cotton (pre-plant)
329
151
185
21
227
104
128
14
53
24
30
3
129
89
21
5
3
1
Cotton (post-
harvest)
329
151
185
21
227
104
128
14
53
24
30
3
129
89
21
5
3
1
Rice
151
69
85
9
104
48
59
7
24
11
14
2
59
41
9
2
1
<1
Soybean
151
69
85
9
104
48
59
7
24
11
14
2
59
41
9
2
1
<1
Sugar beet
151
69
85
9
104
48
59
7
24
11
14
2
59
41
9
2
1
<1
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
971
445
546
61
671
308
378
42
156
71
88
10
380
263
61
13
9
2
Fallow field
1653
758
930
103
1143
524
643
71
265
121
149
17
648
448
104
23
16
4
Lawns/
gardens
4244
1945
2387
265
2933
1344
1650
183
680
312
383
43
1662
1149
266
59
41
9
Farmstead/noncrop
areas
4681
2145
2633
293
3235
1483
1820
202
750
344
422
47
1833
1267
294
65
45
10
-Page 38 of 135-
-------
Table 3.13. Screening-level Dietary-based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles,
Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦O 5
¦O
ft*
%
¦a
o
o
Use(s) ^
X
o
JS
in
O ŁL
as
«-8
'5 ^
P
& %
it
•-
JS
"E
<
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
699
320
393
44
274
Canola
198
91
111
12
77
Citrus
1019
467
573
64
399
Corn
186
85
104
12
73
Cotton
317
145
178
20
124
Grape vineyard
1019
467
573
64
399
Olives
1019
467
573
64
399
Pome fruit
1019
467
573
64
399
Potato vine dessication
91
42
51
6
36
Rice
192
88
108
12
75
Soybean
288
132
162
18
113
Stone fruit
699
320
393
44
274
Sugarbeet
256
118
144
16
100
Tree nuts
1019
467
573
64
399
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
242
111
136
15
95
Cotton
242
111
136
15
95
Rice
319
146
179
20
125
Soybean
242
111
136
15
95
Burndown Uses
Canola
158
73
89
10
62
Corn
158
73
89
10
62
Cotton (pre-plant)
345
158
194
22
135
Cotton (post-harvest)
345
158
194
22
135
Rice
158
73
89
10
62
Soybean
158
73
89
10
62
Sugar beet
158
73
89
10
62
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1019
467
573
64
399
-Page 39 of 135-
-------
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
ft*
%
¦a
o
o
Use(s) >4/
X
o
JS
in
« Ł
O ŁL
as
«-8
'5 ^
P
& %
it
•-
JS
"E
<
Fallow field
1735
795
976
108
679
Lawns/
gardens
4451
2040
2504
278
1743
Farmstead/
noncrop areas
4909
2250
2762
307
1923
3.2.3.2. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic
Plants
Exposure of nontarget terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using
OPP's TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) model. Loading via spray drift to dry, nontarget, adjacent areas is
assumed to occur from one acre of treated land to one acre of the nontarget area. Runoff is also
expected to be a source of pesticide loading to nontarget areas. TerrPlant calculates EECs as a
function of application rate, solubility, and default assumptions regarding spray drift. The
default spray drift assumptions are 1% of the application rate for ground spray applications and
5% for aerial spray applications (USEPA 2006b). Aerial spray is considered unlikely to be used
as an application method for glufosinate except in the case of burndown applications and
potentially for in-field applications to genetically modified (glufosinate-resistant) row crops.
The EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants for a single application of glufosinate at the
maximum labeled rates for representative uses are presented in Table 3.11 (see example output
in Appendix E).
Table 3.14. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Glufosinate Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2).
Crop
Single Max.
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
EECs (lbs ai/A)
Spray Drift Only
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Drv Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
Canola
0.44
0.004
NA
0.026
NA
0.224
NA
Citrus
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
Corn
0.44
0.004
NA
0.026
NA
0.224
NA
Cotton
0.53
0.005
NA
0.032
NA
0.270
NA
Grape vineyard
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
Olives
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
-Page 40 of 135-
-------
Crop
Single Max.
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
EECs (lbs ai/A)
Spray Drift Only
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Drv Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Ground
spray
Aerial
spray
Pome fruit
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
0.004
NA
0.023
NA
0.194
NA
Rice
0.44
0.004
NA
0.026
NA
0.224
NA
Soybean
0.66
0.007
NA
0.040
NA
0.337
NA
Stone fruit
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
Sugarbeet
0.55
0.006
NA
0.033
NA
0.281
NA
Tree nuts
1.50
0.015
NA
0.090
NA
0.765
NA
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
0.005
NA
0.031
NA
0.265
NA
Cotton
0.52
0.005
NA
0.031
NA
0.265
NA
Rice
0.73
0.007
NA
0.044
NA
0.372
NA
Soybean
0.52
0.005
NA
0.031
NA
0.265
NA
Hum down Uses
Canola
0.66
0.007
0.033
0.040
0.066
0.337
0.363
Corn
0.66
0.007
0.033
0.040
0.066
0.337
0.363
Cotton (pre-plant)
0.79
0.008
0.040
0.047
0.079
0.403
0.435
Cotton (post-
harvest)
0.79
0.008
0.040
0.047
0.079
0.403
0.435
Rice
0.66
0.007
0.033
0.040
0.066
0.337
0.363
Soybean
0.66
0.007
0.033
0.040
0.066
0.337
0.363
Sugar beet
0.66
0.007
0.033
0.040
0.066
0.337
0.363
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1.50
0.015
0.075
0.09
0.150
0.765
0.825
Fallow field
0.53
0.005
0.027
0.032
0.053
0.270
0.292
Lawns/
gardens
1.36
0.014
NA
0.082
NA
0.694
NA
Farmstead/noncrop
areas
1.50
0.015
0.075
0.09
0.150
0.765
0.825
Not applicable.
-Page 41 of 135-
-------
3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization
The ecological effects characterization for glufosinate is based upon registrant-submitted toxicity
data for the TGAI (racemic mixture of the parent compound) and for specified formulations.
Appendix I lists these studies, their review classifications, and associated deficiencies. The
ecotoxicity data for glufosinate and its associated products have been reviewed previously in
multiple ecological risk assessments (e.g., USEPA 2006, 2002, 2000) and in a Preliminary
Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA 2008). These data are summarized
briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Various studies with terrestrial and aquatic plants, birds, and
aquatic animals exposed to either the TGAI or formulated glufosinate have been received since
the Problem Formulation was issued; the results of these studies are described briefly in this
section. Ecotoxicity data recently submitted for glufosinate degradates indicate that these
degradates are generally equally or less toxic than parent glufosinate.
The results of a 2012 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described
in Section 3.3.3 (USEPA 2012). A search of the ECOTOXicology database on April 12, 2012,
yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the
registrant-submitted guideline studies described below.
3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment
A summary of the most sensitive aquatic toxicity data for glufosinate, based on a current Agency
review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.15 through Table 3.21 and discussed further
in Sections 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.5, The available data indicate that glufosinate TGAI is
practically non-toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and freshwater invertebrates and is
moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates, including molluscs, on an acute exposure
basis. Formulated glufosinate ranges from slightly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Glufosinate degradates are
generally less toxic than parent glufosinate, although results of chronic aquatic toxicity tests with
glufosinate degradates are variable. For example, non-guideline chronic toxicity data with
rainbow trout associated MPP exposure with increased wet weight at a concentration (49,000 ug
MPP/L), slightly lower than the chronic NOAEC for the TGAI (50,000 ug ai/L) based on
survival. However, the NOAEC for growth inhibition based on exposure to formulated
glufosinate (830 ug ai/L) was considerably lower than the NOAEC for the TGAI or for MPP (see
Table 3.16). Parental mortality and reproductive effects (see Table 3.18) were observed in a
daphnid chronic toxicity test conducted with MPP in 1999 (MRID 48301103), but these effects
were not reproduced when the study was repeated in 2008 (MRID 48301102).
3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish
In two 96-hour acute static toxicity studies, rainbow trout (iOncorhynchus mykiss; MRID
00142454) and pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus; MRID 00142455) were exposed to
glufosinate TGAI (97.4% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 97,400, 175,000, and
312,000 ug ai/L. No mortality or other adverse effects were observed in either test. The 96-hour
LC50 value for glufosinate, adjusted for purity, was > 312,000 ug ai/L. Based on these results,
-Page 42 of 135-
-------
glufosinate technical is classified as practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure
basis.
In a 96-hour static toxicity test, bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus; MRID 00144338) were
exposed to formulated glufosinate (19% ai, HOE 39866) at 14 nominal concentrations ranging
from 340 to 14,000 ug ai/L, plus a control. There was 100% mortality at the highest
concentration within 24 hrs, and there was 30% mortality in the second highest concentration at
48 hrs. Observations of sublethal effects were not reported. The LC50 value for this study, based
on mortality and adjusted for purity, was 12,000 (95% CL 10,000 - 14,000) ug ai/L.
A second 96-hour, acute toxicity test using bluegill sunfish exposed to formulated glufosinate
(16.22%) ai, Ignite) was conducted at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 1,600, 2,200, 2,900,
3,900, 5,200, 6,800, 9,100, 12,000, and 16,000 ug ai/L (MRID 00159914). There was 100%
mortality in the two highest concentrations after 24 hrs. No other clinical signs were reported.
The LC50 value for formulated glufosinate, adjusted for purity, was 11,000 (95% CL: 9,100 -
12,000) ug ai/L.
A 72-hour, static toxicity test with formulated glufosinate (16.22%) ai, Ignite) was conducted
with rainbow trout (MRID 00159913). Rainbow trout were exposed at nominal concentrations
of 0 (control), 910, 1,600, 2,900, 5,200, 9,100, and 16,000 ug ai/L. There was 100%) mortality in
the two highest concentrations after 48 hrs. There was 10%> mortality at the 5,200 ug ai/L
concentration after 48 hrs, and by 72 hrs, there was 80%> mortality. Signs of toxicity at the 5,200
ug ai/L concentration included surface and head-down swimming, darting movements, and slow
reaction to stimuli. The calculated LC50 value for formulated glufosinate, adjusted for purity,
was 4,300 (95%) CL 2,900 - 9,100) ug ai/L. Based on this study, formulated glufosinate is
classified as moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis.
Table 3.15. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its Degradates.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
LCS0
(ug/L)1'2
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
Rainbow trout
(Oncoryhncus
mykiss)
96-hour, static
TGAI (97.4%)
> 312,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(00142454)
72-hour, static
EP (16.22%)
4,300
(2,900 -
9,100)3
Moderately toxic
(00159913)
96-hour, static
MPP (99.6%)
>100,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(48444805)
96-hour, static
disodium salt of MP A (98.9%)
>98,900
(NA)
No more than
slightly toxic 4
(48444806)
96-hour, static
L-isomer of NAG (92.9% purity;
sum of D+ and L- enantiomers is
34.4% w/w)
>100,900
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic5
(48444807)
96-hour, static
dinatrium salt of MPF (97.5%)
>102,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(48444808)
-Page 43 of 135-
-------
Species
Study Tvpc
Test Substance (Purity)
LQo
(ug/L)1'2
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
Bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis
macrochirus)
96-hr, static
EP (19.0%)
12,000
(10,000 -
14,000)
Slightly toxic
(00144338)
96-hr, static
EP (16.22%)
11,000
(9,100-
12,000)
Slightly toxic
(00159914)
Pumpkinseed
sunfish
(Lepomis gibbosus)
96-hour, static
TGAI (97.4%)
>312,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(00142455)
Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. LC50: Lethal concentration to
50% of the population. MP A: 2-methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF: Methylphosphinico-formic acid. MPP: 3-
methylphosphinicopropionic acid. N/A: Not applicable or available. NAG: N-acetyl-glufosinate.
1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish exposed to parent glufosinate.
2 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise
specified.
3 Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to
derive the probability of an individual effect (USEPA 2004).
4 No effects at nominal limit dose of 98,900 ug MPA/L (adjusted for purity).
5 Classified as practically nontoxic based on LC50 value. However, two fish (7%) died at the limit concentration,
and sublethal effects were observed in eight or nine fish (>25%).
Chronic toxicity data conforming to OCSPP test guidelines for freshwater fish were not
submitted. However, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
guideline data on toxicity to juvenile fish were submitted and reviewed after the Problem
Formulation was added to the public docket and are summarized in Table 3.16 below. These
data are useful in risk characterization but do not fully address the fish early life stages (e.g.,
embryo through free-feeding juvenile), as recommended in the OCSPP guideline 850.1400.
Therefore, chronic risk quotients are not calculated for glufosinate based on these data because
the toxicity to earlier life stages than free-swimming juveniles remains undetermined.
Table 3.16. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
NOAEC&
LOAEC
(ug/L)1
Endpoints
(MRID)
Rainbow trout
(Oncoryhncus
mykiss)
Nonguideline
21-day, flow-
through
TGAI (98.9%)
50,000 &
110,000
(mean-
measured)
Survival
(48301105)
Nonguideline
28-day, flow-
through
EP (13.1%)
830 & 1,480
(calculated-
measured)
Reduction of
growth2
(48301106)
Nonguideline
28-day, flow-
through
disodium salt of MPP (48.4%)
26,000 &
49,000
(TWA)
Wet weight
increase
(48301104)
Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. (MPA: 2-
methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF: Methylphosphinico-formic acid. MPP: 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid.
N/A: Not applicable or available. TWA: Time-weighted average.
1 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise
-Page 44 of 135-
-------
specified.
2 Survival was also reduced at higher test concentrations (NOAEC=1,480 ug ai/L, LOAEC= 2,580 ug ai/L,
calculated-measured).
3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
An acute 48-hour static toxicity study was conducted to determine the effect of glufosinate
technical (97.4% ai) on first instar water fleas {Daphnia magna; MRID 00142456). The nominal
test concentrations, adjusted for purity, were 0 (control), 97.4, 131, 175, 234, 312, 409, 545, 731,
and 974 mg ai/L. At 48 hours, there was 100% mortality at the highest concentration, 80% at
731 mg ai/L, and 10% at 545 mg ai/L. No effects were observed at test concentrations of 409
mg ai/L and lower. Based on nominal concentrations, the 48-hour EC50 value was 651 (95% CL
580 - 728) mg ai/L. Based on the results of this study, glufosinate is classified as practically
nontoxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.
Three studies evaluating the toxicity of formulated glufosinate to the water flea are available,
two using 19% ai (MRLDs 00144339, 00145067) and one using 16.22% a.i (MRID 00159915).
The EC50 values for these studies are based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity, and
range from 2.4 to 15.1 mg ai/L, with 20% mortality noted as low as 0.16 mg ai/L (nominal).
Under these test conditions, formulated glufosinate is classified as slightly to moderately toxic to
freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.
A 21-day (life-cycle) static renewal toxicity test (MRID 40501010) was conducted to determine
the effects of glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) on the water flea. The nominal test concentrations,
adjusted for purity, were 0 (control), 9.6, 17, 31, 54, 62, and 96 mg ai/L. Seven beakers of one
daphnid each were used to evaluate effects on reproduction and growth, and three replicates of
five daphnids each were used to evaluate effects on mortality. The 21-day NOAEC value was 31
mg ai/L, based on reduced reproduction (calculated as number of young per adult per
reproduction day). Based on an acute EC50 of 651 mg ai/L (MRID 00142456) and a chronic
NOAEC of 31 mg ai/L (MRID 40501010) for daphnids, the acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) for
freshwater invertebrates is 21 (651 31 = 21). The ACR for freshwater invertebrates was used
to estimate a chronic toxicity endpoint for estuarine/marine invertebrates, in the absence of
chronic toxicity data (Table 3.20).
Table 3.17. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
ECS0
(ug/L)1'2'3
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
Water flea
(Daphnia magna)
48-hr, static
TGAI (97.4%)
651,000
(580,000 -
728,000)
Practically
nontoxic
(00142456)
48-hr, static
EP (16.22%)
2,400
(1,600 - 5,200)
Moderately toxic
(00159915)
48-hr, static
EP (19%)
6,100
(2,200-21,000)
Moderately toxic
(00144339)
48-hr, static
EP (19%)
15,000
Slightly toxic
-Page 45 of 135-
-------
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
ECS0
(ug/L)1'2'3
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
(12,000 - 19,000)
(00145067)
48-hr, static
MPP (99.6%)
42,0004
(32,000 - 56,000)
Slightly toxic
(48444801)
48-hr, static
MPA (98.1%)
37,0005
(32,000 - 56,000)
Slightly toxic
(48444802)
48-hr, static
dinatrium salt of MPF (97.5%)
> 98,200
(NA)
(mean-measured)
No more than
slightly toxic
(48444803)
Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. MPA: 2-
methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF: Methylphosphinico-formic acid. MPP: 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid.
NA: Not available or applicable.
1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent
glufosinate.
2 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise
specified.
3 Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to
derive the probability of an individual effect (USEPA 2004).
4 Endpoints are reported for unbuffered test systems and are attributable to acidification. The EC50 for MPP in a
buffered test system in the same test was >100 mg MPP/L.
5 Endpoints are reported for unbuffered test systems and are attributable to acidification. The EC50 for MPP in a
buffered test system in the same test was >1000 mg MPA/L (NOAEC = 320 mg MPA/L).
Table 3.18. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and its
Degradates.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
NOAEC &
LOAEC
(ug/L)1
Endpoints
(MRID)
Water flea
(Daphnia magna)
21-day, static
renewal
TGAI (96.3%)
31,000 &
54,000
Reduced number
of offspring per
female
(40501010)
21-day, static
renewal
EP (18.5% ai)
2,900 &
5,600
Reduced number
of offspring per
female, parental
length
(48301101)
21-day, static
renewal
disodium salt of MPP (50.9%)
13,500 &
>13,500
No effects
(48301102)
21-day, static
renewal
disodium salt of MPP (50.9%)
< 6,430 &
6,430
(initial
measured)
Reduced number
of offspring per
female2
(48301103)
Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. MPP: 3-
methylphosphinicopropionic acid. N/A: Not applicable or available.
1 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise
specified.
2 Statistically significant reductions (29 to 69%) in number of offspring per female were observed at all treatment
levels; there was statistically significant parental mortality in the two highest treatment levels. Study conducted in
1999. The results were not reproduced when the study was repeated in 2008 (MRID 48301102).
-Page 46 of 135-
-------
3.3.1.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish
In a 96-hour acute static toxicity test, sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus; MRID
41396104) were exposed to glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0
(control), 96.3, 173, 308, 539, and 963 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. No mortality or other
adverse effects were reported. The 96-hour LC50 value was > 963 mg ai/L, based on nominal
concentrations adjusted for purity. Therefore, glufosinate technical is classified as practically
nontoxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.
In another 96-hour static toxicity test, sheepshead minnow (MRID 41396108) were exposed to
formulated glufosinate (18.5% ai, HOE 039866) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control, 1.30,
2.16, 3.59, 5.99, and 9.99 mg ai/L. Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 (control),
7.0, 11.7, 19.4, 32.4 and 54.0 mg/L (total formulation). Mortality was 100% at the two highest
concentration after 24 hours and 100% at the 3.59 mg ai/L at 48 hours. Mortality was 30% at
2.16 mg ai/L after 24 hours, but no further mortality was recorded at this test concentration.
There was no mortality in the control or at the lowest concentration tested. The study reports
that specimens were observed for other "abnormalities," but these observations were not
presented in the report. Based on nominal concentrations adjusted for purity, the 96-hour LC50
value was 2.42 (95% CL 1.30 - 3.59) mg ai/L. The results of this test indicate that formulated
glufosinate is moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.
Chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish were not submitted.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance (Purity)
ECS0
(ug/L)1'2
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
Sheepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon
variegatus)
96-hour,
static
TGAI (96.3%)
> 963,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(41396104)
96-hour,
static
EP (18.5%)
2,4203
(1,300-3,590)
Moderately toxic
(41396108)
glufosinate.
2 Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise
specified.
3 Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to
derive the probability of an individual effect (USEPA 2004).
3.3.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
A 96-hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of
glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) on the mysid shrimp (Americamysis bahia, formerly Mysidopsis
bahia; MRID 41396107). Shrimp were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 1, 1.8,
3.2, 5.6, 10, 18, and 32 mg ai/L. Mortality ranged from 0 at the 1 mg ai/L to 100%) at the 32 mg
ai/L concentration. The study reported abnormal effects of loss of equilibrium and mysid lying
on the bottom of the test vessel. The 96-hour EC50 value was 7.5 mg ai/L (95% CL 5.4 - 11 mg
-Page 47 of 135-
-------
ai/L), based on acute mortality and nominal concentrations. Probit analysis for dose response
yielded a slope value of 2.3 mg ai/L (95% CL 1.4 - 3.2 mg ai/L). Glufosinate technical is
classified as moderately toxic to mysid shrimp on an acute exposure basis.
A 96-hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of
formulated glufosinate (18.5% ai, HOE 039866) on the mysid shrimp (MRID 41396110). The
shrimp were exposed to nominal concentrations 0 (control), 0.26, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 mg
ai/L, adjusted for purity. Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 (control), 1.4, 2.7,
5.4, 10.8, 21.6 and 43.2 mg/L (total formulation). No mortality was reported in the 0.26, 0.50,
and 1.0 mg ai/L concentrations, but there was 15%, 5% and 50% mortality in the 2.0, 4.0, and
8.0 mg ai/L concentrations, respectively. Partial loss of equilibrium was reported in some
shrimp at all but the lowest test concentration. The 96-hour LC50 value was 8.0 (95% CL 6.4 -
14) mg ai/L, based on nominal test concentrations. Therefore, formulated glufosinate is
classified as moderately toxic to mysid shrimp on an acute exposure basis; under these test
conditions, the toxicity of formulated glufosinate (18.5%) to mysid shrimp was approximately
equivalent to the toxicity of glufosinate technical.
A 48-hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of
glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) on larval development in the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica\ MRID 41396105). Larvae were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 4.7,
7.8, 13, 22, 36, 60, and 100 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. Percent reductions in normal larvae,
when compared to the control, ranged from 66% at the 7.8 mg ai/L concentration to 100% at the
100 mg ai/L concentration. The 48-hour calculated EC50 value was 7.7 mg ai/L, based on
nominal concentrations adjusted for purity. The 95% confidence limits for the EC50 value were
not reported. Glufosinate TGAI is classified as moderately toxic to Eastern oyster larvae on an
acute exposure basis.
Two studies examining the effect of formulated glufosinate on the Eastern oyster have been
submitted. In a 48-hour static toxicity test (MRID 41396109), oyster larvae were exposed to
nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 0.04, 0.06, 0.11, 0.18, 0.30, and 0.50 mg ai/L, adjusted for
purity (18.5%) ai, HOE 039866). Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 (control),
0.21, 0.35, 0.58, 0.97, 1.62 and 2.7 mg/L (total formulation). Exposure to formulated glufosinate
resulted in a 52% reduction in the number of normally developing larvae at the highest
concentration (0.50 mg ai/L), when compared to the control; therefore, the 48-hour EC50 value is
estimated to be 0.50 mg ai/L These results indicate that formulated glufosinate is highly toxic to
Eastern oyster on an acute exposure basis.
The second study evaluated the effect of formulated glufosinate (18.3% ai, Ignite) on shell
deposition in molluscs (MRID 42262403). Eastern oysters were exposed to mean-measured
concentrations of 0 (control), 0.29, 0.50, 0.76, 1.32, 2.26 and 3.98 mg ai/L in a flow-through test
system. Shell deposition was inhibited 45% at 2.26 mg ai/L and 55% at 3.98 mg ai/L, relative to
controls. The 48-hour EC50 value was 2.9 mg ai/L. The slope value and associated 95%
confidence limits for dose response were not provided because the data were a poor fit to the
probit model (p<0.05). Based on these results with the Eastern oyster, formulated glufosinate is
classified as having moderately toxic effects on mollusc shell deposition.
-Page 48 of 135-
-------
In another study with estuarine/marine molluscs, a 48-hour static toxicity test was conducted
under static conditions to determine the effect of glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) on larvae of the
quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaries MRID 41396106). The larvae were exposed to nominal
concentrations of 0 (control), 15, 26, 43, 72, and 120 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. Reductions in
the number of normal larvae, as compared to the control, ranged from 0% at the 15 mg ai/L
concentration to 31% at the 120 mg ai/L concentration. The 48-hour EC50 value was >120 mg
ai/L. Glufosinate technical is classified as practically nontoxic to quahog clam larvae on an
acute exposure basis.
A second 48-hour static toxicity test with the quahog clam was conducted with formulated
glufosinate (18.3% ai, Ignite) (MRID 42262402), Mean-measured concentrations were < 0.018
(< LOQ, control), 0.52, 0.90, 1.54, 2.62, 4.22, and 7.12 mg ai/L, and ranged from 88 - 93% of
nominal. Statistically significant reductions in the number of normal larvae, as compared to
controls (p < 0.05), were seen at all test concentrations (four replicates per treatment level) and
ranged from 100% at the three highest concentrations to 24% at the lowest concentration. The
48-hour EC50 was 0.69 (95% CL 0.64 - 0.75) mg ai/L.
No guideline data or appropriate open literature data are available for chronic toxicity to
estuarine/marine invertebrates. An estimate of chronic toxicity for mysid shrimp was derived
using the acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR=21) developed for freshwater invertebrates. Based on the
ACR, the estimated NOAEC for the mysid is 360 mg ai/L.
Table 3.20. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Including
Molluscs) Exposed to Glufosinate.
Acute Toxicitv
Chronic Toxicitv
Species
Study
Type
ECS0
(ugai/L)1'2
(95% CL)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
Study
Type
NOAEC &
LOAEC
(mg ai/L)1'2
Endpoints
(MRID)
Mysid shrimp
(Americamysis bahia
formerly Mysidopsis
bahia)
96-hr,
static,
TGAI
(96.3%)
7,5003
(5,400 -
11,000)
Moderately
toxic
(41396107)
NA
3604 & NA
(ACR)
Reproduction
96-hr,
static, EP
(18.5%)
8,000
(6,400 -
14,000)
Moderately
toxic
(41396110)
48-hr
(larvae),
static,
7,700
(NR)
Moderately
toxic
TGAI
(96.3%)
(41396105)
Eastern oyster
(Crassotrea
48-hr
(larvae),
5003
Highly toxic
NA
NA
NA
virginica)
static, EP
(18.5%)
(NR)
(41396109)
48-hr (shell
deposition),
flow-
through,
2,9005
(2,200 - 6,900)
Moderately
toxic
(42262403)
-Page 49 of 135-
-------
EP (18.3%)
Quahog clam
(Mercenaria
mercenaria)
48-hr
(larvae),
static,
TGAI
(96.3%)
> 120,000
(NA)
Practically
nontoxic
(41396106)
48-hr
(larvae),
static, EP
(18.3%)
690
(640 - 750)
Highly toxic
(42262402)
Confidence limits, Not available, Not reported.
1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates.
2 Unless noted otherwise, toxicity endpoints are based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity (% ai).
3 Where probit slope data are not available, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the
probability of an individual effect (USEPA 2004).
4 Based on the freshwater invertebrate acute-to-chronic ratio (EC50 7,500 -r- ACR 21 = 360).
5 Based on mean-measured concentrations.
3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants
In a 14-day static toxicity test, the vascular aquatic plant, duckweed (Lemna gibba; MRID
42262404) was exposed to glufosinate technical (96.3% ai). Mean-measured concentrations
were < 40 (< LOQ, control), 800, 1,350, 2,120, 3,640, 6,570, and 10,300 ug ai/L, and ranged
from 92 - 110% of nominal. After 14 days, inhibition of growth relative to the control ranged
from a non-statistically significant 11% change at the lowest test concentration (800 ug ai/L) to
100%) inhibition at the two highest test concentrations. The NOAEC and IC50 values, based on
frond number and mean-measured concentrations, were 800 and 1,470 (95% CL: 1,360 - 1,580)
ug ai/L, respectively.
A 7-day toxicity test with duckweed exposed to formulated glufosinate (17.7% ai, AE F039866)
under static renewal conditions demonstrated effects on frond number, growth rate, dry weight,
biomass growth rate, and doubling time (MRID 47542605). The most sensitive endpoints were
frond number and biomass growth rate, with NOAEC and IC50 values of 3,100 and 9,100 (95%
CL 7,900 - 11,000) ug ai/L (mean-measured), respectively. The slope value for dose-response,
based on inhibition of biomass growth rate, was 4.41 (95% CL: 3.97 - 4.85).
In a static laboratory toxicity test, the freshwater unicellular green alga, Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata, formerly Selenastrum capricornutum (MRID 40345653), was exposed to
glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 2,400, 4,800, 9,600,
19,000, 39,000, and 77,000 ug ai/L, adjusted for purity. Observations were reported for days 3,
4, 5, and 7. In accordance with OCSPP guideline 850.54002, toxicity endpoints for risk
estimation are based upon Day 4 reductions in cell counts, compared to the control, which
ranged from 15% at 2,400 ug ai/L to 96% at 77,000 ug ai/L. The Day 4 NOAEC and IC50
values, based on cell count and nominal concentrations, were < 2,400 and 4,600 (95% CL: 4,100
- 5,200) ug ai/L. At test termination, the 7-day NOAEC and IC50 values were 2,400 and 40,000
(95%) CL: 34,000 - 50,000) ug ai/L, respectively.
2 USEPA 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.5400. Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II. EPA 712-C-96.164. April
1996.
-Page 50 of 135-
-------
In a 120-hour toxicity test, exposure to glufosinate technical (96.5% ai) under static conditions
resulted in reduced cell density and cell growth rate in the freshwater diatom, Navicula
pelliculosa (MRID 47542603). The statistically-determined NOAEC value for both endpoints
was 17,000 ug ai/L (mean-measured); however, some uncertainty surrounds this conclusion
because the pattern of responses observed was not monotonic, and a 41% inhibition in cell
density was observed at an intermediate concentration (31,400 ug ai/L). The IC50 values for cell
density and cell growth rate are assumed to be greater than the highest concentration tested (IC50
> 98,500 ug ai/L).
Green alga (Desmodesmus subspicatus, formerly Scenedesmus subspicatus Chodat) were
exposed to glufosinate technical (96.0% ai) for 72 hours under static conditions, at nominal
concentrations ranging from 32,000 - 1,000,000 ug ai/L, plus a negative control (MRID
47542604). Mean-measured concentrations were reported for the control (<177 ug ai/L, 1,000,000 ug ai/L,
respectively, based on nominal concentrations and inhibitions of cell density, area under the
growth curve, and growth rate (compared to controls).
Table 3.21. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate
and its Degradates.
Species
Study Type
Test Substance
(Purity)
NOAEL & ICso1
(ug ai/L)
(95% CL)
Effect (MRID)
Duckweed
(Lemna gibba)
14-d, static
TGAI (96.3%)
800 & 1,4703
(1,360- 1,580)
Frond number
(42262404)
7-day, static
renewal
EP (17.7%)
3,100 & 9,1003
(7,900- 11,000)
Frond number and
biomass growth rate
(47542605)
7-day, static
renewal
disodium salt of
MPP (50.9%)
103,000 &
> 103,000
(NA)
No effects (48444814)
7-day, static
renewal
MPA (98.9%)
97,200 &
> 97,200
(NA)
No effects (48444815)
Green alga
(Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata)
120-hr, static
TGAI (96.3%)
< 2,400 & 4,600
(4,100-5,200)
Cell count (40345653)
96-hr, static
dinatrium salt of
MPF (97.5%)
94,800 & >94,800
(NA)
No effects (48444812)
Blue-green alga
(Anabaena flos-
aquae)
96-hr, static
TGAI (99.2%)
41 & 72
(44 - 122)
Cell density, biomass,
and growth rate
(48444816)
Diatom {Navicula
pelliculosa)
120-hr, static
TGAI (96.5%)
17,000 &
> 98,5003
(NA)
Cell density and cell
growth rate (47542603)
Estuarine/marine
diatom (Skeletonema
costatum)
96-hr, static
TGAI (99.2%)
12,000 & 22,000
(18,000 - 28,000)
Biomass (48444817)
Green alga
(Desmodesmus
subspicatus)
72-hr, static
TGAI
100,000 &
> 1,000,000
(NA)
Cell density and cell
growth rate (47542604)
-Page 51 of 135-
-------
Species
Study Type
Test Substance
(Purity)
NOAEL & IQo1
(ug ai/L)
(95% CL)
Effect (MRID)
72-hr, static
MPP (99.6%)
1,000,000 &
>1,000,000
(NA)
No effects (48444810)
72-hr, static
MPA (98.1%)
17,700 & 53,000
(37,000 - 77,000)
Biomass (48444811)
72-hr, static
NAG (92.4%),
applied in an
aqueous solution
(35.7%)
357,000 &
>357,000
(NA)
No effects (48444813)
1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for vascular and nonvascular aquatic plants exposed
to parent glufosinate.
2 Unless noted otherwise, toxicity endpoints are based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity (% ai).
3 Based on mean-measured concentrations.
3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization
A summary of the most sensitive terrestrial animal toxicity data for glufosinate, based on a
current Agency review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.22 through Table 3.24 and is
discussed further in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.3, The available data indicate that glufosinate
TGAI is practically non-toxic to birds on an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis and is
practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. Glufosinate is practically
non-toxic to young adult honey bees (Apis mellifera) on an acute contact exposure basis.
The available data for terrestrial plants exposed to the TGAI, provided in Section 3.3.2.4,
indicate that glufosinate exposure in Tier II testing had the strongest adverse effects on seedling
emergence endpoints in onion and lettuce and on vegetative vigor endpoints in onion and carrot
(see Table 3.25).
-Page 52 of 135-
-------
3.3.2.1.
Toxicity to Birds
Avian toxicity data are summarized in Table 3.19 below. Based on results of toxicity testing
with upland game and waterfowl species, bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) and mallard duck
(Anas platyrhynchos), respectively, glufosinate TGAI is categorized as practically nontoxic to
birds on an acute oral (MRIDs 00142451, 00142450) and subacute dietary (MRIDs 00150988,
00150989) exposure bases. Although no mortalities were observed in either of the acute oral
toxicity studies, bobwhite quail administered glufosinate at 2,000 mg/kg bw presented sublethal
effects, including lethargy and diarrhea; mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) tested up to the
same limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg bw did not exhibit the sublethal effects reported for quail.
Subacute dietary toxicity testing up to 5,000 mg/kg diet with both bobwhite quail and mallard
ducks did not result in any of the sublethal effects reported for quail in the acute oral toxicity
study. Chronic exposure to glufosinate at nominal concentrations up to and including 400 mg/kg
diet resulted in no compound-related toxic effects in bobwhite quail or mallard duck (MRIDs
40345649, 40345650). However, a recently submitted avian reproduction study with the
bobwhite quail (MRID 48444809) demonstrated statistically significant (p<0.05) effects on the
ratio of live-to-viable embryos when parental quail were exposed to measured concentrations of
956 mg ai/kg diet (NOAEC = 665 mg ai/kg diet).
Avian toxicity tests using formulated glufosinate have not been submitted.
Table 3.22. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Glufosinate.
Species
Study Type
Acute Toxicitv
Chronic Toxicitv
LDS0
(mjj/kjj bw) or
LCS0
(mjj/kjj diet)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
NOAEC
(mg/kjj diet)
Endpoints
(MRID)
Bobwhite quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
Acute oral
toxicity
LD50 ^ 2,000
Practically
nontoxic
(00142451)
N/A
N/A
Mallard duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
Acute oral
toxicity
LD50 ^ 2,000
Practically
nontoxic
(00142450)
N/A
N/A
Bobwhite quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
Subacute
dietary toxicity
LC50> 5,000
Practically
nontoxic
(00150988)
NOAEC = 665
LOAEC = 956
Effects on ratio
of live-to-viable
embryos.
(48444809)
Mallard duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
Subacute
dietary toxicity
LC50> 5,000
Practically
nontoxic
(00150989)
NOAEC = 400
LOAEC > 400
No adverse
effects.
(40345650)
N/A=not applicable.
Bolded values represent the lowest definitive toxicity endpoint and are used in risk estimation (i.e., RQ calculation).
Other values are used in risk characterization.
3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals
Acute oral (MRID 00142430) and chronic 2-generation reproductive toxicity (MRID 40345612)
studies with the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) exposed to glufosinate TGAI were submitted.
Results of the tests, reviewed by the Health Effects Division (HED), are presented in Table 3.23.
-Page 53 of 135-
-------
Based on these results, glufosinate is classified as practically nontoxic to mammalian species on
an acute oral exposure basis. In the chronic study, statistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in
the number of viable pups per litter in both generations (Fi and F2) of offspring occurred at
dietary concentrations greater than 120 mg/kg diet (NOAEC =120 mg/kg diet; daily equivalent
dose = 6.0 mg/kg bw/day; LOAEC = 360 mg/kg diet).
The NOAEC for mammalian effects following repeated dietary exposure to glufosinate is
corroborated by effects on unweaned rat pups in a nonguideline developmental neurotoxicity
study (MRID 46455701). Effects on brain morphometry were seen in both male and female
pups at all treatment levels and were statistically significant (p<0.05) and considered adverse
(>5% difference from controls) by the Health Effects Division at the lowest parental treatment
level, 200 mg/kg diet (daily dose equivalent: 14 mg/kg bw/day), and above. Statistically
significant decreases in body weight and in body weight gain (8-36% compared to controls,
p<0.05) were seen in male and female pups at 1,000 mg/kg diet (69 mg/kg bw/day) and above.
Postnatal mortality was increased for pups of rats exposed to 4,500 mg/kg diet (292 mg/kg
bw/day); mortality of pups in this treatment group was approximately twice that in controls and
occurred primarily as total litter loss during postnatal days (PND) 0 through 4. Three females
lost their entire litters, and a fourth lost 10 of 15 pups.
An acute oral toxicity study with female Norway rats exposed to formulated glufosinate
(Liberty® 280 SL Herbicide, 24.3% ai) at two nominal dose levels, 72.9 and 486 mg ai/kg bw,
resulted in a calculated LD50 value of 243 mg ai/kg bw (MRID 46279002). Based on this test,
reviewed by the Registration Division (RD), formulated glufosinate is classified as moderately
toxic to mammals.
Table 3.23. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data for Rats Exposed to Glufosinate.
Species
Study Type
Acute
Chronic
LD50
(mjj/kjj bw)
Toxicity
Classification
(MRID)
NOAEC
(m«/k« diet)
NOAEL
(mjj/kjj bw/day)
Endpoints
(MRID)
Norway rat
(Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute oral
toxicity
LD50 ~ 3,030
Practically
nontoxic
(00142430)1
NOAEC = 120
NOAEL = 6.0
Decreased number
of viable pups
(40345612)
Mammalian toxicity data for glufosinate TGAI provided and reviewed by EPA Health Effects Division. Bolded
values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints available for ecological risk assessment.
3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects
In acute oral and acute contact toxicity tests, young adult honey bees {Apis mellifera) were
exposed to glufosinate technical (95.3% ai) at the rate of 329.3 jag ai/bee, adjusted for purity
(MRID 41364002). No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in either study. The LD50
was >100 jag ai/bee; therefore, glufosinate technical is classified as practically non-toxic to
young adult honey bees on an acute oral and contact exposure basis.
-Page 54 of 135-
-------
Honey bees were exposed in both oral and contact studies to formulated glufosinate (20.4% ai,
Basta) at a rate of 100 jag ai/bee (MRID 40345654). No mortalities or sublethal symptoms were
observed in either study. In both studies, the LD50 was >100 jag ai/bee; therefore, the 20.4%
glufosinate formulation is classified as practically non-toxic to young adult honey bees on an
acute oral and on an acute contact exposure basis.
Table 3.24. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate.
Species
Study Type
(TGAI or EP)
LD5„ (n«/bcc)
Toxicity Classification
(MRID)
Honey bee (Apis mellifera)
Acute oral and contact
toxicity (TGAI)
> 100
Practically nontoxic
(41364002)
Acute oral and contact
toxicity (EP)
> 100
Practically nontoxic
(40345654)
3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants
Terrestrial plant toxicity studies are required for pesticides that have terrestrial use patterns or
may move off of the application site. The NOAEL and IC25 (concentration that causes an
inhibitory effect in 25% of the population for the monitored endpoint) values are established for
markers of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor.
One seedling emergence (MRID 4139611) and two vegetative vigor (MRIDs 41396112,
41396113) tests with glufosinate technical have been submitted. In the seedling emergence test,
glufosinate technical reduced percent emergence in the monocotyledonous (monocot) onion
(Allium cepa\ NOAEL = 0.38 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 1.0 lbs ai/A, nominal) but in none of the other nine
species within the range of concentrations tested (0.19 - 1.5 lbs ai/A, nominal). Seedling dry
weight was affected most in the dicotyledonous (dicot) lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and cabbage
(Brassica oleracea), with IC25 values of 0.15 lbs ai/A (NOAEL <0.15 lbs ai/A) and 0.16 lbs ai/A
(NOAEL < 0.16 lbs ai/A), respectively. Onion plant height was the most sensitive endpoint for
monocots (NOAEL < 0.23 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.23 lbs ai/A). The data reported in the study are not
sufficient to calculate reliable IC05 values for the seedling emergence endpoints.
The two vegetative vigor tests with glufosinate TGAI indicated that dicot carrot (Daucus carota)
dry weight (NOAEL = 0.05 lbs ai/A,_IC25 = 0.063 lbs) and monocot onion dry weight (NOAEL
= 0.10 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.11 lbs ai/A) were the most sensitive endpoints for dicot and monocot
plants, respectively.
In a vegetative vigor test submitted after the Problem Formulation was completed, exposure to
formulated glufosinate (13.9% ai) inhibited dry weight of surviving plants in all ten test species,
when compared to controls (MRID 47542602), and at concentrations less than the established
vegetative vigor toxicity endpoints for the TGAI. Phytotoxic effects included leaf cupping,
curling, and twisting; leaf darkening; height inhibition; necrosis; chlorosis; apical damage; and
side branching. The study failed to establish reliable NOAEL/IC05 and/or IC25 values for two
monocot species and three dicot species within the range of concentrations tested (i.e., monocot
-Page 55 of 135-
-------
NOAEL, IC25 < 0.062 lbs ai/A; dicot NOAEL, IC25 < 0.018 lbs ai/A); therefore, the results are
used qualitatively in risk assessment. The percentages of effect for statistically significant
(p<0.05) changes in dry weight at the lowest treatment level were 37% (onion, most sensitive
monocot; 0.062 lbs ai/A), 4% (corn, 0.016 lbs ai/A), 28% (cucumber, most sensitive dicot; 0.018
lbs ai/A), 18%) (radish, 0.016 lbs ai/A), and 21% (lettuce, 0.016 lbs ai/A), when compared to the
negative controls.
In a recently submitted seedling emergence test with formulated glufosinate (Ignite 280, 24.3%
ai), monocot and dicot plants showed varying degrees of sensitivity to exposure, with seedling
emergence, survival, dry weight, and/or plant height affected in all species except cabbage and
corn (MRIDs 48531301 and 48718501). Onion was the most sensitive monocot species tested
(NOAEL = 0.07 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.61 lbs ai/A). Lettuce was the most sensitive dicot species
tested (NOAEL = 0.21 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.40 lbs ai/A). Visual observations of phytotoxic effects
included wilting and stunted growth. The effects of formulated glufosinate on seedling
emergence were generally consistent with the effects of the TGAI in the previously reviewed
studies. Therefore, since the study with formulated glufosinate established definitive endpoints
(IC25 and NOAEL/IC05 values) for the most sensitive monocot and dicot species, respectively,
these values will be used for screening level risk estimation (RQ calculation) for plants.
Table 3.25. Summary of Tier II Toxicity of Glufosinate to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants.
Crop
Type of Study
Species
ic25*
(lbs ai/A)
NOAEL
or ICos*
(lbs ai/A)
Endpoint
Affected
mrii)
Sccdlin
4 Emergence (TGAI)
Monocots
Corn
0.52
0.38
Height
41396111
Oat
0.85
0.75
Dry weight
Onion
0.23
<0.23*
Height
Ryegrass
0.38
0.19
Height
Dicots
Cabbage
0.16
<0.16*
Dry weight
Lettuce
0.15
<0.15*
Dry weight
Carrot
0.33
<0.33*
Height
Tomato
0.25
0.19
Dry weight
Cucumber
0.35
<0.35*
Dry weight
Soybean
1.2
0.75
Dry weight
Vegetative Vigor (TGAI)
Monocots
Corn
0.31
0.20
Plant height
41396112
413961132
Oat
0.99
0.80
Dry weight
Onion
0.11
0.10
Plant height
Ryegrass
0.142
0.102
Dry weight
Dicots
Cabbage
0.17
0.10
Dry weight
Lettuce
0.612
0.042
Dry weight
Carrot
0.063
0.05
Dry weight
Tomato
0.086
0.05
Dry weight
Cucumber
0.16
<0.16*
Dry weight
Soybean
0.21
0.10
Dry weight
Vegetative Vigor (EP, 13.9% ai)
Monocots
Corn
0.072
<0.016*
Dry weight
47542602
Onion
<0.062*
<0.062*
Dry weight
Ryegrass
0.095
0.062
Dry weight
Wheat
0.33
0.13
Dry weight
-Page 56 of 135-
-------
Cabbage
0.029
0.018
Dry weight
Cucumber
<0.018'
<0.018*
Dry weight
Dicots
Lettuce
0.020
<0.016*
Dry weight
Radish
0.030
<0.016*
Dry weight
Soybean
0.047
0.018
Dry weight
Tomato
0.019
0.0089
Dry weight
Seedling Emergence (EP, 24.3% ai)
Corn
>1.71
1.71
None
Monocots
Oat
1.98
0.43
Dry weight
Onion
0.61
0.07
Dry weight
Ryegrass
0.74
0.43
Emergence
Cabbage
>3.43
3.43
None
48531301
Cucumber
>3.43
0.86
Emergence
487185013
Dicots
Lettuce
0.40
0.21
Survival
Radish
>0.86
0.43
Height
Soybean
2.13
0.11
Height
Tomato
1.13
0.86
Height
* Based on measured application rates. Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints from each study.
1 Less than the lowest concentration of glufosinate tested.
2Ryegrass and lettuce were tested inMRID 41396113 but not inMRID 41396112.
3 Lettuce only was tested inMRID 48718501 because lettuce inMRID 48531301failed to meet validity criteria
(control survival).
3.3.3. Review of Incident Data
The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), which is maintained by the Agency's Office
of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for
glufosinate. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in November 2012, 51 incidents associated
with glufosinate were reported between 1999 and 2011. Of these incidents, 48 were associated
with phytotoxic effects to corn or canola (USEPA 2012). One new incident has been reported, in
which 160 acres of pistachio (Pistacia vera) in Merced County, California, were damaged
following direct treatment with glufosinate (Rely® 280) and flumioxazin (Chateau® Herbicide)
(Incident number 1023302-028; 2011). The majority (45 of the 49 plant-related incidents),
including the pistachio incident, were associated with the registered use of glufosinate. Eighteen
(18) of the plant-related incidents were classified as having a "probable" association with
glufosinate exposure; the remaining 31 plant-related incidents were classified as having a
"possible" association with glufosinate use. Most of the incidents of crop damage resulted from
direct treatment of corn or canola by broadcast application or other spray of Liberty® herbicide
products, generally ranging from 18 to 40 fl.oz./A and including (but not limited to) flowable,
emulsifiable concentrate, and soluble concentrate products. Only four of the plant incidents were
associated with the misuse (accidental or intentional) of glufosinate.
Two aquatic incidents occurred in or adjacent to agricultural areas. In 1999, the spray
application of glufosinate (registered use) in Queen Anne County, Maryland, was identified as
having a "probable" association with mortality of approximately 1,500 fish ("minnows" and
"catfish") in a nearby pond. In 2000, a fish kill of approximately 2,000 unidentified specimens
was reported for a lake in Lewis County, Missouri; the lake incident was classified as "unlikely"
to be associated with glufosinate runoff; additional details were not reported. It is unknown
-Page 57 of 135-
-------
whether the fish kill incidents were associated with oxygen depletion related to direct lethal
effects of glufosinate on aquatic plants, possibly compounded by increased biological oxygen
demand associated with decaying plant matter.
Because of limitations in the incident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports
cannot be construed as the absence of incidents from the registered use of glufosinate. At the
time of the search, EIIS contained information on incidents reported through December 2011.
The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Avian Incident Monitoring System, which contains
information on bird-related incidents for the years 1968 through 2005, was searched in October
2012. No records of incidents were reported to be associated with glufosinate (ABC 2010).
4. Risk Characterization
4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values
This screening-level assessment of the labeled uses of glufosinate relies on the deterministic RQ
method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure
estimates to toxicity endpoints {i.e., the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by acute
and chronic toxicity values, respectively). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the
Agency's LOCs, as shown in Tables 4.1 through Table 4.16. The LOCs are used by the Agency
to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause adverse
effects to nontarget organisms. For endangered species, LOC exceedances require an additional
in-depth listed species evaluation of the potential co-occurrence of listed species and areas in
which new use crops are grown to characterize risks. In this assessment, RQs that exceed the
non-listed species LOC also exceed the listed species LOC.
Tables 4.1, 4.6, 4.9, and 4.14 indicate whether the available data were sufficient to calculate RQ
values for specific organisms. The remaining tables provide the resulting, screening-level RQ
values, for taxa with sufficient data. Note that with plants, unlike with animals, RQ values are
not presented for acute versus chronic risk; instead, RQ values are presented for listed and
nonlisted species based on a comparison of a given EEC to NOAEL and IC25 values,
respectively. A discussion of the RQ values for glufosinate and of other information that
provides context for the interpretation of potential risk to various taxa is presented in the Risk
Description in Section 4.2.
-Page 58 of 135-
-------
4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms
Table 4.1. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI.
Taxonomic Group(s)
RQ Calculation
Acute
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs arc
not calculated
Chronic
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs arc
not calculated
Freshwater fish and amphibians
N
Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint
(LC50> 312,000 ugai/L)
N
Toxicity data gap
Freshwater invertebrates
Y
NA
Y
NA
Estuarine/marine fish
N
Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint
(LC50 > 963,000 ng ai/L)
N
Toxicity data gap
Estuarine/marine invertebrates
Y
NA
N
Toxicity data gap
Table 4.2. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAL
Usc(s)
App. Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Peak
EECs
(H« ai/L)
Freshwater Invertebrates
EC511 = 651.000 fig ai/L
21-dav
EECs
(US ai/L)
Freshwater
Invertebrates
NOAEC =
31.000 fig ai/L
RQs
Probability of
Acute Effect'
(1 in ...)
RQs
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
3.29
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
2.97
<0.01
Canola
0.44
6.97
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
5.90
<0.01
Citrus
1.50
60.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
45.3
<0.01
Corn
0.44
17.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
13.6
<0.01
Cotton
0.53
21.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
18.2
<0.01
Grape vineyard
1.50
20.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
18.0
<0.01
Olives
1.50
2.80
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
2.48
<0.01
Pome fruit
1.50
20.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
18.4
<0.01
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
3.69
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
3.38
<0.01
Rice
0.44
375
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
335
0.01
Soybean
0.66
16.3
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
13.0
<0.01
Stone fruit
1.50
11.5
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
10.1
<0.01
Sugarbeet
0.55
7.30
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
6.17
<0.01
Tree nuts
1.50
74.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
54.6
<0.01
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
20.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
16.0
<0.01
Cotton
0.52
23.0
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
19.9
<0.01
Rice
0.73
390
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
348
0.01
Soybean
0.52
16.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
14.4
<0.01
Hum down Uses
-Page 59 of 135-
-------
Canola
0.66
6.73
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
6.16
<0.01
Corn
0.66
15.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
12.7
<0.01
Cotton (preplant)
0.79
48.5
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
32.5
<0.01
Cotton
(postharvest)
0.79
29.9
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
25.3
<0.01
Rice
0.66
74.0
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
66.0
<0.01
Soybean
0.66
11.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
10.2
<0.01
Sugar beet
0.66
5.37
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
4.90
<0.01
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/hardwood
trees
1.50
15.4
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
14.2
<0.01
0.302
4.36
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
4.02
<0.01
Fallow field
0.53
69.8
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
57.5
<0.01
0.402
11.8
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
9.64
<0.01
Lawns/gardens
1.36
7.26
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
57.5
<0.01
Farmstead/
noncrop areas
1.50
10.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
9.78
<0.01
0.502
9.08
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
8.31
<0.01
Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value. A default concentration-response
slope value (4.5) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were not calculable from the
available test data (Urban and Cook 1986, USEPA 2004).
2 Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.
Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish, Amphibians, and Invertebrates from Spray Drift
Use(s)
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Peak
EECs
Spray
Drift Only
(Mg ai/L)
Freshwater Fish
LC50 = 4,300 |ig ai/L
Freshwater Invertebrates
EC50 = 2,400 ng ai/L
RQs
Probability of
Acute Effect1
(1 in ...)
RQs
Probability of
Acute Effect1
(1 in ...)
Agricultural Uses
Citrus
1.50
2.42
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Tree nuts
1.50
2.47
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Burndmvn Uses
Cotton
0.79
3.55
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Non-agricultural Uses
Fallow field
0.53
14.74
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
0.01
1 in 9xl018
(1 in 31,600 to
1 in 1 x 1072)
slope value (4.5, lower and upper bounds 2-9) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were
not calculable from the available test data (USEPA 2004).
-Page 60 of 135-
-------
Table 4.4. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI.
Use(s)
Application Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Peak EECs
(Mi ai/L)
Estu ari nc/M ari nc Invcrtcb rates
ECsm = 7.500 jig ai/L
RQs
Probability of Acute
Effect'
(1 in...)
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
3.29
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Canola
0.44
6.97
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Citrus
1.50
60.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Corn
0.44
17.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Cotton
0.53
21.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Grape vineyard
1.50
20.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Olives
1.50
2.80
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Pome fruit
1.50
20.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Potato vine dessication
0.38
3.69
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Rice
0.44
375
0.05
1 in 4x108
(1 in 216 to
1 in 2 x 10" )
Soybean
0.66
16.3
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Stone fruit
1.50
11.5
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Sugarbeet
0.55
7.30
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Tree nuts
1.50
74.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
20.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Cotton
0.52
23.0
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Rice
0.73
390
0.05
1 in 4x108
(1 in 216 to
1 in 2 x 10" )
Soybean
0.52
16.2
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Hum down Uses
Canola
0.66
6.73
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Corn
0.66
15.7
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Cotton (preplant)
0.79
48.5
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Cotton (postharvest)
0.79
29.9
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Rice
0.66
74.0
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Soybean
0.66
11.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Sugar beet
0.66
5.37
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/hardwood trees
1.50
15.4
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
0.302
4.36
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Fallow field
0.53
69.8
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
0.402
11.8
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
-Page 61 of 135-
-------
Lawns/gardens
1.36
7.26
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Fannstead/noncrop areas
1.50
10.6
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
0.502
9.08
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
A shaded cell indicates that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine
invertebrates (LOC=0.05).
1 Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value. A default concentration-response
slope value (4.5, lower and upper bounds 2-9) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were
not calculable from the available test data (USEPA 2004).
2 Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.
Table 4.5. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates from Spray Drift Only
Use(s)
Application
Rate
(lbs sal A)
Peak
EECs
Spray
Drift Only
(Mg ai/L)
Estuarine/Marine Fish
LC50 = 2,420 |ig ai/L
Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
EC50 = 500 |ig ai/L2
RQs
Probability of
Acute Effect1
(1 in ...)
RQs
Probability of
Acute Effect1
(1 in ...)
Agricultural Uses
Citrus
1.50
2.42
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Tree nuts
1.50
2.47
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
Burndmvn Uses
Cotton
0.79
3.55
<0.01
<1 in 9xl018
0.01
1 in 9xl018
(1 in 31,600 to
1 in 1 x 1072)
Non-agricultural Uses
Fallow field
0.53
14.7
0.01
1 in 9xl018
(1 in 31,600 to
1 in 1 x 1072)
0.03
1 in 3 x 1011
(1 in 862 to
1 in 2 x 1042)
slope value (4.5, lower and upper bounds 2-9) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were
not calculable from the available test data (USEPA 2004).
2 Based on 48-hour shell deposition in the Eastern oyster exposed to formulated glufosinate (MRID 41396109).
Table 4.6. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI.
Taxonomic Group(s)
RQ Calculation
Listed
Species RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs are
not calculated
Nonlisted
Species RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs
are not calculated
Aquatic vascular plants
Y
NA
Y
NA
Aquatic non-vascular
plants
Y
NA
Y
NA
-Page 62 of 135-
-------
Table 4.7. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from Glufosinate
TGAI.
Use(s)
Application
Rate
(lbs sal A)
Peak
EECs
(Mg ai/L)
Aquatic Vascular Plants
IC50 = 1,470 |ig ai/L
NOAEL = 800 |ig ai/L
Aquatic Nonvascular Plants
ICso = 72 |ig ai/L
NOAEL = 41 ng ai/L
Listed RQs
Nonlisted RQs
Listed RQs
Nonlisted RQs
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
3.29
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.05
Canola
0.44
6.97
0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.10
Citrus
1.50
60.6
0.08
0.04
1.48
0.84
Corn
0.44
17.6
0.02
0.01
0.43
0.24
Cotton
0.53
21.2
0.03
0.01
0.52
0.29
Grape vineyard
1.50
20.2
0.03
0.01
0.49
0.28
Olives
1.50
2.80
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.04
Pome fruit
1.50
20.7
0.03
0.01
0.50
0.29
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
3.69
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.05
Rice
0.44
375
0.47
0.26
9.15
5.21
Soybean
0.66
16.3
0.02
0.01
0.40
0.23
Stone fruit
1.50
11.5
0.01
0.01
0.28
0.16
Sugarbeet
0.55
7.30
0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.10
Tree nuts
1.50
74.7
0.09
0.05
1.82
1.04
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
20.7
0.03
0.01
0.50
0.29
Cotton
0.52
23.0
0.03
0.02
0.56
0.32
Rice
0.73
390
0.49
0.27
9.51
5.42
Soybean
0.52
16.2
0.02
0.01
0.39
0.22
Burndmvn Uses
Canola
0.66
6.73
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.09
Corn
0.66
15.6
0.02
0.01
0.38
0.22
Cotton (preplant)
0.79
48.5
0.06
0.03
1.18
0.67
Cotton
(postharvest)
0.79
29.9
0.04
0.02
0.73
0.42
Rice
0.66
74.0
0.09
0.05
1.80
1.03
Soybean
0.66
11.6
0.01
0.01
0.28
0.16
Sugar beet
0.66
5.37
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.07
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1.50
15.4
0.02
0.01
0.38
0.21
0.301
4.36
0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.10
Fallow field
0.53
69.8
0.09
0.05
1.70
0.97
0.401
11.8
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.16
-Page 63 of 135-
-------
Lawns/gardens
1.36
7.26
0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.10
Fannstead/noncr
op areas
1.50
10.6
0.01
0.01
0.26
0.15
1.501
9.08
0.01
0.01
A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).
A lighter shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC=l).
1 Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.
Table 4.8 RQs for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular1 Plants from Spray Drift Only of Glufosinate End-use
Products (EPs).
Use(s)
Application Rate
(lbs sal A)
Peak EECs
Spray Drift
Only
(Hg ai/L)
Aquatic Vascular Plants
IC5o = 9,100 |ig ai/L
NOAF.I. = 3,100 |ig ai/L
Listed RQs
Nonlisted RQs
Agricultural Uses
Citrus
1.50
2.42
<0.01
<0.01
Tree nuts
1.50
2.47
<0.01
<0.01
Burndmvn Uses
Cotton
0.79
3.55
<0.01
<0.01
Non-agricultural Uses
Fallow field
0.53
14.74
<0.01
<0.01
Toxicity data for aquatic nonvascular plants exposed to formulated glufosinate were not submitted.
4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms
Table 4.9. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Animals.
Taxonomic Group(s)
RQ Calculation
Exposure
Route
Acute
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs are
not calculated
Chronic
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs
are not calculated
Birds, reptiles, and
terrestrial-phase
amphibians
Dietary
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint (LC50 > 5,000
mg/kg diet)
Y
NA
Dose-
adjusted
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint (LD50 > 2,000
mg/kg bw)
N
No toxicity data
requirement
Mammals
Dietary
N
No toxicity data
requirement
Y
NA
Dose-
adjusted
Y
NA
Y
NA
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Contact
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint (LD50 > 100 ]ug
ai/bee)
N
No toxicity data
requirement
-Page 64 of 135-
-------
Table 4.10. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians of Different
Feeding Classes (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
QC
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
&
%
¦a
o
s.
o
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
as
F
-------
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items
si
~-
u
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
¦O
%
¦a
e
o*
Use(s) ^
X
o
JS
in
« >3
O ŁL
as
«-s
P
& %
ti-
•-
A
t;
<
Fallow field
4.34
l.w
2.44
0.27
1.70
Lawns/
gardens
11.13
5.10
0.70
4.3r.
Farmstead/
noncrop areas
12.27
5.r>3
0.77
4.SI
Dietary-based RQ values are based on the mallard duck NOAEC value of 400 mg/kg diet (LOALC 400 nig. kg
diet).
A diii'k shaded coll indicates that the RQ exceds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted birds (LOC = 1).
-Page 66 of 135-
-------
Table 4.11. Acute Dose-based RQ values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QŁ
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
jy on
¦a 5
QŁ
QŁ
ct
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
ct
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
O ŁLd
OS
F
-------
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QŁ
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
-
O
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
ct
-
O
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
OS
F
-------
Table 4.12. Chronic Dose-based RQ Values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T-REX v.1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QŁ
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
%
'«
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
ct
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
o a*
as
p
-------
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QŁ
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
a*
%
ct
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
%
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
o a*
as
P
-------
Table 4.13. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals of Different Feeding Classes.
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
QC
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
&
%
¦a
o
s.
o
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
as
F
-------
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
QC
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
&
¦o ^
a*
%
¦a
o
s.
o
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« Ł
o a*
as
"Z v
P
&
to
•-
A
t;
<
Fallow field
14.46
6.63
8.13
0.90
5.66
Lawns/
gardens
37.09
17.00
20.87
2.32
14.53
Farmstead/
noncrop areas
40.91
18.75
23.01
2.56
16.02
Dietary-based RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAEC value of 120 mg/kg diet (LOAEC 360 mg/kg diet).
A dark shaded cell indicates that the dietary-based RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted
mammals (LOC = 0.5).
Table 4.14. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Plants.
Taxonomic
Group(s)
RQ Calculation
Exposure
Route
Listed
Species
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs
are not calculated
Nonlisted
Species
RQ
(Y/N)
Justification, if RQs
are not calculated
Monocot plants
Spray drift
only
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint
(NOAEL<0.062 lbs
ai/A)
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint (IC25<0.062 lbs
ai/A)
Runoff and
spray drift
Y
NA
Y
NA
Dicot plants
Spray drift
only
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint
(NOAEL<0.018 lbs
ai/A)
N
Nondefinitive toxicity
endpoint (IC25<0.018 lbs
ai/A)
Runoff and
spray drift
Y
NA
Y
NA
-Page 72 of 135-
-------
Table 4.15. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Ground Spray).
Crop
Single Max.
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Monocot RQ Values
Dicot RQ Values
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Canola
0.44
<0.10
0.38
0.37
3.21
<0.10
0.13
0.56
1.07
Citrus
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Corn
0.44
<0.10
0.38
0.37
3.21
<0.10
0.13
0.56
1.07
Cotton
0.53
<0.10
0.45
0.44
3.86
<0.10
0.15
0.68
1.29
Grape vineyard
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Olives
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Pome fruit
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Potato vine
dessication
0.38
<0.10
0.33
0.32
2.77
<0.10
0.11
0.48
0.92
Rice
0.44
<0.10
0.38
0.37
3.21
<0.10
0.13
0.56
1.07
Soybean
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Stone fruit
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Sugarbeet
0.55
<0.10
0.47
0.46
4.01
<0.10
0.16
0.70
1.34
Tree nuts
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
-Page 73 of 135-
-------
Crop
Single Max.
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Monocot RQ Values
Dicot RQ Values
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
<0.10
0.45
0.43
3.79
<0.10
0.15
0.66
1.26
Cotton
0.52
<0.10
0.45
0.43
3.79
<0.10
0.15
0.66
1.26
Rice
0.73
<0.10
0.63
0.61
5.32
0.11
0.21
0.93
1.77
Soybean
0.52
<0.10
0.45
0.43
3.79
<0.10
0.15
0.66
1.26
Burndmvn Uses
Canola
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Corn
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Cotton (pre-
plant)
0.79
<0.10
0.68
0.66
5.76
0.12
0.23
1.01
1.92
Cotton (post-
harvest)
0.79
<0.10
0.68
0.66
5.76
0.12
0.23
1.01
1.92
Rice
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Soybean
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Sugar beet
0.66
<0.10
0.57
0.55
4.81
<0.10
0.19
0.84
1.60
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Fallow field
0.53
<0.10
0.45
0.44
3.86
<0.10
0.15
0.68
1.29
Lawns/
gardens
1.36
0.13
1.17
1.14
9.91
0.20
0.39
1.73
3.30
Fannstead/non
crop areas
1.50
0.15
1.29
1.25
10.9
0.23
0.43
1.91
3.64
Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget monocot plants are based on the onion seedling emergence IC2s = 0.61 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 0.07
lbs ai/A. Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget dicot plants are based on the lettuce seedling emergence IC2s = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL =
-Page 74 of 135-
-------
0.21 lbs ai/A.
A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).
A lighter shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC = 1).
Table 4.16. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Aerial Spray).
Crop
Single Max.
Application
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
Monocot RQ Values
Dicot RQ Values
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Dry Areas)
Runoff and
Spray Drift
(Semi-Aquatic Areas)
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Nonlisted
Species
Listed
Species
Burndown Uses
Canola
0.66
0.11
0.94
0.60
5.19
0.17
0.31
0.91
1.73
Corn
0.66
0.11
0.94
0.60
5.19
0.17
0.31
0.91
1.73
Cotton (pre-
plant)
0.79
0.13
1.13
0.71
6.21
0.20
0.38
1.09
2.07
Cotton (post-
harvest)
0.79
0.13
1.13
0.71
6.21
0.20
0.38
1.09
2.07
Rice
0.66
0.11
0.94
0.60
5.19
0.17
0.31
0.91
1.73
Soybean
0.66
0.11
0.94
0.60
5.19
0.17
0.31
0.91
1.73
Sugar beet
0.66
0.11
0.94
0.60
5.19
0.17
0.31
0.91
1.73
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1.50
0.25
2.14
1.35
11.79
0.38
0.71
2.06
3.93
Fallow field
0.53
<0.10
0.76
0.48
4.16
0.13
0.25
0.73
1.39
Fannstead/non
crop areas
1.50
0.25
2.14
1.35
11.79
0.38
0.71
2.06
3.93
Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget monocot plants are based on the onion seedling emergence IC25 = 0.61 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 0.07
lbs ai/A. Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget dicot plants are based on the lettuce seedling emergence IC2s = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL =
0.21 lbs ai/A.
A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).
A lighter shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC = 1).
-Page 75 of 135-
-------
4.2. Refinements for Scenarios that Failed the Screen
4.2.1. EECs and RQs for Aquatic Nonvascular Plants Using Avg.
Application Rates
For those scenarios that failed the screening-level assessment for aquatic nonvascular plants,
average application rates (when available from BEAD, Table 3.2) were used to develop refined
exposure estimates. The only two scenarios that failed the screening assessment and had data on
average application rates were for tree nuts and cotton (preplant burndown). An average
application rate for tree nuts (0.95 lbs ai/A) was calculated by taking the total mass of glufosinate
reportedly applied for tree nut crops (almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, walnuts; 286,000 lbs ai) and
dividing by the approximate total number of acres treated for these crop uses (EPA Proprietary
Data, 2007-2011; C. Doucoure, OPP/BEAD). The average application rate for cotton was 0.4
lbs ai/A applied an average of 1.4 times, so two applications were modeled to be protective.
For tree nuts, EECs were generated based on one application and three applications at the
average single application rate of 0.95 lbs ai/A; these EECs were 10.7 |ig/L and 47 |ig/L,
respectively. The RQ values based on a single application at the average application rate for tree
nuts do not exceed the LOCs for either risk to listed or nonlisted aquatic nonvascular plants
"3
(LOC=l). However, when three applications (the maximum permitted on the label) are
modeled using the average application rate, the RQ value for listed species exceeds the Agency's
LOC.4 For cotton (preplant burndown), the EEC based on two applications at the average rate
was 30.4 |ig/L, resulting in RQs below the LOCs for risk to listed and nonlisted aquatic
nonvascular plants.
4.2.2. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs
for Average Application Rates
Where available, average application rates for specific crops (Table 3.2) are used to generate
terrestrial RQ values for risk characterization (Table 4.18 and Tables 4.20 through 4.22). For
characterization purposes in this assessment, the RQ values using average application rates are
based on the mean Kenaga nomogram EECs (Table 4.17 and 4.19) instead of the upper bound
EECs, which are used for more conservative screening-level RQ calculation for terrestrial
animals (see previous Section 4.1). Consistent with the screening-level risk estimation, refined
RQ values are calculated for chronic risk to birds and for acute and chronic risk to mammals.
RQ values are not calculated for acute risk to birds because the toxicity endpoints are non-
definitive (LD50 >2,000 mg/kg bw, LC50 > 5,000 mg/kg diet). Therefore, and because chronic
avian toxicity data are presented on a dietary (not dose-adjusted) basis, dose-based EECs for
birds are omitted from this section.
The average application rates and numbers of applications reported for specific crops (e.g.,
hazelnuts) are less than the maximum application rates and numbers of applications permitted by
the label for a group of crops (e.g., tree nuts). However, average application rates were not
3 Listed species RQ: 11 ug/L EEC/41 ug/L NOAEL=0.27; nonlisted species RQ: 11 ug/L EEC/72 ug/L IC50=0.15.
4 Listed species RQ: 47 ug/L EEC/41 ug/L NOAEL=1.15; nonlisted species RQ: 47 ug/L EEC/72 ug/L IC50=0.65.
-Page 76 of 135-
-------
available for all uses where screening-level RQ values exceeded the LOC. Although these data
on average application rates are based upon limited data sets, they are useful in supporting a
lower end estimate for potential risk to nontarget organisms when the screening level RQ value
(or similar comparison) exceeds the LOC. Toward this end, when usage data were available for
more than one crop (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts) in a representative crop group (e.g., tree
nuts), a single application of the lowest average application rate for the crop group is used as the
basis for generating the lower end RQs reported in the following tables.
Table 4.17. Mean Kenaga Dietary EECs (mg ai/kg diet) for Birds, Reptiles, Terrestrial-phase Amphibians,
and Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivorcs, and Granivorcs
Inscctivorcs
Dietary Items ->
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦O 5
ft*
%
¦a
o
o
Use(s) ^
X
o
JS
in
O ŁL
as
«-8
'5 ^
P
u.
•-
JS
"E
<
Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)
Canola (oilseed rape)
32
13
17
3
24
Corn
66
28
35
5
50
Cotton
34
14
18
3
26
Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only)
77
33
41
6
59
Pome fruit (apples only)
70
30
37
6
53
Potato
31
13
16
3
23
Soybean
37
15
19
3
28
Stone fruit (plums only)
47
20
25
4
36
Tree nuts (hazelnuts only)
60
26
32
5
46
Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant-Submitted Usage Estimates)
Conifer/hardwood trees
72
31
38
6
55
Fallow field
62
26
33
5
47
Farmstead/noncrop areas
318
135
168
26
243
Table 4.18. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs1 for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians Based on
Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivorcs, and Granivorcs
Inscctivorcs
Dietary Items
si
~-
u
Tall Grass
'S
¦a S
¦O f?
&
¦a
o
o
Use(s) si'
t
©
JS
xn
« iS
Ł Ph
as
«-s
p V
hm
u.
•-
JS
t
<
Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)
Canola (oilseed rape)
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.06
Corn
0.16
0.07
0.09
0.01
0.13
Cotton
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.07
-Page 77 of 135-
-------
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
QC
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
&
%
¦a
o
s.
o
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
as
F 400
mg/kg diet).
A shaded cell indicates that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC for chronic risk to listed
and nonlisted birds (LOC = 1).
-Page 78 of 135-
-------
Table 4.19. Mean, Dose-Adjusted Kenaga EECs (mg ai/kg bw) for Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
si
~-
o
Tall Grass
'S
QJ 5fl
¦a 5
"O C?
8.^
es
~-
o
Tall Grass
"a
p2S **
¦o s
¦© cj
ft*
5«
5«
O
Tall Grass
'S
OJ
¦a a
a?
"O f?
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) sp
E
©
a
tn
O eu
•- "
ffl
Ł -3
*5 ^
P
&
fa
t;
o
A
in
as si
2 S
CO
Ł -S
P o
%
Sm
t;
o
A
in
es
8 5
CO
«-8
p o
& %
ti
Agricultural
i/.ve.v (Unspecified Scenario)
Canola
(oilseed rape)
85
39
48
5
59
27
33
4
14
6
8
i
33
23
5
1
1
<1
Corn
63
27
33
5
43
18
23
4
10
4
5
i
48
33
8
1
1
<1
Cotton
32
14
17
3
22
9
12
2
5
2
3
-------
Table 4.20. Acute Dose-based RQs1 (Mean) for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QŁ
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
jy on
¦a 5
a*
%
ct
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
a*
%
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
a*
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
ffl
F
-------
Table 4.21. Chronic Dose-based RQs1 for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v.1.5).
Primary Feeding
Strategy ->
Herbivores and Omnivores
Insectivores
Granivores
Animal Size ->
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Sm
Med
Lg
Dietary Items ->
QC
QC
-
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a 5
%
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
%
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
¦a a
Arthropods
Seeds, grains, etc.
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
as
F
-------
A shaded cell indicates that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC.
An RQ value of 3 or greater in this table means that the the average EEC based on a single application at the average application rate is equal to or greater than
the lowest dose (LOAEL) at which chronic effects were seen in laboratory mammals.
Table 4.22. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).
Primary Feeding Strategy ->
Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores
Insectivores
Dietary Items ->
QŁ
u
o
Tall Grass
'S
jy on
¦a 5
&
a*
%
¦a
o
s.
o
Use(s) >4/
r
o
JS
cn
« .2
O ŁLd
as
F ^
& %
li
•-
JS
•c
<
A
^ricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)
Canola
0.26
0.11
0.14
0.02
0.20
Corn
0.55
0.23
0.29
0.05
0.42
Cotton
0.28
0.12
0.15
0.02
0.22
Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only)
0.64
0.27
0.34
0.05
0.49
Pome fruit (apples only)
0.58
0.25
0.31
0.05
0.44
Potato
0.26
0.11
0.14
0.02
0.20
Soybean
0.30
0.13
0.16
0.03
0.23
Stone fruit (plums only)
0.39
0.17
0.21
0.03
0.30
Tree nuts (hazelnuts only)
0.50
0.21
0.27
0.04
0.38
Nonagricultiiral Uses (Based on Registrant-Submitted Usage Estimates)
Conifer/hardwood trees
0.60
0.25
0.32
0.05
0.46
Fallow field
0.52
0.22
0.27
0.04
0.39
Farmstead/
noncrop areas
2.65
1.12
1.40
0.22
2.03
Dietary-based chronic RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAEC value of 120 mg/kg diet (LOAEC 360 mg/kg diet).
Bolded values indicate RQs that exceed the level of concern for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals (LOC =1).
A shaded cell indicates that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC.
-Page 82 of 135-
-------
4.2.3. Refinements for Terrestrial Plants
TerrPlant uses a simple model to assess runoff from application sites by adjusting the application
rate using the incorporation depth and a runoff fraction. For foliar applications, the incorporation
depth is set to 1, so the only adjustment made is based on the runoff fraction. The runoff fraction
is based on solubility, with the fraction increasing as the solubility increases. This is a logical
assumption, as the more soluble a pesticide is, the more likely that it will be retained in the
surface water runoff.
For a Tier I model, this approach is appropriate, as those pesticides that are not toxic to plants are
easily screened out. However, this model leaves little room for refining those exposure
assessments where plant exposure is an issue. Additionally, this model does not account for
other processes (e.g., degradation in soil and water, adsorption to soil, etc.) that reduce
concentrations in runoff.
An approach to refining these estimates could be to look at the concentrations of the pesticide in
the runoff being generated by PRZM. This would account for application-specific (e.g.,
application timing, precipitation, percolation of water into the soil) and chemical-specific
parameters (e.g., aerobic soil degradation, soil sorption, aquatic degradation) in the development
of exposure estimates. Using the parameters built into PRZM that quantify pesticide mass in the
runoff and the runoff volume, a more accurate estimate of the amount of pesticide leaving the
field could be obtained. With this approach, the terrestrial plant exposure estimates and
associated RQ values would be expected to drop by a factor of approximately 3. However, given
that screening-level RQ values for listed monocot species range as high as 10.9 and 5.19 for
ground and aerial applications, respectively, in agricultural settings and as high as 11.8 in
nonagricultural settings, the refined exposure values would likely still result in RQ values that
exceed the risk to listed species LOC for some uses. There is uncertainty regarding potential risk
from spray drift because effects on plant growth were seen at all treatment levels in the most
sensitive monocot (onion) and dicot (cucumber) species in the vegetative vigor study.
4.3. Risk Description
4.3.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms
4.3.1.1. Freshwater Fish, Amphibians, and Invertebrates
RQ values for freshwater fish exposed to glufosinate TGAI are not presented in the Risk
Estimation because the toxicity endpoint is non-definitive, i.e., rainbow trout LC50 > 312,000 |ig
ai/L, and no guideline chronic toxicity data were submitted. To characterize the potential for
acute risk to freshwater fish associated with the registered uses of glufosinate, the highest peak
surface water EEC from the assessed uses (390 |ig/L, GMO seed propagation for rice; Table 3.9)
is compared to non-definitive acute toxicity endpoint for rainbow trout. The EEC for this direct
application to aquatic habitat is less than or equal to 0.1% of the LC50. For aquatic animals, an
acute EEC that exceeds 5% of the effects endpoint would exceed the Agency's acute risk LOC
for listed species, and an acute EEC that exceeds 50% of that effects endpoint would exceed the
-Page 83 of 135-
-------
acute risk LOC for nonlisted species. Therefore, the potential for acute risk to freshwater fish
(and aquatic-phase amphibians for which freshwater fish serve as surrogates) from exposure to
technical grade glufosinate in surface water is low. However, at least one incident involving
freshwater fish mortality has been documented as having a "probable" association with the spray
application of glufosinate in a nearby field (see Section 3.3.3), It is unknown whether the fish
mortality was related to oxygen depletion from direct effects of glufosinate on aquatic plants or
perhaps from ammonium toxicity if additional sources of ammonium (such as fertilizer runoff)
were present in the watershed.
In the absence of chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish early life stages, the best available data
from OECD toxicity studies with freshwater fish are compared to surface water EECs to evaluate
the potential for chronic risk. The highest 60-day surface water EEC (51.7 ug/L, fallow fields
and lawn-and-garden) for glufosinate is equal to 0.1% of the NOAEC for survival (50,000 ug/L)
in the 21-day OECD study with juvenile rainbow trout. The highest EEC for rice (390 ug/L,
GMO seed propagation) is equal to 0.8% of the NOAEC for survival in this study. Therefore,
the chronic risk to freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibians from exposure to glufosinate
TGAI is likely low.
RQ values for freshwater invertebrates exposed to the TGAI are below the LOCs for acute risk
LOCs for listed species (LOC = 0.05) and for acute (LOC = 0.5) and chronic (LOC = 1) risk to
non-listed species. Therefore, risks to freshwater invertebrates from the registered uses of
glufosinate (TGAI) are low.
Given that the maximum estimated concentration of glufosinate in shallow groundwater derived
using PRZM-GW (26.4 |ig/L, non-agricultural uses) is approximately 7% of the peak
concentration in surface water (390 ug/L, GMO seed propagation for rice), and the available data
indicate that acute risk to freshwater fish from glufosinate exposure in surface water is unlikely,
acute risk to freshwater fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, and invertebrates exposed to the TGAI
in groundwater (e.g., groundwater discharge to surface water, cave ecosystems) is also low.
The submitted ecotoxicity data indicate that formulated glufosinate is consistently more toxic to
fish and aquatic invertebrates than the TGAI. To better characterize the potential risk to aquatic
organisms associated with spray drift of formulated glufosinate, additional surface water EECs
were calculated based on spray drift alone (see Table 3.9). The RQ values calculated using these
EECs and the acute formulated product toxicity endpoints for rainbow trout (LC50 = 4,300 |ig
ai/L) and water flea (EC50 = 2,400 |ig ai/L), respectively, are all less than or equal to 0.01.
However, the EECs for direct application of glufosinate to rice paddies (390 ug/L, GMO seed
propagation; 375 ug/L, in-field application to GMO rice) are considerably higher at
approximately 9% and 16% of the acute toxicity endpoints for rainbow trout and water flea
(respectively), based on studies with a Typical End-use Product (TEP, 18.5% ai) considered
representative of the formulations approved for use on rice (Liberty 280, 24.5% ai, and Liberty,
18.2%) ai). Based on these calculations, the direct application of formulated glufosinate to
flooded rice paddies may present acute risk to listed species of freshwater fish, amphibians, and
invertebrates that are located either in the rice paddy or in downstream receiving waters that
receive large discharges of paddy water, if the release occurs shortly after glufosinate treatment.
-Page 84 of 135-
-------
Aquatic concentrations of glufosinate would need to be below 215 and 120 ug ai/L, respectively,
to determine that risks to freshwater fish and invertebrates are below the acute risk to listed
species LOCs. Potential risks to fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, or invertebrates in freshwater
aquatic habitats from spray drift only of formulated glufosinate are expected to be low.
The sensitivity of benthic invertebrates to glufosinate is uncertain because ecotoxicity data have
not been submitted. However, the physicochemical properties of glufosinate suggest that it is
unlikely to partition to sediment in most soils (i.e., Koc < 1,000 in all soils tested except volcanic
ash); therefore, the potential for benthic invertebrates to be exposed to glufosinate in sediment is
considered low.
4.3.1.2. Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates
RQ values for estuarine/marine fish exposed to glufosinate TGAI are not presented in the Risk
Estimation because the toxicity endpoint is non-definitive (sheepshead minnow LC50 > 963,000
|ig ai/L) and no chronic toxicity data were submitted. To characterize the potential for acute risk
to estuarine/marine fish associated with the registered uses of glufosinate, the highest peak
surface water EEC from the assessed uses (390 |ig/L, GMO seed propagation for rice) is
compared to the non-definitive acute toxicity endpoint for sheepshead minnow. EECs for all
proposed uses are less than 0.01% of the LC50. Therefore, the likelihood of acute mortality in
estuarine/marine fish from exposure to technical grade glufosinate is low.
In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish, the best available data from
OECD chronic toxicity studies with freshwater fish are used to evaluate the potential for chronic
risk to estuarine/marine fish. Based on these data, estuarine/marine fish would need to be
approximately 128 times more sensitive than the juvenile rainbow trout in the nonguideline 21-
day toxicity test to trigger a chronic risk concern based on the highest 60-day EEC for rice (285
ug/L, GMO seed propagation). While the likelihood of chronic exposure of estuarine/marine
fish to undiluted or minimally diluted paddy water is uncertain, it is considered low. It is
unknown to what extent tidal flux may increase (through repeated, pulsed exposures to
glufosinate in downstream tidal waterways or backwaters) versus decrease (through dilution)
glufosinate exposure, or to what extent tidal influx may introduce fish and invertebrates into the
rice paddy. Further refinements could consider the acreage of rice grown in proximity to
estuarine/marine environments. Overall, chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish from exposure to
technical grade glufosinate is expected to be low.
Most of the assessed uses of glufosinate TGAI result in RQ values for estuarine/marine
invertebrates, including molluscs, that are below the acute risk to listed species LOC (0.05) and
non-listed species LOC (0.5). However, the uses on GMO rice, including seed propagation,
result in RQ values that meet the LOC for acute risk to listed species (RQ=0.05). The chance of
o
an individual effect (mortality) associated with this RQ is 1 in 4x10 , with confidence intervals
31
of 1 in 216 to 1 in 2x10 . In the case of rice, the RQ applies to organisms in the treated rice
paddy. The RQ values for acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates outside the treated rice
paddy are expected to be below the LOCs for both listed and nonlisted species if any dilution of
released paddy water occurs.
-Page 85 of 135-
-------
In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates, the freshwater
invertebrate acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR = 21, water flea) and the acute toxicity endpoint for
mysid shrimp (EC50 = 7,500 |ig ai/L) are used to estimate a chronic toxicity endpoint (NOAEC =
360 ug ai/L). The highest 21-day EECs for rice (348 ug/L, GMO seed propagation, and 335 ug
ai/L, in-field application to GMO rice) exceed the estimated NOAEC. Therefore, chronic risk to
estuarine/marine invertebrates in the rice paddy cannot be precluded. Chronic risk to
estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to released paddy water is expected to be less than risk to
invertebrates inside the paddy because exposure is expected to be intermittent, of shorter
duration, and of lesser magnitude if dilution occurs. The 21-day surface water EECs for other
uses of glufosinate range from 2.48 ug/L (olives) to 57.5 ug/L (fallow field and lawn-and-
garden) and are less than 15% of the estimated NOAEC. Accordingly, chronic risk to
estuarine/marine invertebrates from non-rice uses of glufosinate is low. The submittal of chronic
toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates may help to further refine these estimates and
potentially to preclude risk associated with any chronic exposure from the rice uses, if these data
demonstrate that mysid shrimp are less than 21 times (ACR-estimated factor) as sensitive to
glufosinate on a chronic exposure basis than they are on an acute exposure basis.
The submitted ecotoxicity data indicate that formulated glufosinate is more toxic to
estuarine/marine fish and molluscs than the TGAI. Peak surface water EECs from spray drift
alone (up to 14.74 |ig/L, fallow field) are equal to or less than 0.7% and 3% of the formulated
product acute toxicity endpoints for sheepshead minnow (LC50 = 2,420 |ig ai/L) and Eastern
oyster (EC50 = 500 |ig ai/L), respectively. The EECs for direct application of glufosinate to rice
paddies (390 ug/L, GMO seed propagation; 375 ug/L, in-field application to GMO rice) are
approximately 16% and 78% of the acute toxicity endpoints for sheepshead minnow and Eastern
oyster, respectively. Based on these calculations, the direct application of formulated glufosinate
to flooded rice paddies in coastal areas may present acute risk to listed species of
estuarine/marine fish and to both listed and nonlisted species of estuarine/marine invertebrates, if
they are located either in the rice paddy or in downstream receiving waters that receive large
discharges of paddy water shortly after glufosinate treatment. Although low salinity is generally
required for the successful cultivation of rice, the occurrence and potential exposure of
estuarine/marine organisms cannot be precluded for rice habitats in proximity to coastal areas
which are subject to tidal incursions. Nonetheless, dilution would reduce exposure and associated
risk for organisms in downstream receiving waters. The likelihood of adverse acute effects to
estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates from spray drift only of formulated glufosinate is low.
The sensitivity of benthic estuarine/marine invertebrates to glufosinate is uncertain because
ecotoxicity data for benthic invetebrates have not been submitted. However, the
physicochemical properties of glufosinate suggest that it is unlikely to partition to sediment in
most soils (i.e., Koc < 1,000 in all soils tested except volcanic ash). Therefore, the potential for
benthic estuarine/marine invertebrates to be exposed to glufosinate in sediment is expected to be
low. Estuarine/marine invertebrates that spend a portion of their life cycle in benthos but other
portion(s) of their life cycle in the water column may be at risk of adverse effects from exposure
to glufosinate in the water column in excess of the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk
LOCs, based on the application scenarios described above. However, sediment pore water EECs
-Page 86 of 135-
-------
for glufosinate from the uses on rice (0.0004 to 0.00007 ug/L) are approximately six orders of
magnitude lower than the associated water column (surface water) EECs for these uses (375 -
390 ug/L). Ecotoxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to glufosinate in the
water column were compared to sediment pore water EECs as a surrogate metric of potential risk
from the use on rice. The resulting RQ values were less than or equal to 8 x 10"7; therefore, risk
from this exposure pathway is considered low.
4.3.1.3. Aquatic Plants
The registered uses of glufosinate result in RQ values below the LOC (1) for listed and nonlisted
species of aquatic vascular plants. The highest RQ values (listed species RQ=0.49, nonlisted
species RQ=0.27) result from the GMO seed propagation use on rice. Similarly, RQ values
based on spray drift EECs and toxicity endpoints for formulated glufosinate are all <0.01.
Therefore, risk to nontarget aquatic vascular plants from aquatic exposure to glufosinate is low.
The screening-level RQ values for registered uses of glufosinate on rice (GMO seed propagation,
in-field application to GMO rice, and burndown) and tree nuts exceed the Agency's LOCs for
both listed and nonlisted species of aquatic nonvascular plants (e.g., algae), based on reductions
in cell density, biomass, and growth rate in a laboratory toxicity test with the blue-green alga
(Anabaena flos-aquae). The blue-green alga is used for regulatory toxicity testing of pesticides
because it is often a sensitive indicator species in laboratory toxicity tests; in the case of
glufosinate, the toxicity endpoints for the blue-green alga were lower than endpoints from
previously submitted studies with other algal and diatom species (Table 3.18). When compared
to the endpoints for the blue-green alga, screening-level RQ values for the uses on citrus, pre-
plant burndown for cotton, and fallow field also exceed the LOC for listed species. All other
uses result in RQ values below the LOCs for both listed and nonlisted species. For uses with
which potential risk has been identified, the actual risk of adverse effects in different aquatic
nonvascular plant species is expected to be variable, as toxicity endpoints in the submitted
studies ranged from 41 ug/L (NOAEC, blue-green alga) to 100,000 ug/L (NOAEC; green alga,
Scenedesmus subspicatus). While there are currently no listed species of aquatic nonvascular
plants, the degree to which effects on the aquatic plant community may result in indirect effects
on other organisms is uncertain. For example, fish kill incidents have been reported which might
be attributable to indirect effects (e.g., dissolved oxygen levels) of glufosinate.
-Page 87 of 135-
-------
4.3.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms
4.3.2.1. Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians
Screening-level RQ values for acute and sub-acute exposures were not calculated in the Risk
Estimation section of this assessment because no mortality was observed at the highest treatment
levels tested in the avian acute oral and sub-acute dietary studies. To gain a better understanding
of how the EECs for the maximum glufosinate application rates for the assessed uses relate to the
toxicity data currently available for birds, dietary- and dose-based EECs from the T-REX model
are compared to the highest treatment concentrations in the avian acute and sub-acute toxicity
tests, where no mortality was observed.
For agricultural uses of glufosinate, the maximum avian dose-based EEC is 1,160 mg/kg bw
(small birds consuming short grass) for the uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, and
tree nuts. The maximum avian dose-based EEC for non-agricultural uses is 5,591 mg/kg bw
(small birds consuming short grass) for farmstead and noncrop areas, which is driven by unclear
labels which do not specify the maximum number of applications or minimum retreatment
intervals for these uses. These EECs are approximately 58% and 280%, respectively, of the
maximum dose tested (2,000 mg/kg diet) in the acute oral toxicity tests with bobwhite quail and
mallard duck. Although no mortality was observed in either of these studies (LD50 > 2,000 mg
/kg bw), sublethal effects, including lethargy and diarrhea, were observed in bobwhite quail
exposed to 2,000 mg/kg bw glufosinate; however, similar effects were not observed in mallard
ducks at the limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg bw. The maximum dietary-based EECs (not dose-
adjusted) for agricultural and non-agricultural uses of glufosinate are 1,019 mg/kg diet (short
grass) and 4,909 mg/kg diet (short grass), respectively; the higher EECs for non-agricultural uses
are driven by the absence of label restrictions on the number of applications or retreatment
intervals. The dietary EECs reach 20% and 98% of the maximum concentration tested (5,000
mg/kg diet) in the sub-acute dietary toxicity tests with bobwhite quail and mallard duck. No
mortality was observed in either of these studies (LC50 > 5,000 mg/kg diet) and none of the
sublethal effects reported in the acute oral toxicity test of quail were observed in the subacute
dietary toxicity tests with either quail or mallards.
No mortality was observed in any of the four acute and aub-acute toxicity tests, each of which
tested up to the standard limit dose or concentration for that study type. No ecological incidents
with birds, reptiles, or amphibians have been reported (ABC 2007, USEPA 2012). Therefore,
risk of acute mortality from the currently registered uses of glufosinate is likely low. However, a
definitive estimate of acute risk to these taxa is not possible at this time because of the relatively
high EECs for both agricultural and non-agricultural uses of glufosinate, the nondefinitive
toxicity endpoints in acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity tests, and the presence of sublethal
effects in one study. More information is needed to refine the current estimates of terrestrial
exposure and avian toxicity for glufosinate; such information could include more detailed label
instructions regarding maximum application rates, numbers of re-applications, and re-application
intervals (especially for non-agricultural uses) and information on the effects of glufosinate
exposure at higher oral (i.e., by gavage) and dietary concentrations. Additionally, it is unknown
-Page 88 of 135-
-------
whether passerine species may be more sensitive to glufosinate exposure than the bobwhite quail
and mallard duck; although acute toxicity testing with a passerine species is now required per 40
CFR Part 158.630 (2008), a data call-in for passerine testing was not issued at the time of
Problem Formulation.
Screening-level chronic RQ values for the uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree
nuts, and all non-agricultural uses (conifer and hardwood trees, fallow field, lawn-and-garden,
and farmestead/noncrop areas) exceed the LOC for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, and amphibians
exposed to glufosinate in the diet. The RQ values for these uses exceed the chronic risk LOC for
four out of five dietary items, including short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, and arthropods.
The uses on blueberry and stone fruit result in RQ values that exceed the chronic risk LOC for
short grass only. The RQ value associated with a given food item (e.g., short grass) assumes that
the specific food item constitutes 100% of an organism's diet. Therefore, for the uses on
blueberry and stone fruit, chronic risk is expected to be lower for organisms that forage on a
wider variety of food items (i.e., generalists) than for specialists that primarily consume
vegetation like short grass. However, for the other uses that trigger chronic risk concerns, the
potential scope of risk across species is greater because almost every dietary forage item is
affected. None of the assessed uses result in RQ values that exceed the chronic risk LOC for
fruits, seeds, and pods; therefore, potential chronic risk to strict granivores and frugivores (fruit-
eaters) is low.
Each of the agricultural uses that triggers a chronic risk concern for birds has a maximum label
application rate of 1.5 lbs ai/A per application. Uses that exceed the LOC only for short grass
allow up to two applications, whereas uses that exceed the LOC for most dietary items allow up
to three applications (see Figure 4.1). Screening-level RQ values would not exceed the chronic
risk LOC for birds if the application scenario for these uses were limited to two applications of
less than 1.0 lb ai/A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 14 days, or three applications of up
to 0.80 lb ai/A with a minimum retreatment interval of 22 days. Currently, minimum retreatment
interval requirements are not included on these labels.
High uncertainty surrounds the estimated exposure and associated risk from non-agricultural
uses of glufosinate because neither minimum retreatment intervals nor maximum numbers of
applications are specified on the labels.
As described in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1993) and the T-REX User's
Guide (v. 1.5, USEPA 2012),
The typical 21-week avian reproduction study does not define the true exposure duration
needed to elicit the observed responses. The study protocol was designed to establish a
steady-state tissue concentration for bioaccumulative compounds. For other pesticides, it
is entirely possible that steady-state tissue concentrations are achieved earlier than the
21-week exposure period. Moreover, pesticides may exert effects at critical periods of
the reproduction cycle and so long term exposure may not be necessary to elicit the effect
observed in the 21-week protocol. The EFED screening risk assessment uses the single-
day maximum estimated EEC as a conservative approach. The degree to which this
-Page 89 of 135-
-------
exposure is conservative cannot be determined by the existing reproduction study. ... The
greater number of days EECs exceed the NOAEC, the greater the confidence in
predictions of reproductive risk concerns.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are taken from the T-REX model and illustrate the number of days for
which the screening level (upper-bound) dietary EECs for a common glufosinate application
scenario exceeds the Agency's LOCs for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial-phase
amphibians and for mammals, respectively. Residues on multiple food items exceed the
NOAEC for effects on avian reproduction (400 mg/kg diet), based on the highest concentration
tested with mallard duck. However, only residues on short grass meet or exceed the LOAEC
(956 mg/kg diet) where adverse effects were actually observed, in the recently reviewed study
with bobwhite quail. In this scenario, the definitive LOAEC is only exceeded after the third
application of glufosinate, and residues drop below the LOAEC after approximately five days.
Day
Figure 4.1. Terrestrial dietary EECs for glufosinate applied 3 times at 1.5 lbs ai/A with a retreatment
interval of 3 days (citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwoods). Day 0 =
date of first application. (T-REX v. 1.5)
-Page 90 of 135-
-------
4.3.2.2.
Mammals
The agricultural uses of glufosinate for citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, and tree nuts
result in dose-adjusted RQ values that exceed the LOC for acute risk to listed species of
mammals (LOC = 0.1). The listed species LOC is exceeded for small (15 g; RQ = 0.15) and
medium (35 g; RQ = 0.12) mammals that primarily consume short grass. The uses on blueberry
and stone fruit result in RQ values that exceed the listed species LOC only for small mammals
consuming short grass (RQ = 0.10). The chance of an individual effect (mortality) associated
with the highest acute RQ value for agricultural uses (RQ = 0.15) is calculated as 1 in 9,560,
13
with default confidence intervals (CI) of 1 in 20 to 1 in 2 x 10 , to account for potential variation
in the slope of the dose-response relationship (USEPA 2004).
Non-agricultural uses of glufosinate are generally associated with higher RQ values. RQ values
for the uses on farmstead/noncrop areas and lawn-and-garden exceed the acute risk LOC for
nonlisted species of mammals (small and medium, consuming short grass). RQ values for these
two uses also exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC for all mammals except strict
granivores and frugivores. RQ values for fallow field uses exceed the acute risk to listed species
LOC for all mammals consuming short grass, small and medium mammals consuming tall grass
and broadleaf plants, and small mammals consuming arthropods. The use on conifer and
hardwood trees results in RQ values that exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC for small
and medium mammals consuming short grass. The chance of an individual effect (mortality)
associated with the use on conifer and hardwood trees is similar to that for agricultural uses
because the highest RQ for this use is 0.15. There is a greater chance of individual mortality
associated with the fallow field use (e.g., RQ=0.25; 1 in 297, CI 1 in 9 to 1 in 3 x 107). The
highest chance of mortality in wild mammals is associated with the lawn-and-garden and
farmstead/noncrop uses (e.g., RQ=0.70; 1 in 4, CI 1 in 3 to 1 in 12), driven by unclear labeling.
However, acute risk to strict granivores and frugivores from the registered uses of glufosinate is
low, as none of the dose-adjusted RQ values for these dietary items exceed the Agency's LOCs.
The submitted mammalian toxicity data for Liberty® 280 SL Herbicide (LD50 = 243 mg ai/kg
bw), a formulated product for which new uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives, and stone fruit were
recently registered, indicate that formulated glufosinate can be more toxic to mammals than the
TGAI, by more than an order of magnitude. The Agency's level of concern for acute risk to
nonlisted mammals is exceeded when EECs exceed 50% of the effects threshold for the active
ingredient (i.e., LD50 value). As identified in the previous ecological risk assessment for these
uses, the maximum dose-based EEC for the uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives (971 mg/kg bw,
short grass) is approximately 4 times the LD50 value for formulated glufosinate and 8 times the
concentration (i.e., V2 LD50) that could trigger concern for acute risk to nonlisted mammals. The
maximum EEC for the use on stone fruit (667 mg/kg bw, short grass) is 2.7 times the LD50 value
and 5.5 times the level that could trigger concern for nonlisted mammals. These comparisons
illustrate that acute risk to mammals exposed to formulated glufosinate, and specifically to the
Liberty® 280 SL product, may be greater than the calculated risk from exposure to the TGAI.
Screening-level chronic RQ values indicate a potential for risk to mammals associated with all
registered uses. Dietary and dose-adjusted RQ values for agricultural uses and for the use on
-Page 91 of 135-
-------
conifer and hardwood trees generally indicate potential chronic risk to all mammals except
medium and large granivores. RQ values for nonagricultural fallow field and lawn-and-garden
uses also exceed the chronic risk LOC for medium granivores. The RQ values for use on
farmstead and noncrop areas exceed the chronic risk LOC for every size and dietary class of
mammals, including large granivores. The screening-level RQ values for nonagri cultural uses
are sensitive to the assumptions of re-application (every 3 days) and retreatment intervals (up to
26 applications per year for fallow field, lawn-and-garden, and farmstead/noncrop areas), and the
values for conifer and hardwood uses may be more realistic estimates of risk for this category.
However, the chronic risk LOC is still exceeded for most mammals based on the more
prescriptive agricultural and tree scenarios and when much less conservative RQ values are
calculated for characterization based on mean EECs using average application rates. For
mammals, chronic RQ values > 3 indicate that glufosinate EECs are equal to or greater than
exposure levels at which adverse effects were seen in laboratory mammals. Therefore, there is
high confidence in the conclusion that the use of glufosinate in accordance with registered labels
may result in chronic risk to mammals.
The adverse effects observed in laboratory studies with mammals at concentrations and dose-
levels less than or equal to the screening-level EECs include reductions in parental and offspring
growth and offpsring viability. These effects have been observed in multiple studies and have
been shown to extend to the second generation (no subsequent generations were tested). At
higher concentrations (4,500 mg/kg diet, 292 mg/kg bw/day), total litter losses were observed at
approximately twice the rate of controls. Dose-adjusted EECs exceed this value (> 292 mg/kg
bw) for the uses on blueberry, citrus, cotton, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree
nuts, GMO seed propagation for rice, pre-plant and post-harvest burndown for cotton, and all
non-agricultural uses of glufosinate.
To further characterize the potential for chronic risk to mammals from the uses of glufosinate,
dietary EECs were compared to the chronic LOAEC (360 mg/kg diet; daily dose equivalent 18
mg/kg bw/day) from the two-generation reproduction study with the rat. The ditary EECs for
uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, and all nonagri cultural
uses generally exceed this LOAEC for all food items except fruits, pods, and seeds. These
results demonstrate that the potential for chronic risk to mammals, as indicated by screening-
level RQ values which exceed the chronic risk LOC, is substantiated because treatment-related
effects have been documented in laboratory studies at concentrations within the range of EECs
for many of these uses.
-Page 92 of 135-
-------
Day
Figure 4.2. Terrestrial dietary EECs for glufosinate applied 3 times at 1.5 lbs ai/A with a retreatment
interval of 3 days (citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwoods). Day 0 =
date of first application. (T-REXv. 1.5)
4.3.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates
Based on the available data for young adult honey bees, both glufosinate TGAI and formulated
glufosinate are classified as practically nontoxic to nontarget terrestrial invertebrates on both an
acute contact and oral exposure basis. The results of the acute studies show no significant
mortality to young adult (foraging) bees at any treatment level, with corresponding LD50 values
of >100 |ig ai/bee for both oral and contact exposure. There is uncertainty regarding the toxicity
of glufosinate to bee larvae since no data on this age group of honey bees were available at the
time of this review. However, no incidents for terrestrial invertebrates associated with the
application of glufosinate have been reported.
The honey bee is used as a representative species to assess the risks of glufosinate use to listed
species of terrestrial invertebrates. For characterization purposes, a toxicity value for terrestrial
invertebrates is calculated by multiplying the nondefinitive honey bee acute contact LDso (>100 jig
ai/bee) for glufosinate by 1 bee/0.128 g, based on the average weight of an adult honey bee (Mayer
and Johansen, 1990). Dietary-based EECs calculated by T-REX (|ig ai/g) for arthropods are then
divided by the adjusted toxicity value for terrestrial invertebrates (>781 jig ai/g). The resulting
-Page 93 of 135-
-------
values range from 0.05 (potato vine dessication) to 2.46 (farmstead/noncrop areas) and meet or
exceed the interim LOC for acute risk to listed species of terrestrial invertebrates (0.05) for all uses.
Although these values meet or exceed the LOC in all cases, they remain difficult to interpret because
(1) no effects were observed in honey bees exposed to the limit dose, and (2) because the limit dose
is lower than the T-REX EEC in cases where the resulting ratio is >1.
Table 4.23. Comparison of T-REX EECs (Upper Bound Kenaga Nomogram) to the Non-definitive Endpoint
for Acute Contact Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera).
Use(s)
App. Rate
(lbs ai/A)
EECs
(Hg ai/g bw)
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
LC50 > 100 ng ai/bee
>781 ng ai/gbw
Limit Dose: EEC
factor of 20 corresponds
to RO LOC=0.05
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
274
2.85
Canola
0.44
77
10.1
Citrus
1.50
399
1.96
Corn
0.44
73
10.7
Cotton
0.53
124
6.30
Grape vineyard
1.50
399
1.96
Olives
1.50
399
1.96
Pome fruit
1.50
399
1.96
Potato vine dessication
0.38
36
21.7
Rice
0.44
75
10.4
Soybean
0.66
113
6.91
Stone fruit
1.50
274
2.85
Sugarbeet
0.55
100
7.81
Tree nuts
1.50
399
1.96
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
95
8.22
Cotton
0.52
95
8.22
Rice
0.73
125
6.25
Soybean
0.52
95
8.22
Burndmvn Uses
Canola
0.66
62
12.60
Corn
0.66
62
12.60
Cotton (preplant)
0.79
135
5.79
Cotton (postharvest)
0.79
135
5.79
Rice
0.66
62
12.60
Soybean
0.66
62
12.60
Sugar beet
0.66
62
12.60
Non-agricultural Uses
-Page 94 of 135-
-------
Conifer/hardwood trees
1.50
399
1.96
Fallow field
0.53
679
1.15
Lawns/gardens
1.36
1743
0.45
Farmstead/
1.50
1923
0.41
noncrop areas
A light shaded cell indicates that the screening-level EEC is less than or equal to the highest treatment level tested
in the acute contact toxicity study with the honey bee, but that the potential for risk at these exposure levels is
uncertain. Generally, a factor of at least 20 (e.g., 21.7 for potato vine dessication) between the toxicity endpoint
and the EEC is considered sufficient to preclude acute risk to listed species of terrestrial invertebrates. When
considering RQ values (not calculated here), this factor of 20 corresponds to an LOC=0.05.
A dark shaded cell indicates that the screening-level EEC is greater than the non-definitive endpoint in the acute
contact toxicity study with the honey bee. For these nonstandard uses, the higher EECs are driven by the absence of
specified retreatment intervals or maximum number of applications on the label.
The European Food Safey Authority (EFSA 2005) evaluated a series of extended laboratory and
semi-field studies on beneficial insects including the parasitoid wasp (Aphidius rhopalosiphi),
predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri), wolf spider (Pardosa ssp.), green lacewing (Chrysoperla
carneci), ground beetle (Poecilus cupreus), and rove beetle (Aleochcira bilineatd). "Severe"
effects were observed with a potential for population recovery in one season when glufosinate
was applied at rates consistent with use on glufosinate-resistant corn (two application at 0.8 kg
ai/ha). However, EFSA noted that the application rates tested were less than the maximum
single application rate for orchard use (1.5 kg ai/ha). As described in the EFSA (2005) report,
the EFSA Peer Review Coordination (EPCO) expert meeting (April 2004, ecotoxicology)
recommended mitigation measures for risk to nontarget arthropoods, such as a 5-m buffer zone
when glufosinate is applied to corn or potatoes. In a recent review of additional field-level data
for nontarget arthropods in apple orchards, EFSA (2012) noted that recovery was not observed
for all species (e.g., predatory mite) within one season, and concluded that the risk for nontarget,
non-Apis sp. arthropods associated with the representative orchard use was high.
In the absence of additional data on the toxicity of higher doses of glufosinate to terrestrial
invertebrates, risk to listed species cannot be precluded at the screening level.
4.3.2.4. Terrestrial Plants
Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, screening-level RQ values based
on maximum single application rates indicate a potential for risk to terrestrial and semi-aquatic
plants exposed to glufosinate via combinations of runoff and spray drift (see Table 4.15 through
Table 4.16) All ground spray uses of glufosinate result in RQ values that exceed the listed
species LOC for monocots in wetland (semi-aquatic) areas. RQ values for all uses except potato
vine dessication exceed the LOC for risk to listed species of dicots in wetland areas. The
nonlisted species LOC, which generally represents an average growth inhibition of 25% for
terrestrial plants, is exceeded for both monocots and dicots based on uses for blueberry, citrus,
grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwood trees, lawn-and-
garden, and farmstead/noncrop areas. The burndown uses for cotton also exceed the nonlisted
species LOC for wetland dicots. Terrestrial plants in non-wetland areas are expected to receive
less runoff and generally be at lower risk. However, RQs still exceed the LOCs for risk to listed
-Page 95 of 135-
-------
species of monocots based on the same uses (except for cotton burndown) that trigger nonlisted
species risk concerns for wetland plants.
Aerial spray of glufosinate is expected to result in greater spray drift exposure; the TerrPlant
model assumes that the spray drift fraction from aerial applications is five times greater than
spray drift from ground spray applications. Aerial spray of glufosinate results in additional risk
that exceeds the Agency's LOCs for both listed and nonlisted dicot plants adjacent to the use site
when applied at 1.5 lbs ai/A (e.g., aerial spray for conifer and hardwood trees, farmstead and
noncrop areas). The likelihood of aerial spray for these scenarios is uncertain but cannot be
precluded based on the available information. Aerial spray at 0.79 lbs ai/A (e.g., pre-plant and
post-harvest burndown for cotton) triggers additional risk to listed species of monocot and dicot
plants in non-wetland areas.
Spray drift EECs (the spray drift fraction) are always calculated to be less than or equal to EECs
for plants exposed to both spray drift and runoff. However, the potential for risk may be higher
if effects were seen at lower treatment rates in the vegetative vigor study (foliar application) than
in the seedling emergence study (root uptake). In the case of glufosinate, the greatest plant
sensitivity was seen in the vegetative vigor studies. Based on the magnitude of effects in the
vegetative vigor study with formulated glufosinate (see Figure 4.3), the IC25 values for the most
sensitive monocot and dicot species were determined to be lower than the lowest treatment rates
tested. Therefore, spray drift only RQs are not calculated because they would be likely to
underestimate risk.
-Page 96 of 135-
-------
* statistically significant when compared to negative control (p<0.05)
0.0089 lbs ai/A
0.016 lbs ai/A
0.018 lbs ai/A
0.062 lbs ai/A
Dicot
Monocot
Lowest Measured
Treatment Rate
Figure 4.3. Magnitude of effects at the lowest treatment rate tested in the vegetative vigor study with formulated
glufosinate (Glufosinate-Ammonium 150 g/L, 13.9% ai). The crops on the x-axis represent crops tested in the
vegetative vigor study; they do not represent glufosinate uses, although glufosinate is registered for use on some
of these crops.
AgDRIFT was used to estimate how far from the treatment site spray drift exposure might occur
at levels known to inhibit plant growth (Table 4.24). The screening level analysis, based on the
most sensitive monocot and dicot plant species tested, suggests that spray drift from ground
spray applications of glufosinate at 1.5 lbs ai/A (e.g., uses on blueberry, citrus, grapes, olives,
pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, and farmstead and noncrop areas) may result in potential effects
on nontarget monocot plants within seven feet of the treatment area and on nontarget dicot plants
within 26 feet of the treatment area. Aerial applications of glufosinate are expected to result in
greater spray drift exposure and therefore greater risk.farther from the field. Spray drift from
aerial applications may result in effects on nontarget monocot plants within 30 to 131 feet and on
nontarget dicot plants within 121 to 358 feet of the treatment area. The actual effects area may
be larger because the submitted data did not establish a lower bound of effects for the most
sensitive species; effects greater than 25% were observed with foliar exposure to glufosinate at
levels consistent with the AgDRIFT spray drift EECs. The contribution of runoff may further
extend the potential effects area for nontarget plants.
-Page 97 of 135-
-------
Table 4.24. Possible1 Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Glufosinate through Spray
Distance from Treatment Site (feet)
Single
Monocots
Onion
ICns < 0.062 lbs ai/A
37% si/ Dry Weight
Dicots
Cucumber
NOAEL < 0.018 lbs ai/A
28% ^ Dry Weight
Crop
Max. App.
Rate
(lbs ai/A)
AgDRIFT
Scenario
Agricultural Uses
Blueberry
1.50
Ground spray
7
26
Canola
0.44
Aerial spray
30
121
Citrus
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
Corn
0.44
Aerial spray
30
121
Cotton
0.53
Aerial spray
44
154
Grape vineyard
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
Olives
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
Pome fruit
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
Potato vine dessication
0.38
Aerial spray
30
121
Rice
0.44
Aerial spray
30
121
Soybean
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Stone fruit
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
Sugarbeet
0.55
Aerial spray
49
161
Tree nuts
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
GMO Seed Propagation Uses
Corn
0.52
Aerial spray
44
151
Cotton
0.52
Aerial spray
44
151
Rice
0.73
Aerial spray
72
200
Soybean
0.52
Aerial spray
44
151
Hum down Uses
Canola
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Corn
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Cotton (pre-plant)
0.79
Aerial spray
75
213
Cotton (post-harvest)
0.79
Aerial spray
75
213
Rice
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Soybean
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Sugar beet
0.66
Aerial spray
69
184
Non-agricultural Uses
Conifer/
hardwood trees
1.50
Aerial spray
131
358
Fallow field
0.53
Aerial spray
44
154
Lawns and gardens
1.36
Aerial spray
Not calculated
Not calculated
Farmstead/noncrop areas
1.50
Ground spray
6.5
26
vegetative vigor data with formulated glufosinate did not establish a lower bound of effects for the most sensitive
species; effects greater than 25% were observed at the lowest treatment levels.
-Page 98 of 135-
-------
The abundance {i.e., 48) of reported crop damage incidents with corn and canola, 44 of which
were associated with the use of glufosinate consistent with label instructions, and the more recent
report of damage to pistachio treated with glufosinate and another herbicide (flumioxazin),
underscores the potential for risk to terrestrial plants.
5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)
As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews
numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals.
Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments
of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity.
These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including
effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual
maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For
ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth,
developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the
Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (DP Barcode 345696), EPA reviewed
these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from
the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), glufosinate is
subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide
active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect
produced by a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator
may designate." The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required
determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a
chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal
systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to
interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA
will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2
testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and
establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.
Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between
October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67
chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Glufosinate is
not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the
EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call-
ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for glufosinate. For further information
on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the
test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website:
http ://www. epa. gov/endo/.
-Page 99 of 135-
-------
6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal
agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and
anadromous listed species, and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
listed wildlife and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may affect listed
species or their designated critical habitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an
action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).
To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection
(a)(2)), the Office of Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a
proposed registration action may directly or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both
the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers,
or distribution of any listed species (USEPA 2004). After the Agency's screening level risk
assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency's listed species LOCs are exceeded for either
direct or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species
may co-occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use or areas downstream or downwind that
could be contaminated from drift or runoff/erosion. Given the existing national registrations and
broad range of registered uses for glufosinate, the Agency has determined that listed species may
be present in the action area. If listed or candidate species may be present in the action area,
further biological assessment is undertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is
considered, which then determines the need for the development of a more comprehensive
consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act. The federal action addressed
herein is the registraion review of existing uses for glufosinate.
6.1. Action Area
For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected
directly or indirectly by glufosinate use and not merely the immediate area where glufosinate is
applied. At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly described
taxonomic groups and conservatively estimates exposure for organisms that are co-located with
the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be
located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a
surface water body adjacent to the treated site, except in the case of direct application to aquatic
habitat.
6.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk
If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below
the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed
-Page 100 of 135-
-------
species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs
below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect
effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated.
However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed
species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and
may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may
extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a
resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of
these species, and the locations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which
screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These
subsequent refinement steps will consider how this information would impact the action area for
a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and
downstream of the pesticide use site.
Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing proposed new
glufosinate uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the glufosinate
screening-level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3. The assessment endpoints used in the
screening-level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and
reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival,
reproduction, and growth of aquatic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and
chronic exposures. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered
Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize does not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild
by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQs)
which, integrating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the
screening-level risk assessment presented in Section 4.
Data on exposure and effects collected under laboratory and sometimes field conditions are
evaluated in the screening-level risk assessment for nonlisted and listed species. Both acute and
chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered to identify potential effects (or absence
thereof) to listed species. This section identifies potential direct effect concerns, by taxa, that are
triggered by exceeding listed species LOCs in the screening-level risk assessment (Table 6.1).
Where applicable, an evaluation of the probability of individual effects for exposures that may
occur at the established listed species LOC is presented in Section 4. Table 6.1 further identifies
taxa for which the potential risk to individual listed species is uncertain due to data gaps or
limitations in study design (e.g., non-definitive endpoints in avian limit dose tests). These
uncertainties may be reduced or resolved by additional data, but physiological constraints in
achieving higher dose levels than the standard limit dose should be considered when determining
the need for further acute toxicity testing.
-Page 101 of 135-
-------
Table 6.1. Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the Registered Uses of Glufosinate, Based on
Best Available Data.
Listed Plant Taxon
Potential Direct Effects
Terrestrial and semi-
aquatic plants -
monocots and dicots
Yes
Aquatic vascular plants
No effect
Listed Animal Taxon
Potential Direct Effects
Acute
Notes
Chronic
Notes
Terrestrial invertebrates
Uncertain1
1 Although no effects were seen in the acute
contact toxicity tests with juvenile honey bees, the
standard limit dose (100 ug ai/bee) was not high
enough to preclude risk at the listed species LOC,
based on the relatively high glufosinate EECs for
registered uses. A comparison of the limit dose to
EECs, by use, is presented in Table 4.25.
2 Although no mortality was seen in the acute
toxicity tests with birds, the standard limit dose
was not high enough to preclude risk at the listed
species LOC, based on the relatively high
glufosinate EECs for registered uses (see Section
4.3.2.1), Sublethal effects (lethargy and diarrhea)
were observed in one acute oral toxicity test with
birds, used as surrogates for reptiles and
terrestrial-phase amphibians. No effects were seen
in the acute avian dietary toxicity studies, which
represent a more ecologically relevant exposure
route for foraging birds.
3 No effect to aquatic animal species unless
ND
4 Screening-level RQ values would not
exceed the chronic risk LOC for birds (also
surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial
amphibians) if the application scenario for
these uses (see Section 4.3.2.1) were limited
to two applications of less than 1.0 lb ai/A,
with a minimum retreatment interval of 14
days. Currently, minimum retreatment
interval requirements are not specified on all
labels.
5 No effect to aquatic animal species from
chronic aquatic exposure to the TGAI, unless
estuarine/marine fish or early life stages of
freshwater fish are more than 175 times as
sensitive as the juvenile rainbow trout tested
in MRID 48301105.
6 Risk of direct effects from chronic aquatic
exposure to formulated glufosinate is
expected to be below the LOC. The potential
for sustained exposure to glufosinate and its
Mammals
Yes
Yes
Birds
Uncertain2
Yes4
Reptiles
Uncertain2
Yes4
Amphibians
Uncertain2'3
Yes4'5'6
Freshwater fish
No effect3
No effect5'6
Freshwater
invertebrates
No effect3
No effect
Molluscs
No effect3
ND
Estuarine/marine fish
No effect3
No effect5'6
-Page 102 of 135-
-------
Listed Plant Taxon
Potential Dircet Effects
organisms are exposed directly to undiluted
glufosinate-treated rice paddy water.
formulation ingredients, in ratios reflective of
the original packaged product, is
undetermined; however, a comparison of the
most conservative aquatic EECs (rice uses),
assuming intact product, with OECD
guideline toxicity data for juvenile rainbow
trout (MRID 48301106) supports a
conclusion of no effect.
Estuarine/marine
invertebrates
No effect3
Uncertain7'8
7 No effect to aquatic animal species unless
organisms are exposed directly to
undiluted glufosinate-treated rice paddy
water.
8 In the absence of chronic toxicity data for
estuarine/marine (E/M) invertebrates, chronic
toxicity and risk were estimated based on an
acute-to-chronic ratio for freshwater
invertebrates. Experimental data would
reduce this uncertainty and may support a no
effect determination for the uses on rice.
" Not determined.
-Page 103 of 135-
-------
6.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses
The screening-level risk assessment for glufosinate assumes that it may be applied nationwide,
including U.S. territories and possessions. Therefore, no federally listed species are excluded
from the screening level analyses, unless otherwise indicated (e.g., if only listed due to Similarity
of Appearance to another listed species). A spatial co-occurrence analysis that compares the best
available data regarding glufosinate potential and documented use areas and listed species
occurrence is needed to more explicitly address potential risk to listed species of concern.
7. Conclusions
The risk hypothesis identified in the problem formulation stated, "Given the uses of glufosinate
and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of acute and chronic exposure to
nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Therefore, when used in accordance with the label,
glufosinate may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of
nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals." After reviewing the most recent
environmental fate and effects data for glufosinate, the screening-level assessment concludes that
registered uses of the herbicide glufosinate may result in risk to both listed and non-listed species
of plants and wildlife.
Glufosinate is expected to be moderately mobile to highly mobile in the environment, and its
primary route of degradation is expected to be aerobic soil metabolism. The compound is not
volatile, but is likely to move off-site via a combination of spray drift, runoff and leaching.
Glufosinate that enters surface waters is expected to be stable to hydrolysis and photolysis, and
to degrade slowly via aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolic processes. Glufosinate residues
may persist in aquatic environments, resulting in chronic exposure to aquatic organisms. As
glufosinate is expected to be moderately mobile to highly mobile, significant partitioning of
glufosinate to benthic sediments in most aquatic habitats is not expected. Instead, glufosinate is
likely to remain primarily in the water column, where dilution and slow metabolic degradation
act to decrease concentrations over time.
When estimates of glufosinate exposure in terrestrial and aquatic environments are compared to
the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening-level assessment indicate a potential
for acute risk to listed species of mammals for some agricultural uses and to both listed and
nonlisted species for nonagricultural uses. The potential for acute risk to mammals is increased
from exposure to glufosinate formulated as Liberty® 280 SL Herbicide, the product for which the
new uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives, and stone fruit were recently registered, because the
toxicity of this product is greater than that of the TGAI. All registered uses of glufosinate are
expected to result in chronic risk to mammals that exceeds the Agency's LOC, although
exposure and risk to strict granivores and frugivores is expected to be lower and of less concern.
Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, direct risk to terrestrial and semi-
aquatic plants is expected. Spray drift from aerial applications of formulated glufosinate may
result in effects on nontarget terrestrial plants within at least 30 to 358 feet of the treatment area.
The potential for adverse effects to terrestrial plants is affirmed by 49 reported incidents of crop
damage (i.e.., 48 incidents with corn and canola, 1 incident with pistachio) and may result in
-Page 104 of 135-
-------
potential indirect effects to both terrestrial and aquatic taxa. Acute risk to listed species of birds,
and by proxy to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, is uncertain; however, although risk
estimates are indeterminate, risk of acute avian mortality from dietary exposure to the TGAI is
likely low because no mortality was observed in the submitted ecotoxicity studies which tested
up to 2,000 mg/kg bw and 5,000 mg/kg diet, respectively. Chronic risks to birds, reptiles, and
terrestrial-phase amphibians exposed through residues in the diet are expected when glufosinate
is applied at least twice at treatment rates greater than 0.79 lbs ai/A with a retreatment interval
(RTI) of less than 14 days. Similarly, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded with three applications
at 0.80 lbs ai/A and a RTI less than 22 days, or with three applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A and a RTI
of less than 120 days. With the exception of uses on rice, acute and chronic risk to fish, aquatic-
phase amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates is low.
Although the toxicity of formulated glufosinate to aquatic animals is equivalent to or greater than
the toxicity of the TGAI, aquatic EECs calculated for spray drift of the formulation are relatively
low, and risk to these taxa from exposure to the formulation is considered unlikely. However,
two incidents of freshwater fish mortality have been reported as having a potential association
with the registered use of glufosinate in agricultural areas. It is unknown whether these incidents
were associated with a particular glufosinate formulation, whether the observed mortalities
resulted from direct effects of glufosinate exposure or perhaps from ammonium toxicity
following exposure from multiple sources, or whether they resulted from oxygen depletion from
direct effects of glufosinate exposure on the aquatic plant community. Several uses result in RQ
values that exceed the LOC for risk to listed and nonlisted species of nonvascular aquatic plants
(e.g., algae).
Finally, fate and toxicity data were available for the racemic mixture of glufosinate but not for
individual components within the mixture. The (S)-enantiomer is considered to be the
herbicidally active substance. Microbially mediated degradation processes in soil and aquatic
environments can be influenced through enantioselective behavior, which may result in
environmental exposure to isomers or enantiomers of the racemic mixture in ratios that are
different from those in the applied product. The conduct of studies to determine such exposure
levels can be complex and expensive. Likewise, the relative toxicity of individual components
of the racemic mixture to nontarget taxa is unknown. This assessment was conducted on the
racemic mixture and assumes that components of the mixture remain together in the
environment; there is uncertainty as to how reflective the EECs and risk conclusions for the
racemic mixture are to those of the individual enantiomers of glufosinate-ammonium.
8. References
American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2010. Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available online at
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm.
Datta, P. 1988. Memorandum to Richard Mountfort and Amy Rispin, Subject: Ignite EFGWB Science Chapter,
Memorandum.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2012. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of
confirmatory data submitted for the active substance glufosinate. EFSA Journal 10 (3): 2609. Available
online at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2609.pdf.
-Page 105 of 135-
-------
-- 2005. Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glufosinate.
EFSA Scientific Report 27: 1-81. Available online through the EFSA website at http://www.efsa.eu.int.
Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain
(Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383-1391.
Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for
estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality
and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-
28.
Kashuba, R., Spatz, D. 2006 Memorandum to Steven Bradbury, Subject: Standard Soil Mobility Classification
Guidance
Matsumura N., Takeuchi C., Hishikawa K., Fujii T., Nakaki T. 2001. Glufosinate ammonium induces convulsion
through N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in mice. Neurosci Lett. 304(1-2): 123-5
Urban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. Office of Pesticide Programs.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Accessed on 4
December 2009. Available online at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 .
Accessed on 7 November 2012. Description online at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm.
— 2009a. Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data
Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933-60988.
-- 2009b. Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/.
— 2009c. ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 12 April 2012. Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
— 2009d. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides,
Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009.
Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm
-- 2008. Registration Review - Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment of
Glufosinate-ammonium. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 9
January 2008. DP Barcode 345696.
-- 2006a. PRZM User's Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/gwater/przm3/index.html
— 2006b, TerrPlantv. 1.2.2 User's Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,
Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.
-- 2005. EXAMS User's Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/exams/index.html
-- 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of
-Page 106 of 135-
-------
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available
online at http://www. epa.gov/oppfeadl/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf.
— 2003. SCIGROW: Users Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gOv/oppefedl/models/water/#scigrow
-- 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14,
1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April, 1998.
-- 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-13/187a. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 100: 23-73.
Wilson, C., B. Boman, E. Stover, J. Bargar, and J. Hebb. 2006. Flatwoods citrus Best Management Practice:
Minimizing direct deposition of pesticides into waterways. SL235. Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Available online at
http://edis. ifas.ufl. edu/pdffiles/SS/SS454OO.pdf
8.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies
MRID: 40345632 Wild, A.; Manderscheid, R. (1983) The effect of phosphinothrin on the assimilation of ammonia
in plants. Z Naturforsch 39:500- 504.
MRID: 40345633 Manderscheid, R.; Wild, A. (1986) Studies on the mechanism of in-hibition by phosphinothricin
of glutamine synthetase isolated from triticum aestivum L. J. Plant Physiol. 123:135-142.
MRID: 40345656 Goerlitz, G.; Kloeckner, C.; Eyrich, U. (1986) Abiotic Hydrolysis as a Function of pH and
Amendment and Separation of Potential Hydrolysis Products of HOE 039866 from the Active Ingredient
by HPLC: Project Nos. (B)277/85 and (B)l 10/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 48 p.
MRID: 40345659 Gildemeister, H.; Jordan, H.; Stumpf, K.; et al. (1987) Aerobic Soil Metabolism Studies with
HOE 039866-[carbon 14] and Amend- ment and Degradation in Soil Study with HOE 061517-[carbon 14]:
Project Nos. CB066/85, CB060/86 and CB065/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 152 p.
MRID: 40345660 Gildemeister, H.; Jordan, H.; Schink, C. (1987) HOE 039866-[carbon 14]: Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Study: Project No. CB064/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 56 p.
MRID: 40345662 Goerlitz, G. (1985) Adsorption/Desorption in the System—Soil/Water for HOE 039866 and HOE
061517: Project Nos. CP055/85 and CP062/ 85. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 81 p.
MRID: 41323115 Stumpf, K. (1989) HOE 039866-Carbon 14: Photodegradation in Water at pH 5, 7, and 9: Lab
Project Number: A40989: CB/89/88. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 73 p.
MRID: 41323118 Stumpf, K. (1989) HOE 061517-Carbon 14, Metabolite of HOE 039866: Degradation in Aerobic
Conditions at Application Rates of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg: Lab Project Number: CB007/88: A41198.
Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 59 p.
MRID: 41920102 Stumpf, K. (1990) Photolysis of HOE 039866-14C (Glufosinate) on Soil: Lab Project Number:
CB90/097: A44730. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 76 p.
MRID: 44032901 Miklautz, H. (1995) The Vapor Pressure of Glufosinate (Hoe 039866) at 25 (degrees) C: Lab
Project Number: 0910: A55227: APC 126/95. Unpublished study prepared by Schering AG, Institute of
Physical Chemistry. 16 p.
-Page 107 of 135-
-------
MRID: 45204401 Stumpf, K. (1994) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon-14)-Labelled Glufosinate in Two
Water Sediment Systems at Different Application Rates: 1st Amendment to Report CB90/109: Lab Project
Number: CB90/109: CB90/109.A01: A53137. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo
GmbH. 60 p.
MRID: 45204402 Stumpf, K. (1994) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon-14)-Labelled Glufosinate in Two
Water Sediment Systems at Different Application Rates: Lab Project Number: CB90/109: A53136.
Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH. 75 p.
MRID: 46258601 Stupp, H. (2003) Degradation and Metabolism of Glufosinate Ammonium in Soil Under
Anaerobic Conditions. Project Number: M1261285/5, MEF/367/03, C038925. Unpublished study
prepared by Bayer Ag, Institute of Product Info. 62 p.
8.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies
MRID 150988 Ebert; Weigand (1984) Hoe 039866 - Active Ingredient Technical 8-day Dietary LC 50 Test in the
Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus): Report No. 84.0438. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
Aktiengesellschaft, translation of Doc. No. A29940. 19 p.
MRID 150989 Ebert; Weigand (1984) Hoe 039866 - Active Ingredient Technical 8-day Dietary LC 50 Test in the
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Report No. 84.0377. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst
Aktiengesellschaft, translation of Doc. No. A29756. 21 p.
MRID 40345649 Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Chanter, D. (1986) The Effects of Dieta- ry Inclusion of HOE 039866—
Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC98 0002) on Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail:
Project No. 247/851115. Unpublished study prepared by Hunting- don Research Centre Ltd. 241 p.
MRID 40345650 Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Chanter, D.; et al. (1986) The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of HOE
039866—Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC98 0002) on Reproduction in the Mallard
Duck: Project No. HST 248/851211. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 180
P-
MRID 41396102 Cameron, D. (1989) Supplement to: The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Hoe 039866—Active
Ingredient Technical...on Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project No. HST 247/851115; A40648.
Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 5 p.
MRID 41396103 Cameron, D. (1989) Supplement to: The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Hoe 039866—Active
Ingredient Technical... on Reproduction in the Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: HST 248/851211;
A40669. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 5 p.
MRID 159913 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866 - Soluble Concentrate 200 (g/1)... to Salmo gairdneri
(Rainbow Trout) in a Static Test (SG342/A, Method EPA): Study No. SG342/A. Unpublished study
prepared by Hoechst AG. 14 p.
MRID 159914 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866 - Soluble Concentrate ... to Lepomis macrochirus
(Bluegill Sunfish) in a Static-acute Toxicity Test (Lml4/c, Method EPA): Study No. Lml4/C. Unpub-
lished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.
MRID 159915 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866 - Soluble Concentrate 200 (g/1)... to Daphnia magna
(Waterflea) in a Static Acute Toxicity Test (Dm593/A, Method EPA): Study No. Dm593/A. Unpub- lished
study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.
-Page 108 of 135-
-------
MRID 41396104 Swigert, J. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance ... to the Sheepshead
Minnow (Cyprinodonvariegatus): ABC Study No. 34154; Report No. A33264. Unpublished study
prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 63 p.
MRID 41396105 Ward, G. (1989) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance... to Embryos and Larvae of
the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virgin- ica): ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: 87341-0200-2130. Un-
published study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 33 p.
MRID 41396106 Surprenant, D. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Sub- stance...to Embryos and
Larvae of the Quahog Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria): SLS Study No. 1719.0487.6107.514; Report # 87-
12- 2587. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 40 p.
MRID 41396107 Forbis, A. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance ...to the Mysid Shrimp
(Mysidopsis bahia): ABC Study No. 34155; Report No. A33265. Unpublished study prepared by
Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 55 p.
MRID 41396108 Ward, G. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con- centrate...to the Sheepshead
Minnow (Cyprinodonvariegatus): ?Final Report|: Project No. 86-341; Report No. A34014. Unpub- lished
study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 42 p.
MRID 41396109 Ward, G. (1989) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con- centrate...to Embryos and
Larvae of the Eastern Oyster (Crass- ostrea virginica): ?Final Report|: Lab Project No. 87341-0210- 2130;
86-341. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 33 p.
MRID 41396110 Ward, G. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con- centrate...to the Mysid
Shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia): ?Final Re- port|: Lab Project No. 86-341; Report A34013. Unpublished study
prepared by Hunter/ESE. 38 p
MRID 42262402 Ward, G. (1992) Ignite Herbicide (HOE 039866 00 SL18 A518): Acute Toxicity to Embryos and
Larvae of the Hard Shell Clam (Quahog), Mercenaria Mercenaria Under Static Test Conditions: Lab
Project Number: J9105001B. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 40 p.
MRID 42262403 Ward, G. (1992) Ignite Herbicide (HOE 039866 00 SL18 A518): Acute Effect on New Shell
Growth of the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica: Lab Project Number: J9105001C. Unpublished study
prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 42 p.
MRID 40501010 Fischer, R. (1987) The Effect of Hoe-039866—Substance Technical... to Daphnia magna
(Waterflea) in a Life-cycle (21-day Renew- al) Chronic Toxicity Test: Study No. Dm631/a. Unpublished
study prepared by Hoechst Ag. 47 p.
MRID 40345651 Gorsuch, J. (1987) HOE 039866-Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC96
0002) Plant Effect Test: Seed Germination/ Seedling Emergence Test, Tier I: Project No. EN-502-HSC001-
1. Unpublished study prepared by Eastman Kodak Co., Health and En- vironment Laboratories. 168 p.
MRID 40345652 Gorsuch, J. (1987) HOE 039866-Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC96
0002) Plant Effect Test: Vegetative Vigor Test, Tier I: Project No. EN-503-HSC001-1. Unpublished study
prepared by Eastman Kodak Co., Health and Environmental Labora- tories. 219 p.
MRID 40501011 Canez, V. (1987) Hoe-039866—Active Ingredient Technical...: Non-target Phytotoxicity Test,
Vegetative Vigor: Tier 2: Project No. LR87-32A. Unpublished study prepared by Pan-Agricultural Lab-
oratories, Inc. 160 p.
MRID 40501012 Canez, V. (1987) Hoe-039866—Active Ingredient Technical...: Non- target Phytotoxicity Test,
Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence: Tier 2: Project No. LR87-32B. Unpublished study prepared by
Pan-Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 231 p.
-Page 109 of 135-
-------
MRID 40345653 Hughes, J. (1987) The Toxicity of HOE 039866 OH ZC96 Technical to Selenastrum
capricornutum: Project No. 1093-01-1100-1. Unpub- lished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 86 p.
MRID 42262404 Lintott, D.; Ward, G. (1991) Ignite Herbicide Technical Glufosinate (HOE 039866 00 ZC96
0002): Acute Toxicity to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number:
J9105001B. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 41 p.
MRID 41396111 Chetram, R. (1990) Hoe 039866 Tier II Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Nontarget
Phytotoxicity Test: Lab Project Number: LR89-15B. Unpublished study prepared by Pan-Agricultural
Labor- atories, Inc. 222 p.
MRID 41396112 Chetram, R. (1989) Hoe 039866 Tier II Vegetative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study:
Maximum Application Rate of 0.4 Lbs. ai/ Acre: ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: LR89-15A.
Unpublished study prepared by Pan-Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 166 p.
MRID 41396113 Chetram, R. (1989) Hoe 039866 Tier II Vegetative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study:
Maximum Application Rate of 0.8 Lbs. ai/ Acre: ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: LR89-45.
Unpublished study prepared by Pan-Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 131 p.
MRID 40345653 Hughes, J. (1987) The Toxicity of HOE 039866 OH ZC96 Technical to Selenastrum
capricornutum: Project No. 1093-01-1100-1. Unpub- lished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 86 p.
MRID 40345654 Davies, L.; Carlile, W.; Bratby, P. (1985) Report on a Laboratory Investigation into the Toxicity of
Formulated HOE 039866 (Basta) to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Report No. A32454. Unpublished study
prepared by Trent Polytechnic, Dept. of Life Science. 8 p.
MRID 142450 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866 - Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):
Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in Male and Female Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): Report No. 83.0558;
A28840. Translation of unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 15 p.
MRID 142451 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866 - Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):
Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Bobwhite Quail (Colinus Virginianus): Report No.
83.0619; A28841. Translation of unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 14 p.
MRID 142452 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866 - Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):
Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in Male and Female Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): Report
No. 83/0313; A29033. Translation of unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.
MRID 48444810. Fischer, R. (1988) The effect of Hoe 061517 - substance, technical (identification code: Hoe
061517 OQ ZC99 0005) to Scenedesmus subspicatus CHODAT (green algae) in a growth inhibition test
(method OECD). Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. Study completed June 9, 1988.
MRID 48444811. Heusel, R. (1993) 2-Methylphosphinico-acetic acid, - substance, technical (Hoe 064619 00 ZC98
0001): Effect to Scenedesmus subspicatus (green algae) in a growth inhibition test (method OECD).
Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Study completed
February 11, 1993.
MRID 48444812. Sowig, P., and H. Gosch. (2000) Algal growth inhibition - Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata - AE
F084658; substance, technical (Dinatrium salt of AE F130947; metabolite of Glufosinate-Ammonium AE
F039866). Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Aventis CropScience GmbH, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. Study completed December 15, 2000.
-Page 110 of 135-
-------
MRID 48444813. Heusel, R. (1996) Hoe 099730 - substance, technical - Code: Hoe 099730 00 ZC92 0001): Effect
to Scenedesmus subspicatus (green algae) in a growth inhibition test (method OECD). Unpublished study
performed and sponsored by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Study completed
March 13, 1996.
MRID 48444816. Banman, C.S., J.H. Howerton, and C.V. Lam. (2011) Toxicity of Glufosinate-ammonium to the
Blue Green Algae Anabaena flos-aquae. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience
(laboratory located in Stilwell, Kansas and sponsor located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). Study
completed March 25, 2011.
MRID 48444817. Banman, C.S., J.H. Howerton, and C.V. Lam. (2011) Toxicity of Glufosinate-ammonium to the
Saltwater Diatom Skeletonema costatum. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience
(laboratory located in Stilwell, Kansas and sponsor located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). Study
completed March 24, 2011.
-Page 111 of 135-
-------
Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of Glufosinate and its Degradates
-Page 112 of 135-
-------
Appendix B. Scenario Descriptions for Surface Water Modeling (PRZM/EXAMS, PFAM)
A discussion of how the application parameters for PRZM/EXAMS and PFAM were developed
for the various glufosinate scenarios follows. Tables at the end of the appendix depict the input
parameters used in PFAM rice modeling.
Agricultural Use and Seed Propagation
Blueberry - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can
be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (May 31). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to
weeds on ground.
Canola - Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product can
be applied from the cotyledon stage through early bolting stage. Application date was selected to
occur 2 weeks after emergence (May 30). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present,
CAM of 2 was selected.
Citrus - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can be
applied at any point in time to control weeds and the emergence and maturation dates span the
entire year, the application date was assumed to occur midway through the year (June 1). CAM
of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.
Corn - Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. The application
date was assumed to be the midpoint of emergence and maturation (IA - June 24, IL - July 11,
MS - June 16, NC - June 21, OH - July 14, and PA - May 25). As product is applied aerially
and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.
Cotton - Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product can
be applied from emergence to early bloom stage. It was assumed that 60 days elapse from
planting to bloom (UGA, 2004), so application was assumed to occur 14 days after emergence
(MS - May 15, NC - June 15). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2
was selected.
Grape - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can be
applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA grape - February 15, CA winegrape - March 16, NY
grape - June 16). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.
Olives - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can be
applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (February 24). CAM of 1 was selected as product is
applied to weeds on ground.
Pome fruit - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can
-Page 113 of 135-
-------
be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA - February 23, NC - April 17, OR - April 25, PA -
April 28). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.
Potato vine dessication - Assumed to be applied aerially to get rid of potato vines after harvest.
Application date was assumed to occur 1 week after harvest (ID - September 22, ME - October
12). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.
Rice - For applications to rice, two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A can be applied to a flooded 8-
inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7-day holding period. For applications for rice seed
propagation, two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A can be applied, with the first application to a dry
field and the second application to a 4-inch flooded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 55-day
holding period.
Soybean - Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product can
be applied from emergence to early bloom stage. It was assumed that 45 days elapse from
planting to bloom (MSU, 2004), so application was assumed to occur 14 days after emergence
(MS - April 30). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.
Stone fruit - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can
be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA - February 23, GA - April 7, MI - June 3). CAM of
1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.
Sugarbeet - Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product
can be applied from cotyledon to 10-leaf stage. It was assumed that the cotyledon stage occurs
21 days after planting (7 days after emergence) and the 10-leaf stage occurs 54 days after
planting (40 days after emergence) (Rothe, et. al., 2004). As such, the application date was
assumed to occur 14 days after emergence (May 30). As product is applied aerially and foliage
is present, CAM of 2 was selected.
Tree nuts - Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can
be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the
midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA - April 24, GA - July 4, OR - March 23). CAM of 1
was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.
Burndown Applications
Canola - Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks
before emergence (April 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was
selected.
Corn - Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks
before emergence (IA - April 25, IL - April 1, MS - March 11, NC - March 16, OH - April 1,
and PA - March 17). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was selected.
-Page 114 of 135-
-------
Cotton - Assumed to be applied aerially. Product can be applied for burndown purposes before
planting and after harvesting. For preplant, the application date was selected to occur 4 weeks
before emergence (MS - April 1, NC - May 2). As product is applied aerially before planting,
CAM of 1 was selected. For postharvest, the application date was selected to occur 1 week after
harvest (MS - September 29, NC - August 8). As product is applied aerially and foliage is
present, CAM of 2 was selected.
Rice - A single application of 0.66 lbs ai/A applied before 2 weeks before planting.
Soybean - Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks
before emergence (March 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was
selected.
Sugarbeet - Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks
before emergence (April 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was
selected.
Nonagricultural Uses
Conifer/hardwood tree areas - Products are used for postemergence weed control in conifer and
hardwood tree plantings and may be used for the control of undesirable plants in site preparation
prior to planting and establishment of conifer and hardwood plantations (conifer release, usually
conducted during the first 2 years of conifer establishment). Seedling plants can be planted in the
treated area after 12 hours have elapsed. According to the crop report for Christmas tree
production in Oregon and Washington (Rinehold, 1999), Christmas trees require 7 to 10 years to
reach maturity. The labels allow for retreatments, but warn to avoid spraying the products on
foliage or green tissue of desirable plants. Use CAForestryRLF scenario using an aerial
application. According to the Northwestern Ontario Forest Technology Development Unit,
optimum application of 2,4-D and glyphosate, herbicides similar to glufosinate, for site
preparation is between the beginning of June and beginning of October and use for conifer
release is optimum in early August or in early September, when the conifer has hardened off
(Carruthers, et. al., 1997). A table submitted by Bayer Crop Science (BCS) indicates that the
product is applied at a maximum single application rate of 1.5 lbs ai/A, with a maximum
seasonal rate of 4.5 lbs ai/A.
1. Run PRZM in 10 year cycles of three sets of applications, 1st year site preparation, 2nd
and 3rd years for conifer release. Assume three applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A at an RTI
of 3 days for each set of applications. First application for 1st year occurs on 6/1.
First application for 2nd and 3rd year applications occurs on 8/1. For all applications,
aerial application with a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on
ground. Modified the PRZM input file so emergence occurs on 6/15/61, maturation
occurs on 1/1/65, and harvest occurs on 12/31/70. This allows application to occur
and not be intercepted by canopy.
2. Run PRZM assuming 10% of area is treated 3 times each year for site preparation and
-Page 115 of 135-
-------
20% is treated 3 times each year for conifer release. Assume applications at percent
of 1.5 lbs ai/A at an RTI of 3 days. First application for 1st set of applications occurs
on 6/1. First application for 2nd set of applications occurs on 8/1. For all applications,
aerial application with a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on
ground. Modify the scenario so emergence occurs on 6/15/61, maturation occurs on
12/30/61, and harvest occurs on 12/31/61, allowing applications to occur and not be
intercepted by canopy.
Fallow fields - Products may be used as a substitute for tillage in fallow fields to control or
suppress weeds. The maximum application rate derived from the labels is 0.53 lbs ai/A, with no
retreatment interval or maximum seasonal application rate specified. As MS cotton gave the
highest EECs for row crops, ran a modified version of MS cotton, where emergence, maturation,
and harvest dates are all set to 12/31, removing canopy interception from modeling. Assume
products are applied weekly at start of spring (3/21) until the start of fall (9/20), for a total of 26
applications. For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on
ground. A table submitted by BCS indicates that the product is applied twice at a maximum
single application rate of 0.4 lbs ai/A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 10 days.
Lawns/gardens - Products may be applied to control weeds and grasses around trees, shrubs,
fences, walks, patios, driveways, sidewalks, in flower beds, around houses, building, wooded
lots, storage and recreational areas and to spot kill weeds in lawns. The maximum application
rate derived from the labels is 1.36 lbs ai/A, with no retreatment interval or maximum seasonal
application rate specified. The residential and impervious surface scenarios were modeled
assuming homeowners apply products at start of spring (3/21) and apply the product weekly until
the start of fall (9/20), for a total of 26 applications. Only 1% of the amount applied is assumed
to be sprayed on impervious surface (overspray), while varying percentages of the residential
lawn were considered (5, 10, 25, and 50%). For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as
product is applied to weeds on ground.
Non-crop areas - Products may be applied to control undesirable vegetation in non-crop areas
around farmstead building foundations, shelter belts, along fences, and general nonselective
farmstead weed control. The maximum application rate derived from the labels is 1.5 lbs ai/A,
with no retreatment interval or maximum seasonal application rate specified. As EFED doesn't
have a non-crop area scenario for PE5, the right-of-way scenario was considered comparable to
non-crop areas. The right-of-way and impervious surface scenarios were modeled assuming
homeowners apply products at start of spring (3/21) and apply the product weekly until the start
of fall (9/20), for a total of 26 applications. Only 1% of the amount applied will be sprayed on
impervious surface (overspray) and varying percentages of the right-of-way scenario will be
considered (5, 10, and 25%). For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied
to weeds on ground. A table submitted by BCS indicates that the product is applied three times
at a maximum single application rate of 1.5 lbs ai/A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 10
days.
-Page 116 of 135-
-------
Table B-l. Typical planting and harvesting dates
State
Planting
Harvesting
Arkansas
April 14 - May 1
Sep 9 - Oct 10
California
May 1 - 25
Sep 15 - Nov 1
Louisiana
March 28 - May 1
Aug 4 - Sep 15
Texas
March 23 - April 26
Aug 7 - Sep 4
Mississippi
April 18 - May 16
Sep 5 - Oct 6
Data from USD A (2010)
Table B-2. Crop-specific dates used for PFAM modeling (Crop tab)
State
Planting1
Emergence Date2
Release Date3
Harvesting1
AR
April 22
May 2
September 3
September 24
CA
May 13
May 23
September 17
October 8
LA
April 14
April 24
August 4
August 25
TX
April 9
April 19
July 31
August 21
MS
May 2
May 12
August 30
September 20
Midpoint of dates provided in Table 1.
2 Assumed to occur 10 days after planting.
3 Assumed to occur 21 days before harvesting.
Table B-3. Site-specific input dates used for PFAM modeling (Applications and Floods
Use rate, Number of apps,
rctrcatmcnt interval, water
holding period, application
method (wet or dry)
State
App 1
App 2
Flood
(Event 1)
Release
(Event 2)
# days
1.46 lbs ai/acre (1.64 kg
ai/ha), 1, NA, 7 days, dry
and
0.89 lbs ai/acre (1.0 kg ai/ha),
1, NA, 7 days, dry
AR
2-May
NA
3-May
10-May
7
CA
23-May
NA
24-May
31-May
7
LA
24-Apr
NA
25-Apr
2-May
7
TX
19-Apr
NA
20-Apr
27-Apr
7
MS
12-May
NA
13-May
20-May
7
0.73 lbs ai/acre (0.818 kg
ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days, 1st
app diy and 2n app flooded1
AR
17-Apr
27-Apr
23-Apr
21-Jun
59
CA
8-May
18-May
14-May
12-Jul
59
LA
9-Apr
19-Apr
15-Apr
13-Jun
59
TX
4-Apr
14-Apr
10-Apr
8-Jun
59
MS
27-Apr
7-May
3-May
1-Jul
59
0.73 lbs ai/acre (0.818 kg
ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days, 1st
app dry and 2nd app flooded2
AR
17-Apr
27-Apr
23-Apr
27-May
34
CA
8-May
18-May
14-May
17-Jun
34
LA
9-Apr
19-Apr
15-Apr
19-May
34
TX
4-Apr
14-Apr
10-Apr
14-May
34
MS
27-Apr
7-May
3-May
6-Jun
34
0.66 lbs ai/acre (0.732 kg
ai/ha), 1, NA, 7 days, dry
AR
21-Apr
NA
23-Apr
30-Apr
7
CA
12-May
NA
14-May
21-May
7
LA
13-Apr
NA
15-Apr
22-Apr
7
TX
8-Apr
NA
10-Apr
17-Apr
7
MS
1-May
NA
3-May
10-May
7
0.44 lbs ai/acre (0.49 kg
ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days, dry
AR
2-May
12-May
13-May
20-May
7
CA
23-May
2-Jun
3-Jun
10-Jun
7
LA
24-Apr
4-May
5-May
12-May
7
-Page 117 of 135-
-------
I so rale. Number of ;i|)|)s.
relrcalmcnl inlenal. «a(er
holding period, applicalion
melhori u\e( or (In )
Slale
App 1
App 2
l-lood
(l.\C'll( 1)
Release
(F.\enl 2)
# (lilj s
TX
19-Apr
29-Apr
30-Apr
7-May
7
MS
12-May
22-May
23-May
30-May
7
0.44 lbs ai/acre (0.49 kg
ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days,
flooded3
AR
2-May
12-May
21-Apr
19-May
28
CA
23-May
2-Jun
12-May
9-Jun
28
LA
24-Apr
4-May
13-Apr
11-May
28
TX
19-Apr
29-Apr
8-Apr
6-May
28
MS
12-May
22-May
1-May
29-May
28
1. Applicable for a 4-inch paddy depth. # days reflects 55-day holding period after 2n application.
2. Applicable for an 8-inch paddy depth. # days reflects 30-day holding period after 2nd application
3. Release modeled 7 days after 2nd application.
Table B-4. PFAM inputs specific to glufosinate/MPP modeling runs
Input Parameter
Value Source
Comment
Chemical Tab
Water Column Half-life
(days) at 20°C
63
MRIDs 40345660,
45204402/01
Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence
bound on the mean (39) of 5 aerobic aquatic
half-life values.1
Benthic Compartment
Half-Life (days) at 20°C
1246
MRID 46258601
3 times the anaerobic aquatic half-life.1
Unflooded Soil Half-life
(days) at 20°C
19
MRIDs 41323118,
40345659A
Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence
bound on the mean (15) of 6 aerobic soil half-
life values.1
Aqueous Near Surface
Half-life (days) at 40°
Latitude
1x10s
MRID 41323115
No evidence of aqueous photolysis.
Hydrolysis Half-life
(days)
1x10s
MRID 40345656
No evidence of degradation.
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient (mL/goc) (Koc)
297
MRID 40345662
Average of three KOC values.
Molecular Weight (g/mol)
198
—
...
Vapor Pressure (torr)
7.5xl0"9
MRID 44032901
...
Solubility (mg/L)
1.37xl06
MRID 00263025
Heat of Henry (J/mol)
49884
...
Estimated using HENRYWIN program in
EPISuite (see Appendix B).
Henry Reference
Temperature (°C)
20
Applications Tab
Number of Applications
See Table 9
Application dates
See Table 9
Location Tab
Meteorological files
AR (wl3963)
LA (wl3970)
CA (w23232)
MS (w03940)
TX (wl3958)
...
Meteorological data available in PE5
installation. Stations correspond to
Little Rock, AR (wl3963), Baton Rouge, LA
(wl3970), Sacramento, CA (w23232), Jackson,
MS (w03940), and Austin, TX (wl3958)
-Page 118 of 135-
-------
Input Parameter
Value
Source
Comment
Floods Tab
Number of Flood Events
2
...
First event is flooding, second event is release
of flood waters.
Date for Event 1
See Table 9
Fill Level (m), Event 1
0.10162
0.20323
...
Crop profiles
Weir Level (m), Event 1
0.12702
0.22863
...
Assumed 1 inch clearance between top of weir
and water.
Min. Level (m), Event 1
0.10162
0.20323
...
Keeps paddy full
Number of Days, Event 2
See Table 9
Fill Level (m), Event 2
0
—
Simulate release of water
Weir Level (m), Event 2
0
—
Simulate release of water
Min. Level (m), Event 2
0
—
Simulate release of water
Turn Over (1/day), Events
1 and 2
0
...
Turnover is used for those systems that use a
continuous flow through the system and are
maintained at a set depth. Set to 0.
Crop Tab
Zero Height Reference
AR: 05/02
CA: 05/23
LA: 04/24
TX: 04/19
MS: 05/12
...
Emergence date, assumed to occur 10 days
after planting. See Table 8 for dates.
Days from Zero Height to
Full Height
AR
CA
LA
TX
MS
124
118
102
103
111
...
Number of days from emergence to maturation.
Maturation expected to occur 21 days prior to
harvesting. See Table 8 for dates.
Days from Zero Height to
Removal
AR
CA
LA
TX
MS
145
139
123
124
132
...
Number of days from emergence to harvest.
See Table 8 for dates.
Maximum Fractional
Areal Coverage
1.0
...
Conservative assumption
Physical Tab
Reference depth (m)
0.12702
0.22863
Set to same depth as weir height, per PFAM
guidance.
Output Tab
Area of Application (m2)4
345,600
...
20% of the watershed drainage acreage
(1,728,000 m2), based on draft HUC-8 PCA for
rice
Area of Surrounding
Watershed (m2)4
1,382,400
...
Difference in watershed drainage acreage
(1,728,000 m2) and area of application
Curve Number of
Surrounding Watershed4
83
...
Curve number for a contoured pasture with Fair
hydrologic conditions and a Soil Group of D
-Page 119 of 135-
-------
Input Parameter
Value
Source
Comment
Degradate 1 Tab
Moles of Degradate
Produced per mole of
Parent
Water
Benthic
Unflooded soil
Photolysis
Hydrolysis
1
0
1
0
0
—
Estimates based on stochiometry of glufosinate
ammonium degradation to MPP and whether
MPP was formed in the particular studies. MPP
was a degradate in the aerobic soil and aerobic
aquatic studies, but not in the anaerobic
aquatic, aqueous photolysis, and hydrolysis
studies for glufosinate (DP 397388, 1/4/2012).
Water Column Half-life
(days) at 20°C
3730
MRIDs 40345660,
45204402/01
Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence
bound on the mean (1247) of 2 aerobic aquatic
half-life values.1
Benthic Compartment
Half-Life (days) at 20°C
1x10s
—
Assumed stable.
Unflooded Soil Half-life
(days) at 20°C
22
MRIDs 41323118,
40345659A
Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence
bound on the mean (18) of 5 aerobic soil half-
life values.1
Aqueous Near Surface
Half-life (days) at 40°
Latitude
1x10s
—
Assumed stable.
Hydrolysis Half-life
(days)
1x10s
—
Assumed stable.
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient (mL/goc) (Koc)
145
MRID 40345662
Average of three KOC values for MPP. A
value of <17 L/kg was assumed to be 17 in the
calculation.
Molecular Weight (g/mol)
152.09
—
EPISuite
Vapor Pressure (torr)
3.7x10-"
—
EPISuite
Solubility (mg/L)
lxlO6
—
EPISuite
Heat of Henry (J/mol)
49884
...
Estimated using HENRYWIN program in
EPISuite (see Appendix B).
Henry Reference
Temperature (°C)
20
1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: : http://www.epa.20v/oppefedl/models/water/input parameter auidance.htm
2 Heights used for a 4-inch paddy.
3 Heights used for an 8-inch paddy.
4Used when employing the index reservoir function in PFAM.
Scenario References
USD A. 2010. Field Crops Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates. United States Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service. October 29, 2010.
http ://usda. mannlib. Cornell, edu/usda/current/planting/planting-10-29-2010.pdf
University of Georgia (UGA). 2004. Cotton Growth and Development. Cooperative Extension Service, the
University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Bulletin 1252, September 2004
Mississippi State University (MSU). 2004. Guide to Soybean Growth Stages. Mississippi State University Extension
Service, Publication 2588
Carruthers, M.E.: Towill, W.D. 1997. A Literature Review of Site Preparation and Conifer Release Treatments
Using 2,4-D, Glyphosate or Hexazinone Herbicides Part A: Timing of Application. Northwestern Ontario
Forest Technology Development Unit (NWOFTDU) Technical Report TR-18, February 1997
Rinehold, J. 1999. Crop Profile for Christmas Trees in Oregon and Washington.
Rothe, I., Dexter, A., Lueke, J. 2004. Yield of Glufosinate-Resistant Sugarbeet in Response to Postemergence
Glufosinate. Journal of Sugarbeet Research, Volume 41, Number 4, pp. 137-161
-Page 120 of 135-
-------
Appendix C. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data
Blueberry Scenario
stored as ga blueberry.out
Chemical: glufosinate
PRZM environment: ORberriesOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:22:40
EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at
06:14:08
Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:54
Water segment concentrations (ppb)
Year
Peak
96 hr
21 Day
60 Day
90 Day
Yearly
1961
1. 649
1. 61
1.464
1.236
1.1
0.4668
1962
1. 934
1. 896
1.749
1.485
1.337
0.7235
1963
1. 94
1. 902
1.758
1.504
1.359
0.7577
1964
2
1. 96
1. 809
1.532
1.379
0.7671
1965
2 . 015
1. 977
1.881
1. 658
1.488
0.7803
1966
1. 981
1. 94
1.786
1.512
1.359
0.7537
1967
1. 982
1. 939
1.776
1.489
1.325
0.72
1968
2 . 302
2.255
2 . 075
1.756
1.588
0.8724
1969
3.207
3. 135
2 . 873
2 . 455
2.249
1.215
1970
2 . 161
2 . 116
1. 945
1. 644
1.477
0. 902
1971
2 . 008
1. 97
1. 826
1. 677
1.512
0. 8815
1972
2 . 025
1. 985
1. 834
1.553
1.391
0.8042
1973
2 . 035
1. 994
1. 841
1.56
1.404
0.7853
1974
1. 875
1. 835
1. 685
1.419
1.272
0.6471
1975
1. 959
1. 92
1.774
1.504
1.354
0.7381
1976
1. 984
1. 947
1. 806
1.543
1.393
0.7842
1977
2 . 11
2 . 067
1. 905
1. 62
1.46
0.8694
1978
2 . 001
1. 957
1.791
1.501
1.344
0.7662
1979
2 . 025
1. 984
1. 826
1.54
1.38
0.8342
1980
2 . 079
2 . 043
1. 965
1.727
1.56
0.8698
1981
4 .402
4 . 311
3. 994
3.37
2 . 999
1.421
1982
2.276
2.229
2 . 051
1.747
1.578
1. 004
1983
1. 966
1. 927
1. 816
1.562
1.406
0.7822
1984
3.294
3.231
ro
CO
2 . 675
2 . 423
1.209
1985
8 . 534
CO
CO
7 . 662
6. 321
5.592
2 .713
1986
3. 123
3. 068
2 . 859
2 . 544
2 . 331
1. 826
1987
3. 188
3.117
2 . 85
2 .407
2.203
1.4
1988
2 . 314
2.271
2 . Ill
CO
1. 632
1. 027
1989
2 . 078
2 . 035
1. 872
1.588
1.434
0. 8473
1990
1. 986
1. 945
1.79
1.503
1.339
0.7344
Sorted results
Prob.
Peak
96 hr
21 Day
60 Day 90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
8
. 534
8
. 36
7
. 662
6.321 5.
592
2 .713
0.0645161290322581
4
.402
4
. 311
3
. 994
3.37 2.
999
1. 826
0.0967741935483871
3
.294
3
.231
2
. 98
2.675 2.
423
1.421
0.129032258064516
3
.207
3
. 135
2
. 873
2.544 2.
331
1.4
0.161290322580645
3
. 188
3
. 117
2
. 859
2.455 2.
249
1.215
0.193548387096774
3
. 123
3
. 068
2
. 85
2.407 2.
203
1.209
0.225806451612903
2
. 314
2
.271
2
. Ill
CO
M
632
1. 027
0.258064516129032
2
. 302
2
.255
2
. 075
1.756 1.
588
1. 004
0.290322580645161
2
.276
2
.229
2
. 051
1.747 1.
578
0. 902
-Page 121 of 135-
-------
0.32258064516129
0.354838709677419
0.387096774193548
0.419354838709677
0.451612903225806
0.483870967741936
0.516129032258065
0.548387096774194
0.580645161290323
0.612903225806452
0.645161290322581
0.67741935483871
0.709677419354839
0.741935483870968
0.774193548387097
0.806451612903226
0.838709677419355
0.870967741935484
0.903225806451613
0.935483870967742
0.967741935483871
2 . 161
2 . 116
1. 965
1.727
1.56
0.8815
2 . 11
2 . 067
1. 945
1. 677
1.512
0.8724
2 . 079
2 . 043
1. 905
1. 658
1.488
0.8698
2 . 078
2 . 035
1.881
1. 644
1.477
0.8694
2 . 035
1. 994
1. 872
1. 62
1.46
0. 8473
2 . 025
1. 985
1. 841
1.588
1.434
0.8342
2 . 025
1. 984
1. 834
1.562
1.406
0.8042
2 . 015
1. 977
1. 826
1.56
1.404
0.7853
2 . 008
1. 97
1. 826
1.553
1.393
0.7842
2 . 001
1. 96
1. 816
1.543
1.391
0.7822
2
1. 957
1. 809
1.54
1.38
0.7803
1. 986
1. 947
1. 806
1.532
1.379
0.7671
1. 984
1. 945
1.791
1.512
1.359
0.7662
1. 982
1. 94
1.79
1.504
1.359
0.7577
1. 981
1. 939
1.786
1.504
1.354
0.7537
1. 966
1. 927
1.776
1.503
1.344
0.7381
1. 959
1. 92
1.774
1.501
1.339
0.7344
1. 94
1. 902
1.758
1.489
1.337
0.7235
1. 934
1. 896
1.749
1.485
1.325
0.72
1. 875
1. 835
1. 685
1.419
1.272
0.6471
1. 649
1. 61
1.464
1.236
1.1
0.4668
0.1
3.2853 3.2214 2.9693 2.6619 2.4138 1.4189
Average of yearly averages: 0.963413333333333
Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006
Data used for this run:
Output File: ga blueberry
Metfile: w24232.dvf
PRZM scenario: ORberriesOP.txt
EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv
Chemical Name: glufosinate
Description Variable Name Value Units Comments
Molecular weight mwt 198.2 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 1.43e-12 atm-mA3/mol
Vapor Pressure vapr 7.5e-9 torr
Solubility sol 1.37e6
Kd Kd mg/L
Koc Koc 296.5 mg/L
Photolysis half-life kdp
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism
Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism
Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm
Hydrolysis: pH 5 0
Hydrolysis: pH 7 0
Hydrolysis: pH 9 0
Method: CAM 1
Incorporation Depth:
Application Rate: TAPP
Application Efficiency:
Spray Drift DRFT 0.01
Application Date Date
interval
mg/L
0 days
kbacw 63
kbacs 1245
19 days
Half-life
Half-life
Half-life
Half-life
days Halfife
days Halfife
Halfife
days
days
days
integer
DEPI 0.0
1.679 kg/ha
APPEFF
See PRZM manual
cm
Interval 1
app. rate 1 apprate
0.99 fraction
fraction of application rate applied to pond
31-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm
3 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
1.679 kg/ha
-Page 122 of 135-
-------
Record 17: FILTRA
IPSCND 1
UPTKF
Record 18: PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)
-Page 123 of 135-
-------
Appendix D. Example T-REX (v. 1.5) Input and Output for Glufosinate
Table D. 1. T-REX Model Inputs: Chemical Application Scenarios and Body Mass for Assessed
Species.
TREX MODEL INPUTS You must enable macros for this spreadsheet to work correctly
These values vill be used in (he calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid andfor
seed applications of pesticides.
Chemical Identity and Application Information
Chemical Name:
Seed Treatment?
~
Use:
Citrus
Product name and form:
% A.I. (leading zero must be entered
for formulations <13Ł a.i.):
Application Rate (lb ailacre)
Half-life (dags):
Application Interval (dags):
Number of Applications:
Are gou assessing applications vith
variable rates or intervals?
1.5
35
no
100.00X
Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level
assessments)
Vhat bodg weight range is assessed
(grams)?
Birds
Mammals
Small
20
15
Medium
100
35
1000
1000
Large
-Page 124 of 135-
-------
Table D.2. Avian and Mammalian Toxicity Endpoints for RQ Calculation.
Avian
Endpoim
LD50 (mgfkg-bv)
LC50 (mglkg-diet)
HOAEL (mglkg-bw)
NOAEC (mglkg-diet)
ToiiciH value
Indicate test species
BobwhiU quail
0
Bob-white quail
Mallard duck
-
400,00
Enter the Mineau el al. Scaling Factor
BobwhiU quail
13
1.15
Mammalian
Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study
350
350
Endpoint Toxicity value
Reference (MRID)
LD50 (mglkg-bw)
LC50 (mglkg-diet)
Reported Chronic
Endpoint
Is estimated dail) dose
(mglkg-bw) reported
from the available
chronic mammal studj?
3030.00
120.00
mg/kg-dict
rx>
Estimated Chronic
Dailg Dose Equivalent
to reported Chronic
mglkg-bw based on
standard FDA lab rat
conversion
-Page 125 of 135-
-------
Table D.3. Avian Dose- and Dietary-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs Based on the
Registered Use of Glufosinate on Citrus.
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga. Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients
Size
Class
(grams
)
Adjust
ed
LD50
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
Granivore
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
20
0.00
1160.43
#OIVfO!
531.86
#DIW0!
652.74
####
72.53
#DIV(0!
454.50
####
16.12
####
100
0.00
661.72
#OIVfO!
303.29
#DIV(0!
372.22
####
41.36
#DIV(0!
259.18
####
9.19
####
1000
0.00
296.26
#DIW0!
135.79
#DIW0!
166.65
####
18.52
#DIW0!
116.04
####
4.11
####
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaqa. Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients
LC50
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
0
1018.90
#DIW0!
4-67.00
#DIW0!
573.13
#DIW0!
63.68
####
399.07
#DIVI0!
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga. Chronic Avian Dietarj Based Risk Quotients
NOAE
C
(ppm)
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
400
1018.90
2.55
467.00
117
573.13
1.43
63.68
0.16
399.07
1.00
Size class not used for dietary risk quotientl J
-Page 126 of 135-
-------
Table D.4. Mammalian Dose- and Dietary-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs Based
on the Registered Use of Glufosinate on Citrus.
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga. Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients
Size
Class
(grams
)
Adjust
ed
LD50
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
Graniuore
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
15
6659.43
971.44
0.15
445.25
0.07
546.44
0.08
60.72
0.01
360.43
0.057
13.49
0.002
35
5388.19
871.40
0.12
307.72
0.08
377.88
0.07
41.96
0.01
282.98
0.049
9.325
0.002
1000
2330.56
155.67
0.07
71.35
0.03
87.56
0.04
9.73
0.00
60.969
0.026
2.162
9E-04
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaqa. Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients
LC50
(PPm)
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
0
1018.90
#DIW0!
467.00
#DIW0!
573.13
#DIW0!
83.68
####
399.07
#DIVH0!
Size class not used for dietary risk, quotients
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaqa. Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients
NOAE
C
(ppm)
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
FruitslPods
Arthropods
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
120
1018.90
8.49
487.00
3.89
573.13
4.78
83.88
0.53
399.07
3.33
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaqa. Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients
Size
Class
(grams
)
Adjust
ed
NOAEL
EECs and RQs
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf
Plants
FruitslPods
ISeeds
Arthropods
Graniuore
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
15
13.19
971.44
73.67
445.25
33.78
546.44
41.44
60.72
4.60
380.48
28.85
13.49
1.02
35
10.67
671.40
62.93
307.72
28.84
377.68
35.40
41.36
3.93
262.96
24.65
9.32
0.87
1000
4.61
155.67
33.73
71.35
15.46
87.56
18.97
9.73
2.11
60.97
13.21
2.16
0.47
-Page 127 of 135-
-------
Appendix E. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Glufosinate
TerrPlant v. 1.2.2
Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4).
Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.
Table 1. Chemical Identity.
Chemical Name
Glufosinate-ammonium
PC code
128850
Use
Blueberry
Application Method
Ground
Application Form
Liquid
Solubility in Water fpprrij
1370
Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs,
Input Parameter
Symbol
Value
Units
Application Rate
A
1.5
lbs a.i./A
Incorporation
1
1 *
none
Runoff Fraction
R
0.05 ^
none
Drift Fraction
D
0.01 *
none
Table 3. EECs for Glufosinate-ammonium. Units in lbs aiJA.
Description
Equation
EEC
Runoff to dry areas
(A/I)*R
0.075
Runoff to semi-aquatic areas
(A/1)*R*10
0.75
Spray drift
A'D
0.015
Total for dry areas
((Aflf R}+(A*D)
0.09
Total for semi-aquatic areas
(( Aj'I )* R* 10 )-*-( A* D)
0.765
Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lbs a.iJA.
Plant type
Seedling Emergence
EC 26 1 NOAEC
Vegetative Vigor
EC 25 1 NOAEC
Mono cot
0.61
0.07
0,11 0,1
Dicot
0.4
0.21
0.063 0.05
Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Glufosinate-ammonium
through runoff and''or spray drift,*
Plant Type
Listed Status
Dry
Semi-Aquatic
Spray Drift
Mono cot
non-listed
0.15
1.25
0.14
Mono cot
listed
1.29
10.93
0.15
Dicot
non-listed
0.23
1.91
0.24
Dicot
listed
0.43
3.64
0.30
*lf RQ > 1.0. the LOG is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.
-Page 128 of 135-
-------
Appendix F. STIR Results.
Input
Application and Chemical Information
Enter Chemical Name
Enter Chemical Use
Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n;
If Spray What Type (enter ground or air;
Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole)
Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg;
Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acrei
Glufosinate
Multiple I
ground
198-21
7.50E-09
1-5
'NOTE**: When entering values, pre
I in order to update linked cells.
Toxicity Properties
Bird
Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD^ (mg/kg bw)
2000
Enter Mineau Scaling Factor
1.151
Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg)
0.1781
Mammal
Enter Lowest Rat Oral LDm (mg/kg bw)
3030
Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LCjg (mg/L)
2.121
Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs)
Enter Rat Weight (kg)
Output
Results Avian (0.020 kg )
Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/nr)
Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg)
Adjusted Inhalation LD;,
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50
Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg)
Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD;.;,
3 00E-05
1.01E-05
1.37E+01
7.36E-07
Exposure not Likely Significant
1.59E-01
1.16E-02 Exposure not Likely Significant
Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )
Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/in'j
Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg)
Adjusted Inhalation LD;.
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50
Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg)
Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50
00E-05
1.26E-05
1.92E+02I
6.58E-08
Exposure not Likely Significant
1.99E-01
1 04E-03 Exposure not Likely Significant
-Page 129 of 135-
-------
Appendix G. SIP Results.
Table 1. Inputs
Parameter
Value
Chemical name
Glufosinate
Solubility (in water at 25':'C mg/L)
1000000
M am m a I i a n LDm (mg/kg-bw)
3030
Mammalian test species
laboratory rat
Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species
Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)
6
Mammalian test species
laboratory rat
Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species
Avian LD;o (mg/kg-bw)
>2000
Avian test species
northern bobwhite quail
Body weight (g) of "other" avian species
Mineau scaling factor
115
Mallard NGAEC (mg/kg-diet)
400
Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)
665
NOAEC (mg/kg-diet} for other bird species
Body weight (g) of other avian species
NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species
Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species
1
Table 2. Mammalian Results
Parameter
Acute
Chronic
Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw)
172000.0000
172000 0000
Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw)
2330 5565
4.6150
Ratio of exposure to toxicity
73.8021
37270.0680
Conclusion*
Exposure through drinking
water alone is a potential
concern for mammals
Exposure through drinking
water alone is a potential
concern for mammals
Table 3. Avian Results
Parameter
Acute
Chronic
Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw)
810000.0000
810000.0000
Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw)
#VALUE!
19.8450
Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity
#VALUE!
40816.2749
Conclusion*
#VALUE!
Exposure through drinking
water alone is a potential
concern for birds
-Page 130 of 135-
-------
Appendix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Glufosinate
IMRID
OCSPP
Guideline
Study Type
Review
Classification
Classification Justifications
(for Supplemental and Unacceptable Studies)
40345656
835.2120
Hydrolysis
Acceptable
40345657
835.2240
Aqueous
photolysis
Supplemental
Study terminated after 120 hours, rather than 30 days,
and artificial light not similar to sunlight.
41323115
835.2240
Aqueous
photolysis
Acceptable
40345658
835.2410
Soil photolysis
Supplemental
Study terminated after 45 hours, rather than 30 days.
41323116
835.2410
Soil photolysis
Unacceptable
Study conducted at rate many times higher than
expected label rate, adversely affecting dark control.
41323117
835.2410
Soil photolysis
Unacceptable
Study conducted at rate many times higher than
expected label rate, adversely affecting dark control.
41920102
835.2410
Soil photolysis
Acceptable
40345659
A,C,D
835.4100
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Supplemental
Study duration insufficient to define formation/decline
pattern of degradates.
40345659
B
835.4100
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Supplemental
Provides info on aerobic soil metabolism of
glufosinate ammonium degradate MPA.
40501018
835.4100
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Unacceptable
Incomplete material balances, degradates not
characterized.
41323118/
41920103
835.4100
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Acceptable
41323119/
41920103
835.4100
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Acceptable
40501014
835.4200
Anaerobic soil
metabolism
Supplemental
Two degradates were not identified.
41323119/
41920103
835.4200
Anaerobic soil
metabolism
Acceptable
41323120
835.4200
Anaerobic soil
metabolism
Supplemental
Identifies degradates from previous study.
40345660
835.4300
Aerobic aquatic
metabolism
Acceptable
45204401/
45204402
835.4300
Aerobic aquatic
metabolism
Supplemental
Aerobic conditions not adequately assured (pH, redox
potential, DO not reported), sediments not classified.
45215401
835.4400
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
Unacceptable
System was not anaerobic, sediments not classified,
only one sediment/water system analyzed.
46258601
835.4400
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
Supplemental
Sediment and water phases not analyzed separately,
sufficient anaerobicity (~100mV) not achieved.
40345661
835.1230/
835.1240
Adsorption/
desorption/ aged
leaching
Unacceptable
Soil sieved through 250-500 |im screen, removes sand
fraction which may cause pesticide to appear more
mobile.
40345662
835.1230/
835.1240
Adsorption/
desorption/ aged
leaching
Acceptable
-Page 131 of 135-
-------
41323121
835.1230/
835.1240
Adsorption/
desorption/ aged
leaching
Supplemental
Mobility study for glufosinate ammonium degradate,
MPA.
41323122/
41920104
835.1410
Volatility - lab
Acceptable
40345663
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Supplemental
Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate
ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage
stability data not provided.
40345664
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Supplemental
Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate
ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage
stability data not provided.
40345665
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Supplemental
Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate
ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage
stability data not provided.
41323123
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Unacceptable
Application rate not confirmed, lab method not
validated.
41323124
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Supplemental
Lab method not validated.
41920106
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Unacceptable
Application rate not confirmed, extreme variability in
data.
43110402
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Acceptable
43766915
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Acceptable
43766916
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Acceptable
47542601
835.6100
Terrestrial field
dissipation
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
40345667
835.6100
Storage stability
Unacceptable
Recoveries from time 0 samples for glufosinate
ammonium and MPA were below 70%, fortification
rates were much lower than detected soil
concentrations.
40345666
835.6100
Analytical
method in soil
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
41323123
835.6100
Analytical
method in soil
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
41920106
835.6100
Analytical
method in soil
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
43766915
835.6100
Analytical
method in soil
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
47542606/
47542607
835.6100
Analytical
method in soil
Upgradeable
Missing ILV
45204403
835.6200
Aquatic field
dissipation
Upgradeable
Storage stability not addressed, extraction technique
not validated, application recovery at one site low.
40501017
850.1730
Fish
bioaccumulation
Supplemental
Not all residues characterized, water samples from 3-
and 21-day exposure periods not analyzed.
41323130
850.1730
Fish
bioaccumulation
Acceptable
-Page 132 of 135-
-------
Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for
Glufosinate
Guideline
Subdivision J
(OCSPP)
Data Requirement
MRID
Classification
Classification Justification
(for Supplemental or
Unacceptable Studies)
71-1
(850.2100)
Avian Oral
00142450
00142451
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
71-2
(850.2200)
Avian Dietary
00150988
00150989
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
71-4
(850.2300)
Avian Reproduction
40345650
40345650
48444809
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
72-1
(850.1075)
Freshwater Fish -
Acute Toxicity
00142454
00142455
00144338
00159913
00159914
48444805
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
MRID 00144338: No data
requirement for the 19% ai EP at
time of review (1985).
72-2
(850.1010)
Freshwater Invertebrate
- Acute Toxicity
00142456
00159915
00144339
00145067
48444801
48444802
48444803
48444806
48444807
48444808
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
MRID 00144339: Erratic dose-
response; no data requirement for
the 19% ai at time of review (1984).
MRID 00145067: No data
requirement for the 19% ai at the
time of review (1984).
MRID 48444807: Water quality
information was not provided. Two
fish (7%) died at the limit
concentration, and sublethal effects
were observed in eight or nine fish
(>25%).
72-3
(850.1075)
Estuarine/Marine Fish
- Acute Toxicity
41396104
41396108
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
72-3
(850.1025)
(850.1035)
(850.1045)
(850.1055
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate - Acute
Toxicity
41396107
41396110
41396105
41396109
42262403
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
MRID 41396109: The range of
concentrations tested was not
sufficient to establish and EC50
value.
72-4
(850.1300)
Freshwater Invertebrate
- Life Cycle Test
40501010
48301101
48301102
48301103
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
Supplemental
MRID 48301101: Low reproduction
in controls; measured test
concentrations were provided in
aged medium only.
MRID: 48301103:ANOAEC was
not established within the range of
concentrations tested; there was one
instance of negative control
contamination.
72-4
(850.1350)
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate - Life
Cycle Test
Not submitted
NA
NA
72-4
(850.1400)
Freshwater Fish - Early
Not submitted
NA
NA
-Page 133 of 135-
-------
Guideline
Subdivision J
(OCSPP)
Data Requirement
MRID
Classification
Classification Justification
(for Supplemental or
Unacceptable Studies)
Life Stage Test
72-4
(850.1400)
Estuarine/Marine Fish
- Early Life Stage Test
Not submitted
NA
NA
72-5
(850.1500)
Fish - Full Life Cycle
Test
Not submitted
NA
NA
123-la
(850.4225)
Terrestrial Plant
Toxicity - Seedling
Emergence, Tier II
41396111
48531301
48718501
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
MRID 413 96111: Did not establish
NOAEL values for multiple species
within the range of concentrations
tested.
123-lb
(850.4250)
Terrestrial Plant
Toxicity - Vegetative
Vigor, Tier II
41396112
41396113
47542602
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Did not establish NOAEL values for
multiple species within the range of
concentrations tested.
123-2
(850.4400)
Vascular Aquatic Plant
Toxicity, Tiers I and II
42262404
47542605
48444814
48444815
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
123-2
(850.5400)
Algal Toxicity Test,
Tiers I and II
40345653
47542603
47542604
48444810
48444811
48444812
48444813
48444816
48444817
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
Supplemental
MRID 47542603: Test did not
achieve 90% inhibition or
stimulation at any exposure
concentration; unable to calculate
reliable EC50 values given limited
range of test concentrations.
MRID 47542604: Duration was only
72 hours instead of 96 hours; light
was higher than recommended in
guideline.
MRIDs 48444810, -11, -13, and-17:
Algae in controls had not reached
the logarithmic growth phase by test
termination, and the light intensity
was much higher than what is
recommended in the OCSPP
guideline.
141-1
(850.3020)
Honeybee acute contact
toxicity
41364002
40345654
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
Nonguideline
(OECD215)
28-day toxicity to
juvenile freshwater fish
48301104
48301106
Supplemental
Supplemental
Nonguideline studies.
Nonguideline
(OECD 204)
21-day toxicity to
juvenile freshwater fish
48301105
Supplemental
Nonguideline study.
Not applicable.
-Page 134 of 135-
-------
Appendix J. Results of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies for Glufosinate
MRID
Soil
Texture
Target
App.
Rate
(lb ai/A)
Site
Plot type
DT50 in
days
Max. Leaching
Depth (Parent)
Major Degradates & Max.
Leaching Depth
Residue
Carryover (as
% of applied)
App. Type/
Formulation
40345663
Loamy
sand
3.0
Quanitco, MD
Bare ground
14
10 cm
MPP - 10 cm
0
Soluble concentrate
40345664
Loamy
sand
2.0
Sunnyside, WA
Bare ground
14
3 in
MPA - 3 in
0
Soluble concentrate
40345665
Silt loam
3.0
Geneseo, IL
Bare ground
15
10 cm
MPP - 10 cm
0
Soluble concentrate
41323123
Loamy
sand
1.8
Geneseo, IL
Bare ground
9.8
10 cm
MPP - 10 cm
0
Soluble concentrate
41323124
Loamy
sand
1.8
Salisbury, MD
Cropped plot
8
10 cm
MPP - 10 cm
MPA - 10 cm
0
Soluble concentrate
41920106
Sandy
loam
3x1.5
Porterville, CA
Vineyard
39
12 in
MPP - 12 in
MPA - 8 in
0
Soluble concentrate
43110402
Sand
3x1.5
Orlando, FL
Orchard
8-23
24 in
MPP - 36 in
MPA - 12 in
0
Soluble concentrate
43766915
Loam
2x1.2
Noblesville, IN
Bare ground
corn
9
30
6 in
12 in
MPP, MPA - 6 in
MPP, MPA - 6 in
0
Soluble concentrate
43766916
Clay
2x1.2
Leonard, MO
Bare ground
Soybean
4
6
6 in
6 in
MPP - 12 in
MPA - 6 in
0
Soluble concentrate
47542601
Sandy
loam
3x1.5
Biola, CA
Vineyard
3-16
60 cm
MPP - 45 cm
MPA - 30 cm
0
Soluble concentrate
-Page 135 of 135-
-------
Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (April 2012 Refresh)
I. Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data 1
II. Acceptable to ECOTOX but not to OPP 2
III. Acceptable to ECOTOX - Additional Publications 23
IV. Excluded by ECOTOX (Unacceptable Publications) 35
I. Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data
Studies located and coded into ECOTOX must meet acceptability criteria, as established in the
Evaluation Guidelines for Ecotoxicity Data in the Open Literature, Office of Pesticide Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 9, 2011. Studies that do not meet these criteria are
designated in the bibliography as "Accepted for ECOTOX but not OPP." The intent of the
acceptability criteria is to ensure data quality and verifiability. The criteria parallel criteria used in
evaluating registrant-submitted studies. Specific criteria are listed below, along with the
corresponding rejection code.
• The paper does not report toxicology information for a chemical of concern to OPP;
(Rejection Code: NO COC)
• The article is not published in English language; (Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN)
• The study is not presented as a full article. Abstracts will not be considered; (Rejection Code:
NO ABSTRACT)
• The paper is not publicly available document; (Rejection Code: NO NOT PUBLIC (typically
not used, as any paper acquired from the ECOTOX holding or through the literature search is
considered public)
• The paper is not the primary source of the data; (Rejection Code: NO REVIEW)
• The paper does not report that treatment(s) were compared to an acceptable control;
(Rejection Code: NO CONTROL)
• The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure; (Rejection Code: NO
DURATION)
• The paper does not report a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or
application rate; (Rejection Code: NO CONC)
• The paper does not report the location of the study (e.g., laboratory vs. field); (Rejection
Code: NO LOCATION)
• The paper does not report a biological effect on live, whole organisms; (Rejection Code: NO
IN-VITRO)
• The paper does not report the species that was tested; and this species can be verified in a
reliable source; (Rejection Code: NO SPECIES)
• The paper does not report effects associated with exposure to a single chemical. (Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE). It should be noted that all papers including data on pesticide mixtures
are considered.
Additionally, efficacy studies on target species may be listed as acceptable studies but are generally
excluded for the purposes of risk assessment. These studies are coded as NO TARGET in the
ECOTOX bibliography. Data that originated from the OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database are coded
as NO EFED. These data are already available to the chemical team.
AI-1
-------
II. Acceptable to ECOTOX but not to OPP
1. Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. Soybean (Glycine max) Response to Simulated Drift from Selected
Sulfonylurea Herbicides, Dicamba, Glyphosate, and Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POP.
khatib@ksu.edu//K. Al-Khatib, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
66506////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 264-270.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63448
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,NSF,PSF,RIM,THF
2. Ameziane, R.; Bernhard, K., and Lightfoot, D. Expression of the Bacterial gdhA Gene Encoding a NADPH
Glutamate Dehydrogenase in Tobacco Affects Plant Growth and Development. PHYSOIL,ENV;
2000; 221, (1): 47-57.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155791
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
3. Anderson, D. M.; Swanton, C. J.; Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. The Influence of Temperature and Relative
Humidity on the Efficacy of Glufosinate-Ammonium. ACC,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1993; 33, (2): 139-
147.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155660
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
4. Aragao, F. J. L.; Vianna, G. R.; Albino, M. M. C., and Rech, E. L. Transgenic Dry Bean Tolerant to the
Herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium. MOR,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 42, (4): 1298-
1302.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155792
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GIB
5. Becker, D.; Brettschneider, R., and Lorz, H. Fertile Transgenic Wheat from Microprojectile Bombardment of
Scutellar Tissue. PHYSOIL,ENV; 1994; 5, (2): 299-307.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155794
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
6. Bell, C. Weed Control and Economic Evaluation in Glyphosate-, Glufosinate-, Glyphosate Acetyltransferase-
Resistant, and Conventional Soybean. POPSOIL,ENV; 2011: 104 p. (UMI# 1501555).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155961
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ALSV,CLNS,CLT,CRM,FMX,FSF,FZF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,IMQ,MBZ,MOIL,MTC
,NHS04,RIM,SFZ,TBNU,THF
7. Bellinder, R. R.; Lyons, R. E.; Scheckler, S. E., and Wilson, H. P. Cellular Alterations Resulting from Foliar
Applications of HOE-39866. CEL,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1987; 35, (1): 27-35.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155635
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
8. Beriault, J. N.; Horsman, G. P., and Devine, M. D. Phloem Transport of D,L-Glufosinate and Acetyl-L-
Glufosinate in Glufosinate-Resistant and -Susceptible Brassica napus. ACC.
malcolm.devine@agrevo.com//: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 121, (2): 619-628.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66795
Chemical of Concern: GFS
9. Bethke, R. K. Interaction Evaluation of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Chlorimuron and Thifensulfuron
Combinations. ACC,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 190 p. (UMI# 1487220).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155905
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CRME,GFSNH,GYPK,MOIL,NHS04,THFM
AI-2
-------
10. Bishop-Hurley, S. L.; Zabkiewicz, R. J.; Grace, L.; Gardner, R. C.; Wagner, A., and Walter, C. Conifer
Genetic Engineering: Transgenic Pinus radiata (D. Don) and Picea abies (Karst) Plants are Resistant
to the Herbicide Buster. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 20, (3): 235-243.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155760
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
11. Blackshaw, R. E. Control of Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in Conservation Fallow Systems.
POPSOIL,ENV; 1991; 5, (3): 557-562.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 151998
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,FZFP,GFSNH,GYP,PQT,SXD
12. Bond, J. A. and Walker, T. W. Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean in Rice.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (2): 225-230.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120639
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PQT,TKY,TPRT
13. Bradley, K. W. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Evaluations of Selected Herbicides and Rates for Long-Term Mugwort
(Artemisia vulgaris) Control. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, 164-170.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 62983
Chemical of Concern:
24DIO,24DXY,CPRMES,DMB,DMDP, GFSNH, GYPI,GYPL,MTS, NONA, PCLK,TPRB
14. Brewer, C. E. Arkansas Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
ACC,GRO,POP. Possibly published as Ecoref 152954////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 96 p.
(UMI# 3257868).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152883
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ACF,BT,CLNS,CRM,DMB,DMM,EPH,FMX,FSF,GFS,GYPK,IMQ,LCF,MBZ,MTC,PQT,
SFZ
15. Broome, M. L.; Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Watson, C. E. Jr. Vegetation Control for No-Tillage Corn Planted into
Warm-Season Perennial Species. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 92, (6): 1248-1255.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155612
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFSNH,GYP,IZP,IZT,PAQT
16. Bruce, J. A. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) Management in No-Tillage Soybean Production.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989: 88 p. (UMI#1338597).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 116758
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ACF,BT,CRM,DMDP,FSF,GFSNH,GYP,IMQ,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MTL,PQT,QNC,SXD
17. Burke, I. C.; Askew, S. D.; Corbett, J. L., and Wilcut, J. W. Glufosinate Antagonizes Clethodim Control of
Goosegrass (Eleusine indica). GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 664-668.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155816
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,GFS,MOIL
18. Cabrera-Ponce, J. L.; Vegas-Garcia, A., and Herrera-Estrella, L. Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Papaya
Plants Produced by an Efficient Particle Bombardment Transformation Method. PHYSOIL,TOP;
1995; 15, (1/2): 1-7.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155747
Chemical of Concern: GFS
19. Calas, A. G.; Richard, O.; Meme, S.; Beloeil, J. C.; Doan, B. T.; Gefflaut, T.; Meme, W.; Crusio, W. E.;
Pichon, J., and Montecot, C. Chronic Exposure to Glufosinate-Ammonium Induces Spatial Memory
Impairments, Hippocampal MRI Modifications and Glutamine Synthetase Activation in Mice.
AI-3
-------
BCM,BEH,GRO,PHY. Laboratoire de Neurobiologie, UPRES EA 2633, Universite d'Orleans,
Orleans, France.//: INJECT; 2008; 29, (4): 740-747.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155482
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
20. Chachalis, D.; Reddy, K. N.; Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. Herbicide Efficacy, Leaf Structure, and Spray
Droplet Contact Angle Among Ipomoea Species and SmallflowerMorningglory.
BCM,CEL,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, (5): 628-634.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66807
Chemical of Concern: ACF,BMN,BT,GFS,GYP
21. Chahal, G. S. Characterization of Biological and Physical Interactions Among Pesticides and Other
Agrochemicals. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011: 463 p. (UMI# 3463753).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155384
Chemical of Concern:
ACF,ACP,ACR,BORON,BSC,BT,CLNSM,CLT,CTN,DMB,DMDP,FMX,FNZ,FPP,FSF,GFSNH,
GYP,GYPK,IAZ,IZT,LCF,LCYT,MTC,PQT,PRC,PTBNa,PZL,SXD,TEZ,THFM,TNM
22. Chen, W. P.; Gu, X.; Liang, G. H.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Chen, P. D.; Liu, D. J., and Gill, B. S. Introduction
and Constitutive Expression of a Rice Chitinase Gene in Bread Wheat Using Biolistic Bombardment
and the Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. GROSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1998; 97, (8): 1296-1306.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155761
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
23. Chivinge, O. A. A Herbicide Screening Trial Against Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) Under
Zimbabwean Conditions. REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 82, (1): 17-20.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 31601
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACR,AMTR,ATZ,BT,BTY,CZE,DU,EPTC,GFSNH,GYP,MCPA,MSMA,MTL,NFZ
24. Choi, H. J.; Chandrasekhar, T.; Lee, H. Y., and Kim, K. M. Production of Herbicide-Resistant Transgenic
Sweet Potato Plants Through Agrobacterium tumefaciens Method. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2007; 91,
(3): 235-242.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155765
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
25. Clayton, G. W.; Brandt, S.; Johnson, E. N.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Harker, K. N.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Smith, E. G.;
Kutcher, H. R.; Vera, C., and Hartman, M. Comparison of Certified and Farm-Saved Seed on Yield
and Quality Characteristics of Canola. BCM,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 101, (6):
1581-1588.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 151393
Chemical of Concern: CLT,DFC,EMSF,FDX,GFSNH,IZT,IZX, SXD
26. Clewis, S. B. Weed Management Strategies in Conventional- and Reduced-Tillage Cotton Production
Systems. MOR,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 167 p. (UMI# 3293601).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155916
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,CLT,DMDP,FMX,FZF,GFS,GYP,GYPI,GYPT,MSMA,MTC,PAQT,PDM,PMT,PQT,
SXD,THFM,TNM
27. Clough, G. H.; Rondon, S. I.; DeBano, S. J.; David, N., and Hamm, P. B. Reducing Tuber Damage by Potato
Tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with Cultural Practices and Insecticides. POP. Oregon State
University, Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 2121 S. 1st St. Hermiston, OR
97838, USA. george.clough@oregonstate.edu//: ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 103, (4): 1306-1311.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152982
Chemical of Concern: ABM,DQTBr,EFV,GFSNH,IDC,MOM,MTM,SS
AI-4
-------
28. Coetzer, E. and Al-Khatib, K. Photosynthetic Inhibition and Ammonium Accumulation in Palmer Amaranth
After Glufosinate Application. ACC,BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 454-459.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66812
Chemical of Concern: GFS
29. Coetzer, E.; Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. M. Glufosinate Efficacy, Absorption, and Translocation in
Amaranth as Affected by Relative Humidity and Temperature. ACC,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 8-
13.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59382
Chemical of Concern: GFS
30. Confalonieri, M.; Belenghi, B.; Balestrazzi, A.; Negri, S.; Facciotto, G.; Schenone, G., and Delledonne, M.
Transformation of Elite White Poplar (Populus alba L.) cv. 'Villafranca' and Evaluation of Herbicide
Resistance. PHY,REP SOIL, ENV, MIXTURE; 2000; 19, (10): 978-982.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155767
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
31. Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays).
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 324-333.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 74064
Chemical of Concern: AMTR,ATZ,GFS,MTL,NSF
32. Culpepper, A. S.; York, A. C.; Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. Weed Management in Glufosinate- and
Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, (1): 77-
88.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59387
Chemical of Concern: CRM,FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ
33. Curtis, I. S. and Nam, H. G. Transgenic Radish (Raphanus sativus L. Longipinnatus Bailey) by Floral-Dip
Method - Plant Development and Surfactant are Important in Optimizing Transformation Efficiency.
PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 10, (4): 363-371.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155795
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
34. D'Hertefeldt, T.; Jorgensen, R. B., and Pettersson, L. B. Long-Term Persistence of GM Oilseed Rape in the
Seedbank. MOR,POP SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 4, (3): 314-317.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155487
Chemical of Concern: FXPM,GFSNH,TBNU
35. Datta, S. K.; Datta, K.; Soltanifar, N.; Donn, G., and Potrykus, I. Herbicide-Resistant Indica Rice Plants from
IRRI Breeding Line IR72 After PEG-Mediated Transformation of Protoplasts.
CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 1992; 20, (4): 619-629.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155745
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
36. Davis, B. M. Response of Rice and Wheat to Low Rates of Glufosinate and Glyphosate and Soybean
Response to Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 60 p. (UMI# 1484667).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155898
Chemical of Concern: CMZ,CSF,GFS,GYP,HSF,MTL,MTS,QNC,TBNU,THF
37. Denchev, P. D.; Songstad, D. D.; McDaniel, J. K., and Conger, B. V. Transgenic Orchardgrass (Dactylis
glomerata) Plants by Direct Embryogenesis from Microprojecticle Bombarded Leaf Cells.
PHYSOIL,TOP; 1997; 16, (12): 813-819.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155768
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFSNH
AI-5
-------
38. Derr, J. F. Biological Assessment of Herbicide Use in Apple Production II. Estimated Impacts Following
Loss of Specific Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 11, (1): 20-25.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 121105
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,CPR,DBN,DU,GFS,GYP,IXB,NFZ,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PAQT,PDM,PZM,SZ,TRB
39. Devendra, R.; Umamahesh, V.; Ramachandra Prasad, T. V.; Prasad, T. G.; Asha, S. T., and Ashok. Influence
of Surfactants on Efficacy of Different Herbicides in Control of Cyperus rotundus and Oxalis
latifolia. GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 86, (8): 1148-1151.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 112804
Chemical of Concern: COIL,GFSNH,GYP,IZP,NYP,NaDPA,OXF
40. Dietz-Pfeilstetter, A. and Zwerger, P. In-Field Frequencies and Characteristics of Oilseed Rape with Double
Herbicide Resistance. GRO,PHY,POP. Institute for Biosafety of Genetically Modified Plants and
Institute for Plant Protection in Field Crops and Grassland, Julius Kiihn-Institut, Federal Research
Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germany. antje.dietz@jki.bund.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2009;
8, (2): 101-111.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155476
Chemical of Concern: CPR,FXPM,GFSNH,GYPI,IMC,PYD,TBNU
41. Dinehart, S. The Impacts of Roundup WeatherMAX and Ignite 280 SL on Amphibians in the Southern High
Plains. CEL,MORENV; 2009: 111 p. (UMI#3390904).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155897
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK
42. Doohan, D. J.; Felix, J.; Jasinski, J.; Welty, C., and Kleinhenz, M. D. Insect Management and Herbicide
Tolerance in Near-Isogenic Sister Lines of Transgenic and Non-Transgenic Sweet Corn.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2002; 21, (5): 375-381.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 101210
Chemical of Concern: BT,CBL,GFS,LCYT,PMR,TDC
43. Downs, C. G.; Christey, M. C.; Davies, K. M.; King, G. A.; Seelye, J. F.; Sinclair, B. K., and Stevenson, D.
G. Hairy Roots of Brassica napus: II. Glutamine Synthetase Overexpression Alters Ammonia
Assimilation and the Response to Phosphinothricin. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1994; 14, (1): 41-46.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155674
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
44. Droge-Laser, W.; Siemeling, U.; Puhler, A., and Broer, I. The Metabolites of the Herbicide L-
Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate): Identification, Stability, and Mobility in Transgenic, Herbicide-
Resistant, and Untransformed Plants. ACCSOIL,TOP; 1994; 105, (1): 159-166.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155661
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
45. Eady, C. C.; Reader, J.; Davis, S., and Dale, T. Inheritance and Expression of Introduced DNA in Transgenic
Onion Plants (Allium cepa). MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2003; 142, (2): 219-224.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155789
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
46. Eberlein, C. V.; Guttieri, M. J., and Fletcher, F. N. Broadleaf Weed Control in Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)
with Postemergence Directed Herbicides. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1993; 7, (2): 298-303.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 96888
Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,SAMA
47. Ellis, J. M. Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Technologies: Weed Management and Off-Target Crop
Response. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001: 127 p. (UMI# 3016543).
AI-6
-------
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155896
Chemical of Concern: ACF,CRM,DMM,FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ,LCF,MBZ,MTL,PDM,SFZ
48. Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. Soybean (Glycine max) and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to
Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 16, 580-586.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 69443
Chemical of Concern: FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MTL
49. Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. Crop Response to Simulated Drift of
Roundup Ultra and Liberty Herbicides. GRO,PHY,POP SOIL,ENV; 2000; 43, (3): 18-19.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 68623
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI
50. Enriquez-Obregon, G. A.; Vazquez-Padron, R. I.; Prieto-Samsonov, D. L.; De La Riva, G. A., and Selman-
Housein, G. Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Plants by Agrobacterium-
Mediated Transformation. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1998; 206, (1): 20-27.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155770
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
51. Ernst, D.; Rosenbrock-Krestel, H.; Kirchhof, G.; Bieber, E.; Giunaschwili, N.; Muller, R.; Fischbeck, G.;
Wagner, T.; Sandermann, H., and Hartmann, A. Molecular Investigations of the Soil, Rhizosphere
and Transgenic Glufosinate-Resistant Rape and Maize Plants in Combination with Herbicide (Basta)
Application Under Field Conditions. CEL,POP. Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology,
Helmholtz Zentrum Miinchen, German Research Center for Environmental Health, D-85764
Neuherberg, Germany. ernst@helmholtz-muenchen.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2008; 63, (11/12): 864-872.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155141
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
52. Esbenshade, W. R.; Curran, W. S.; Roth, G. W.; Hartwig, N. L., and Orzolek, M. D. Effect of Row Spacing
and Herbicides on Burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus) Control in Herbicide-Resistant Corn (Zea mays).
GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (2): 348-354.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66822
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CRM,GFS,IXF,IZP,IZT,IZX,NHS04,NSF,PSF,RIM,SZ,THF
53. Everman, W. J. Influence of Environmental and Physiological Factors on Glufosinate and Glyphosate Weed
Management. ACC,BCM,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 208 p. (UMI# 3293610).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155903
Chemical of Concern:
ADC,FMU,FMX,FSF,GFS,GFSNH,GYP,GYPI,GYPK,GYPT,MSMA,MTC,MTL,PDM,PMT,PTB,
PTBNa
54. Everman, W. J.; Mayhew, C. R.; Burton, J. D.; York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Absorption, Translocation, and
Metabolism of 14C-Glufosinate in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn, Goosegrass (Eleusine indica), Large
Crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,TOP;
2009; 57, (1): 1-5.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155525
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
55. Everman, W. J.; Thomas, W. E.; Burton, J. D.; York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Absorption, Translocation, and
Metabolism of Glufosinate in Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton, Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri), and Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2009; 57, (4):
357-361.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155524
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GFSNH
AI-7
-------
56. Evers, G. W. Herbicide Evaluation as Sod Dessicants on Dalligrass. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1987: 60-62.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155647
Chemical of Concern: FZFB,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,SXD
57. Fernandez-Cerejido, M. C.; Bastida, F., and Menendez, J. The Effect of Several Adjuvants on Glufosinate
Effectiveness in Conyza Species. GRO. Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Escuela
Politecnica Superior Campus Universitario de La Rabida, Universidad de Huelva.//:
SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 74, (2): 525-532.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155477
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,LEC,PPA
58. Figueira Filho, E. S.; Figueiredo, L. F. A., and Monte-Neshich, D. C. Transformation of Potato (Solanum
tuberosum) cv. Mantiqueira Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Evaluation of Herbicide
Resistance. GROSOIL,ENV; 1994; 13, (12): 666-670.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155748
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
59. Franssen, A. S. and Kells, J. J. Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Control with Postemergence
Herbicides in No-Tillage Glufosinate-Resistant Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1):
14-17.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155681
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ATZ,BMN,BT,CPR,DMB,DMDP,FMC,FTS,GFS,HSF,NHS04,NSF,RIM,THF
60. Friesen, L. F.; Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. Evidence of Contamination of Pedigreed Canola
(Brassica napus) Seedlots in Western Canada with Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance
Traits. MOR,PHY,REP. Lyle_Friesen@umanitoba.ca//L.F. Friesen, Dep. of Plant Sci., Univ. of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. R3T 2N2, Canada////: SOIL,ENV; 2003; 95, (5): 1342-1347.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 82076
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF
61. Galbiati, M.; Moreno, M. A.; Nadzan, G.; Zourelidou, M., and Dellaporta, S. L. Large-Scale T-DNA
Mutagenesis in Arabidopsis for Functional Genomic Analysis. MOR,PHY. Yale University,
Department of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology, New Haven, CT 06520-8104, USA.//:
SOIL,ENV; 2000; 1, (1): 25-34.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155797
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
62. Gardner, A. P.; York, A. C.; Jordan, D. L., and Monks, D. W. Management of Annual Grasses and
Amaranthus spp. in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POP. Department of Cro Science,North Carolina
State University,Raleigh,NC//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 10, (4): 328-338.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155507
Chemical of Concern: FMU,FSF,GFSNH,MSMA,PDM,PMT,PTB,PTBNa
63. Girgi, M.; O'Kennedy, M. M.; Morgenstern, A.; Mayer, G.; Lorz, H., and Oldach, K. H. Transgenic and
Herbicide Resistant Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) R.Br, via Microprojectile Bombardment
of Scutellar Tissue. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2002; 10, (4): 243-252.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155772
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
64. Grangeot, M.; Chauvel, B., and Gauvrit, C. Spray Retention, Foliar Uptake and Translocation of Glufosinate
and Glyphosate in Ambrosia artemisiifolia. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 46, (2): 152-162.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155634
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP
AI-8
-------
65. Grey, T. L.; Raymer, P. L., and Bridges, D. C. Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus) Response and
Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides. BCM,MOR,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20, (3):
551-557.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155887
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZX
66. Griffin, R. M. Echinochloa polystachya Management in Louisiana Rice. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006:
91 p. (UMI# 3208159).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154941
Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FNP,GFS,GYP,IZT,PDM,PPN,QNC
67. Griffin, R. M.; Webster, E. P.; Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. Biology and Control of Creeping Rivergrass
(Echinochloa polystachya) in Rice. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2008; 22, (1): 1-7.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154940
Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FNP,GFS,GYP,IZT,PPN,QNC
68. Gubbels, G. H.; Bonner, D. M., and Kenaschuk, E. O. Use of Desiccants to Reduce Frost Damage in
Immature Flax GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 1994; 74, (1): 121-123.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155632
Chemical of Concern: DMP,DQT,GFSNH,GYP
69. Hall, L.; Topinka, K.; Huffman, J.; Davis, L., and Good, A. Pollen Flow Between Herbicide-Resistant
Brassica napus is the Cause of Multiple-Resistant B. napus Volunteers.
MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 48, (6): 688-694.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155626
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZT
70. Hamill, A. S.; Knezevic, S. Z.; Chandler, K.; Sikkema, P. H.; Tardif, F. J.; Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J.
Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14,
578-585.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59451
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,GFS
71. Harcourt, R. L.; Kyozuka, J.; Floyd, R. B.; Bateman, K. S.; Tanaka, H.; Decroocq, V.; Llewellyn, D. J.; Zhu,
X.; Peacock, W. J., and Dennis, E. S. Insect- and Herbicide-Resistant Transgenic Eucalypts.
PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2000; 6, (3): 307-315.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155773
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
72. Harker, K. N.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Kirkland, K. J.; Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. Herbicide-Tolerant Canola:
Weed Control and Yield Comparisons in Western Canada. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000;
80, (3): 647-654.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155677
Chemical of Concern: EMSF,GFS,GYP,SXD
73. Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Blackshaw, R. E., and Stevenson, F. C. Herbicide Timing
and Rate Effects on Weed Management in Three Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus)
Systems. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (4): 1006-1012.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155906
Chemical of Concern: BMY,CBF,CYH,DM,GFS,GYP,IMC,IZT,IZX,MLX,SXD
74. Hart, S. E.; Yelverton, F.; Nelson, E. K.; Lycan, D. W., and Henry, G. M. Response of Glyphosate-Resistant
and Glyphosate-Susceptible Bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) to Postemergence Herbicides.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 549-559.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154040
AI-9
-------
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLT,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,IMQ,IXF,MBZ,MSMA,SMM
75. Hawkes, T.; Pline-Srnic, W.; Dale, R.; Friend, E.; Hollinshead, T.; Howe, P.; Thompson, P.; Viner, R., and
Greenland, A. D-Glufosinate as a Male Sterility Agent for Hybrid Seed Production. GRO,REP.
Syngenta, Jealott's Hill Research Centre, Bracknell, Berks, UK. tim.hawkes@syngenta.co//:
SOIL,ENV; 2011; 9, (3): 301-314.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155787
Chemical of Concern: GFS
76. Herold, A.; Wendler, C., and Wild, A. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Glutathione Synthesis
in Plants. BCMSOIL,ENV; 1990; 103, (1): 68-71.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155638
Chemical of Concern: GFS
77. Hoshino, Y.; Turkan, I., and Mii, M. Transgenic Bialaphos-Resistant Snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus L.)
Produced by Agrobacterium rhizogenes Transformation. GROSOIL,ENV; 1998; 76, (1/2): 37-57.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155749
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
78. Hoss, N. E.; Al-Khatib, K.; Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. Efficacy of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, and
Imazethapyr on Selected Weed Species. ACC,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE,TOP; 2003; 51,
(1): 110-117.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155508
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,GFS,GYP,IZT,MOIL,NHS04
79. Hu, F.; Zhang, L.; Wang, X.; Ding, J., and Wu, D. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformed Transgenic
Triploid Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon x C. transvaalensis) Plants are Highly Resistant to the
Glufosinate Herbicide Liberty. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 83, (1): 13-19.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155459
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
80. Huo, X. W.; Wei, J. H.; Xu, C. B.; Mi, F. G., and Yun, J. F. Plant Regeneration from Immature Inflorescence
Culture and Genetic Transformation of Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum x A. desertorum cv.
Hycrest-Mengnong). CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 5, (9): 648-654.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 114599
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,GFS
81. Ioki, M.; Ohkoshi, M.; Nakajima, N.; Nakahira-Yanaka, Y., and Watanabe, M. M. Isolation of Herbicide-
Resistant Mutants of Botryococcus braunii. POP.
http://www.sciencedirect.eom/science/article/pii/S0960852411010522//: AQUA; 2012; IN PRESS,
4 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155479
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PQT
82. Ivany, J. A. and Sanderson, J. B. Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Cultivars to Glufosinate-
Ammonium and Diquat Used as Desiccants. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 15, (3): 505-510.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 67079
Chemical of Concern: DQT,GFSNH
83. Jayaraj, J. and Punja, Z. K. Combined Expression of Chitinase and Lipid Transfer Protein Genes in
Transgenic Carrot Plants Enhances Resistance to Foliar Fungal Pathogens. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007;
26, (9): 1539-1546.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155774
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
AI-10
-------
84. Jhala, A. J. Environmental Biosafety of Genetically Engineered Crops: Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) as a
Model System. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 236 p. (UMI# NR60171).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155924
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYPK,IZT,IZX
85. Judge, C. A.; Neal, J. C., and Derr, J. F. Preemergence and Postemergence Control of Japanese Stiltgrass
(Microstegiumvimineum). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19,(1): 183-189.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155880
Chemical of Concern:
BFL,CLT,DTP,FZFP,GFS,GYPI,IXB,MSMA,MTL,NPP,ODZ,OYZ,PDM,PRM,QNC,SXD,TFN
86. Karunaratne, S.; Sohn, A.; Mouradov, A.; Scott, J.; Steinbiss, H. H., and Scott, K. J. Transformation of Wheat
with the Gene Encoding the Coat Protein of Barley Yellow Mosaic Virus. PHYSOIL,TOP; 1996;
23, (4): 429-435.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155788
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
87. Kegode, G. O. and Fronning, B. E. Artemisia biennis (Biennial Wormwood) Control is Influenced by Plant
Size and Weed Flora at Time of Herbicide Application. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 24, (10):
915-920.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155460
Chemical of Concern: BT,GFS,GYP,NHS04
88. Kim, S. J.; Lee, J. Y.; Kim, Y. M.; Yang, S. S.; Hwang, O. J.; Hong, N. J.; Kim, K. M.; Lee, H. Y.; Song, P.
S., and Kim, J. I. Agrobacterium-Mediated High-Efficiency Transformation of Creeping Bentgrass
with Herbicide Resistance. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 50, (5): 577-585.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155699
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,DMB,GFSNH
89. King, S. R. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Herbicide Programs for the Control of ALS-Resistant Shattercane (Sorghum
bicolor) in Corn (Zea mays). MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20, (2): 416-421.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155882
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTC,NSF,PAQT,PQT,SZ
90. Knispel, A. L.; McLachlan, S. M.; Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide
Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2008; 56, (1): 72-80.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155530
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF
91. Knott, C. M. Control of Volunteer Oilseed Rape in Peas. POP. Processors & Growers Res. Org.,Research
Station, eterborough,UK//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 3, 889-894.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155957
Chemical of Concern: BT,CZE,DQTBr,FSF,GFSNH,MCPA,MCPB,MCPBNa,PDM,PMT
92. Kocher, H. and Kocur, J. Influence of Wetting Agents on the Foliar Uptake and Herbicidal Activity of
Glufosinate. ACC,BCM,PHY. Third International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals,
Cambridge, England, UK, August 3-7, 1992.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 37, (2): 155-158.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155648
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
93. Koger, C. H.; Burke, I. C.; Miller, D. K.; Kendig, J. A.; Reddy, K. N., and Wilcut, J. W. MSMA Antagonizes
Glyphosate and Glufosinate Efficacy on Broadleaf and Grass Weeds.
MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1): 159-165.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155532
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK,MSMA
AI-11
-------
94. Kuai, B.; Dalton, S. J.; Bettany, A. J. E., and Morris, P. Regeneration of Fertile Transgenic Tall Fescue Plants
with a Stable Highly Expressed Foreign Gene. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1999; 58, (2): 149-154.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155781
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
95. Kumar, S. and Timko, M. P. Enhanced Tissue-Specific Expression of the Herbicide Resistance bar Gene in
Transgenic Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L cv. Coker 310FR) Using the Arabidopsis rbcS atslA
Promoter. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 21, (4): 251-259.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155782
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
96. Langeluddeke, P.; Reuss, H. U.; Ceconi, C.; Manning, T. H., and Rottele, M. Glufosinate (HOE 39866), a
New Non-Selective Contact Herbicide: Results of Several Years' Experimentation in Orchards and
Vineyards from Different European Countries. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1982; 47, (1): 95-104.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 32192
Chemical of Concern: DU,GFSNH,GYP,MCPA,PAQT
97. Langeluddeke, P.; Rottele, M.; Bier, B., and Kocur, J. Methods of Imrpoving the Efficacy of Glufosinate-
Ammonium. POPSOIL,ENV; 1989: 1033-1038.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155646
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
98. Lanie, A. J.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. Herbicide Combinations for Soybean (Glycine
max) Planted in Stale Seedbed. POP. Dep. Plant Pathol. Crop Physiol., La. Agric. Exp. Stn., La.
State Univ. Agric. Cent., Baton Rouge, LA 70803////: SOIL,ENV; 1994; 8, (1): 17-22.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 107705
Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,PAQT
99. Latha, A. M.; Rao, K. V.; Reddy, T. P., and Reddy, V. D. Development of Transgenic Pearl Millet
(Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) Plants Resistant to Downy Mildew. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2006; 25,
(9): 927-935.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155885
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFSNH
100. Lebouteiller, B.; Gousset-Dupont, A.; Pierre, J. N.; Bleton, J.; Tchapla, A.; Maucourt, M.; Moing, A.; Rolin,
D., and Vidal, J. Physiological Impacts of Modulating Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxylase Levels in
Leaves and Seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 172, (2): 265-272.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 115274
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
101. Lee, K. W.; Kim, K. Y.; Kim, K. H.; Lee, B. H.; Kim, J. S., and Lee, S. H. Development of Antibiotic
Marker-Free Creeping Bentgrass Resistance Against Herbicides. MOR. Grassland and Forages
Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan, South Korea.//: SOIL,ENV; 2011; 43, (1):
13-18.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155489
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP
102. Lee, T. T.; Dumas, T., and Jevnikar, J. J. Comparison of the Effects of Glyphosate and Related Compounds
on Indole-3-Acetic Acid Metabolism and Ethylene Production in Tobacco Callus.
BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1983; 20, (3): 354-359.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 32291
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP
103. Li, R. F.; Wei, J. H.; Wang, H. Z.; He, J., and Sun, Z. Y. Development of Highly Regenerable Callus Lines
and Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Chinese Lawngrass (Zoysia sinica Hance) with a
AI-12
-------
Cold Inducible Transcription Factor, CBF1. GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 85, (3): 297-305.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155785
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFS
104. Li, X.; Gong, Z.; Koiwa, H.; Niu, X.; Espartero, J.; Zhu, X.; Veronese, P.; Ruggiero, B.; Bressan, R. A.;
Weller, S. C., and Hasegawa, P. M. Bar-Expressing Peppermint (Mentha x piperita L. var. Black
Mitcham) Plants are Highly Resistant to the Glufosinate Herbicide Liberty. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV;
2001; 8, (2): 109-118.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155784
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
105. Malathi, B.; Ramesh, S.; Venkateswara Rao, K., and Dashavantha Reddy, V. Agrobacterium-Mediated
Genetic Transformation and Production of Semilooper Resistant Transgenic Castor (Ricinus
communis L.). BCM,CEL,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 147, (3): 441-449.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155426
Chemical of Concern: BAD,CTK,GFSNH,GIB,NAA
106. Manickavasagam, M.; Ganapathi, A.; Anbazhagan, V. R.; Sudhakar, B.; Selvaraj, N.; Vasudevan, A., and
Kasthurirengan, S. Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation and Development of
Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane (Saccharum Species Hybrids) Using Axillary Buds.
MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 23, (3): 134-143.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155702
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
107. Martinson, K. B.; Sothern, R. B.; Koukkari, W. L.; Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. Circadian Response of
Annual Weeds to Glyphosate and Glufosinate. PHY,POP. Department of Agronomy and Plant
Genetics, College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul 55108, USA. bjork026@tc.umn.edu//: SOIL,ENV; 2002; 19, (2): 405-422.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155541
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI
108. Maschhoff, J. R.; Hart, S. E., and Baldwin, J. L. Effect of Ammonium Sulfate on the Efficacy, Absorption,
and Translocation of Glufosinate. ACC,GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 48, 2-6.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59558
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
109. Matsumura, N.; Kikuchi-Utsumi, K., and Nakaki, T. Activities of 7-Nitroindazole and l-(2-
(Trifluoromethylphenyl)-Imidazole Independent of Neuronal Nitric-Oxide Synthase Inhibition.
BCM,PHY. Department of Pharmacology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1 Kaga,
Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8605, Japan.//: INJECT; 2008; 325, (2): 357-362.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155492
Chemical of Concern: GFS
110. McCabe, M. S.; Schepers, F.; Van der Arend, A.; Mohapatra, U.; De Laat, A. M. M.; Power, J. B., and
Davey, M. R. Increased Stable Inheritance of Herbicide Resistance in Transgenic Lettuce Carrying a
petE Promoter-Bar Gene Compared with a CaMV 35S-Bar Gene. MOR. M.R. Davey, Plant Science
Division, School of Biological Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham
NG7 2RD, United Kingdom////: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 99, (3/4): 587-592.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155888
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
111. McCarty, L. B.; Colvin, D. L., and Higgins, J. M. HighbushBlackberry (Rubus argutus) Control in
Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum). POP. Dep. Hortic., P and As Build., Box 340375, Clemson Univ.,
Clemson, SC 29634-0375////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 10, (4): 754-761.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155881
Chemical of Concern:
AI-13
-------
24D,24DXY,ALSV,AMTL,DMB,FXP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,MOIL,ODZ,SMU,TPR
112. Meme, S.; Calas, A. G.; Montecot, C.; Richard, O.; Gautier, H.; Gefflaut, T.; Doan, B. T.; Meme, W.; Pichon,
J., and Beloeil, J. C. MRI Characterization of Structural Mouse Brain Changes in Response to
Chronic Exposure to the Glufosinate Ammonium Herbicide. BCM,CELINJECT; 2009; 111, (2):
321-330.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155533
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
113. Mersey, B. G.; Hall, J. C.; Anderson, D. M., and Swanton, C. J. Factors Affecting the Herbicidal Activity of
Glufosinate-Ammonium: Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism in Barley and Green Foxtail.
ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1990; 37, (1): 90-98.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155606
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
114. Miller, R. P.; Martinson, K. B.; Sothern, R. B.; Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. CircadianResponse of
Annual Weeds in a Natural Setting to High and Low Application Rates of Four Herbicides with
Different Modes of Action. GRO,POP. Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, College of
Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences,University of Minnesota, St. Paul,MN//: SOIL,ENV;
2003; 20, (2): 299-324.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155958
Chemical of Concern: CRME,FSF,GFSNH,GYPI,SXD
115. Monks, D. W.; Halcomb, M. A., and Ashburn, E. L. Survey and Control of Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) in
Tennessee Field Nurseries. POP SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 5, (1): 218-220.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 70261
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DTP,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,IXB,LCF,MTL,NPP,OYZ,SZ
116. Montague, A.; Ziauddin, A.; Lee, R.; Ainley, W. M., and Strommer, J. High-Efficiency Phosphinothricin-
Based Selection for Alfalfa Transformation. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2007; 91, (1): 29-36.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155703
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
117. Moreira, I.; Monteiro, A., and Sousa, E. Chemical Control of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) by Foliar
Herbicides Under Different Spray Conditions. POP. ilidimor@esoterica.pt//I.Moreira, Dep. de
Proteccao das Plantas e de Fitoecol., Inst. Superior de Agronomia, P-1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal//:
SOIL,ENV; 1999; 415, 299-304.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 69855
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP
118. Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Decreasing Rates of Nonselective Herbicides in Double-Crop No-Till
Soybeans (Glycine max). POP. Dep. Plant Pathol. Physiol., Weed Sci., Via Polytech. Inst. State
Univ., Blacksburg, Va. 24061////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 5, (1): 198-201.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 116551
Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFSNH,GYP,LNR,PAQT,PQT
119. Moyer, J. R.; Acharya, S. N.; Fraser, J.; Richards, K. W., and Foroud, N. Desiccation of Alfalfa for Seed
Production with Diquat and Glufosinate. GRO, POP, REP SOIL, ENV; 1996; 76, (3): 435-439.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155428
Chemical of Concern: DQTBr,GFS
120. Muruganantham, M.; Amutha, S.; Selvaraj, N.; Vengadesan, G., and Ganapathi, A. Efficient Agrobacterium-
Mediated Transformation of Vigna mungo Using Immature Cotyledonary-Node Explants and
Phosphinothricin as the Selection Agent. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 43, (6): 550-557.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155704
AI-14
-------
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
121. Nielson, R. L. Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Biological Parameters for the Development of a
Mechanistic Agronomic Model. PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 158 p. (UMI#
MR45862).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155893
Chemical of Concern: DFC,FDX,GFS,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,QZFPE,SXD,TMX
122. Nikolova, G.; Baeva, G., and Marinkov, P. Post-Harvest Weed Control and Runner Control with Glufosinate-
Ammonium in Strawberries. BCM,GRO,POP. Iinternational Conference, Brighton, England, UK,
November 20-23, 1989. XXII+408P.(VOL. 1); XXI+394P.(VOL. 2); XXII+435P.(VOL. 3) British
Crop Protection Council: Surrey, England, UK. Illus. Paper. ISBN 0-948404-36-l(VOL. 1); ISBN 0-
948404-37-X(VOL. 2); ISBN 0-948404-38-8(VOL. 3); ISBN 0-948404-35-3(SET).; 0 (0). 1989.
1039-1044.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989; 8, 1039-1044.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155605
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHS04
123. Norsworthy, J. K.; McClelland, M., and Griffith, G. M. Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist Response to Pre-
Plant Application of Residual Herbicides in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).
GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28, (1): 62-67.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155485
Chemical of Concern: DMB,DU,FMU,FMX,GFS,GYPK,NFZ,NHS04,OXF,PMT,PTB,THFM
124. Norsworthy, J. K.; Scott, R. C.; Smith, K. L.; Still, J., and Meier, J. Herbicide Options for Rice Cutgrass
(Leersia oryzoides) Control. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (1): 1-5.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154949
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,CMZ,FNP,GFS,GYP,HSF,IZT,MOIL,PPN,QNC,TBC
125. Oard, J.; Cohn, M. A.; Linscombe, S.; Gealy, D., and Gravois, K. Field Evaluation of Seed Production,
Shattering, and Dormancy in Hybrid Populations of Transgenic Rice (Oryza sativa) and the Weed,
Red Rice (Oiyza sativa). GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 157, (1): 13-22.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100609
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PPN,QNC,TBC
126. Oraby, H. F.; Ransom, C. B.; Kravchenko, A. N., and Sticklen, M. B. Barley HVA1 Gene Confers Salt
Tolerance inR3 Transgenic Oat. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 45, (6): 2218-2227.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 105808
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,Halides,NaCl
127. Osuna, M. D. and De Prado, R. Conyza albida: A New Biotype with ALS Inhibitor Resistance.
ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2003; 43, (3): 221-226.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 72252
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,BSF,CPR,CSF,DU,FXP,GFSNH,GLY,GYP,IZP,IZT,MCPA,MCPP1,NSF,QNC,RIM,
SZ,TBNU,TPR,TSF
128. Park, K. W. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum)
and Its Impact on Fitness. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (6): 780-786.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154031
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLT,CMZ,DU,EFS,FZF,GFS,GYP,MBZ,NFZ,PAQT,TFN,TRB
129. Park, S. H.; Rose, S. C.; Zapata, C.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Cross-Protection and Selectable
Marker Genes in Plant Transformation. GROSOIL,ENV; 1998; 34, (2): 117-121.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155430
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
AI-15
-------
130. Pascual, M. B.; Jing, Z. P.; Kirby, E. G.; Canovas, F. M., and Gallardo, F. Response of Transgenic Poplar
Overexpressing Cytosolic Glutamine Synthetase to Phosphinothricin. BCM,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;
2008; 69, (2): 382-389.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 114035
Chemical of Concern: GFS
131. Pfeilstetter, E.; Matzk, A.; Feldmann, S. D., and Schiemann, J. Rapid and Efficient Screening of
Phosphinothricin Tolerant Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) with a Novel Germination Test.
CEL,PHY,REPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 113, (2): 119-124.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155431
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
132. Pigeaire, A.; Abernethy, D.; Smith, P. M.; Simpson, K.; Fletcher, N.; Lu, C. Y.; Atkins, C. A., and Cornish,
E. Transformation of a Grain Legume (Lupinus angustifolius L.) via Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-
Mediated Gene Transfer to Shoot Apices. CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 1997; 3, (5): 341-349.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155435
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
133. Pline, W. A.; Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism of Glufosinate in Five
Weed Species as Influenced by Ammonium Sulfate and Pelargonic Acid.
ACCSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 47, (6): 636-643.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63964
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHS04
134. Pline, W. A.; Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. Effects of Temperature and Chemical Additives on the Response of
Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybeans to Glufosinate and Glyphosate Applications.
ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 65, (2): 119-131.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63963
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NHS04,NONA
135. Pniewski, T. and Kapusta, J. Efficiency of Transformation of Polish Cultivars of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) with
Various Regeneration Capacity by Using Hypervirulent Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strains.
CEL,MOR,PHY. Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Strzeszynska 34, 60-479
Pozna?, Poland. tpni@igr.poznan.pl//: SOIL,ENV,TOP; 2005; 46, (2): 139-147.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155436
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
136. Popelka, J. C.; Gollasch, S.; Moore, A.; Molvig, L., and Higgins, T. J. V. Genetic Transformation of Cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata L.) and Stable Transmission of the Transgenes to Progeny. PHYSOIL,TOP;
2006; 25, (4): 304-312.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155705
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
137. Prasad, R. and Dixon-Warren, H. Bioherbicides for Forestry: Development of Some Procedures for Bioassay
of Phytotoxins. PHYSOIL,ENV; 1992; 7, (4): 154-156.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100945
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
138. Price, A. J.; Koger, C. H.; Wilcut, J. W.; Miller, D., and Van Santen, E. Efficacy of Residual and Non-
Residual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems when Applied with Glyphosate,
Glufosinate, orMSMA. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 22, (3): 459-466.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152895
Chemical of Concern: CFE,DU,FMU,FMX,GFS,GYP,LCF,LNR,MSMA,OXF,PMT
139. Pritchard, G. H. Control of Bridal Creeper with Herbicides. POP SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 6, (3): 126.
AI-16
-------
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120946
Chemical of Concern: BMN,CRME,FZFB,GFS,GYP,IZT,MCPA,MTSM,THF,TNM
140. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. Effect of Relative Humidity on the Uptake,
Translocation, and Efficacy of Glufosinate Ammonium in Wild Oat (Avena fatua).
ACC,GROSOIL,ENV; 2002; 73, (1): 1-8.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155656
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
141. Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Riley, A.; Cannell, M.; Barcelo, P., and Lazzeri, P. A. Procedures Allowing the
Transformation of a Range of European Elite Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties via Particle
Bombardment. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 52, (357): 865-874.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155437
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,AgN,GFSNH,TDZ
142. Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Riley, A.; Lazzeri, P., and Barcelo, P. A Facile Method for Screening for Phosphinothricin
(PPT)-Resistant Transgenic Wheats. PHY. S. Rasco-Gaunt, Biochemistry and Physiol. Department,
IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom////: SOIL,TOP; 1999; 5,
(3): 255-262.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155514
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
143. Rathore, K. S.; Chowdhury, V. K., and Hodges, T. K. Use of Bar as a Selectable Marker Gene and for the
Production of Herbicide-Resistant Rice Plants from Protoplasts. CELSOIL,ENV; 1993; 21, (5):
871-884.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 101445
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH
144. Reddy, K. N.; Bryson, C. T., and Burke, I. C. Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) Control with
Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 21, (4): 982-986.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154039
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACF,ATZ,BMN,BT,CMZ,CRM,DMM,DU,FMU,FMX,FTS,GFS,GYP,HSF,IMQ,MB
Z,MSMA,MTC,NFZ,PDM,PQT,PTB,QNC,SZ
145. Ribas, A. F.; Kobayashi, A. K.; Pereira, L. F. P., and Vieira, L. G. E. Genetic Transformation of Coffea
canephoraby Particle Bombardment. CEL,GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 49, (4): 493-497.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155439
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH
146. Richardson, W. G. and West, T. M. Pot Experiments to Investigate Potential Post-Emergence Herbicides for
Weed Control in Swede (Brassica napus). GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1986; 7, 90-91.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 31232
Chemical of Concern: CPR,EFS,FXP,GFS,OXF,PYD
147. Rom, R. C.; Arlington, G., and Stasiak, M. Field Evaluation of Herbicides in Tree Fruits, 1984.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1986; 335, 12 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 31180
Chemical of Concern: FZFB,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT
148. Ruhland, M.; Engelhardt, G., and Pawlizki, K. Distribution and Metabolism of D/L-, L- and D-Glufosinate in
Transgenic, Glufosinate-Tolerant Crops of Maize (Zea mays L. ssp. mays) and Oilseed Rape
(Brassica napus L var napus). ACC. Karlheinz.Pawlizki@LfL.bayern.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 60,
(7): 691-696.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 82638
AI-17
-------
Chemical of Concern: GFS
149. Saito, K.; Yamazaki, M.; Anzai, H.; Yoneyama, K., and Murakoshi, I. Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Atropa
belladonna Using an Ri Binary Vector and Inheritance of the Transgenic Trait. MORSOIL,TOP;
1992; 11, (5/6): 219-224.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155693
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
150. Saji, H.; Nakajima, N.; Aono, M.; Tamaoki, M.; Kubo, A.; Wakiyama, S.; Hatase, Y., and Nagatsu, M.
Monitoring the Escape of Transgenic Oilseed Rape Around Japanese Ports and Roadsides.
BCMSOIL,ENV; 2005; 4, (4): 217-222.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155442
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI
151. Samsoe-Petersen, L. Effects of 67 Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators on the Rove Beetle Aleochara
bilineata (Col.: Staphylinidae) in the Laboratory. MOR,REPENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 40, (1): 95-
104.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63490
Chemical of Concern:
ATZ,BMC,BMN,BT,CBL,CQTC,DFPM,DMDP,DPP1,DPP2,EFS,FXP,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,MCP
A,MCPP1,MCPP2,MLNR,MTL,MTSM,NAA,NAD,PDM,PYD,PZM,QZFE,SZ,TKY,TSF
152. Sanders, P. and Rahman, A. Destruction of Unwanted Asparagus Crops. POPSOIL,ENV; 1992: 64-66.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120784
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,MB,MTS
153. Sandesh Kamath, B.; Vidhyavathi, R.; Sarada, R., and Ravishankar, G. A. Enhancement of Carotenoids by
Mutation and Stress Induced Carotenogenic Genes in Haematococcus pluvialis Mutants.
CELAQUA; 2008; 99, (18): 8667-8673.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155472
Chemical of Concern: GFS
154. Sandhu, S.; Altpeter, F., and Blount, A. R. Apomictic Bahiagrass Expressing the Bar Gene is Highly
Resistant to Glufosinate Under Field Conditions. CEL,GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 47,
(4): 1691-1697.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155443
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
155. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P., and Oard, J. H. Genetic Analysis of Glufosinate Resistance in Crosses
Between Transformed Rice (Oryza sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa). BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV;
1998; 12, (2): 209-214.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100971
Chemical of Concern: GFS
156. Sarria, R.; Torres, E.; Angel, F.; Chavarriaga, P., and Roca, W. M. Transgenic Plants of Cassava (Manihot
esculenta) with Resistance to Basta Obtained by Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation.
GROSOIL,ENV; 2000; 19, (4): 339-344.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155874
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFSNH
157. Sauer, H.; Wild, A., and Ruhle, W. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis II. The
Causes of Inhibition of Photosynthesis. BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1987; 42, (3): 270-278.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155637
Chemical of Concern: GFS,NHC1
AI-18
-------
158. Scheffler, J. A.; Parkinson, R., and Dale, P. J. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Isolation Distances for Field
Plots of Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) Using a Herbicide-Resistance Transgene as a Selectable
Marker. POPSOIL,ENV; 1995; 114, (4): 317-321.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155695
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
159. Schrader, K. K. and Harries, M. D. Compounds with Selective Toxicity Toward the Musty-Odor
Cyanobacterium Oscillatoria perornata. POP AQUA; 2001; 66, (6): 801-807.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 62248
Chemical of Concern: ASA,BZO,GFS,LCF,MAT,ODZ,OXF,PMT
160. Schroeder, H. E.; Schotz, A. H.; Wardley-Richardson, T.; Spencer, D., and Higgins, T. J. V. Transformation
and Regeneration of Two Cultivars of Pea (Pisum sativum L.).
GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 101, (3): 751-757.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155444
Chemical of Concern: BAD,GFSNH
161. Schwartz, B. M. Zoysiagrass Evaluation for DNA Content, Sting Nematode Response, Nitrogen
Management, and Estimates of Heritability for Turfgrass Performance Traits. PHYSOIL,ENV;
2008: 128 p. (UMI# 3392724).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155932
Chemical of Concern: GFS
162. Seipp, D. Cane Vigour Control in Red Raspberries with Glufosinate-Ammonium. GRO,POP. 5th
International Symposium on Rubus and Ribes, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 24-July
2, 1989.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989; 262, 395-404.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155621
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHS04
163. Senior, I. J.; Moyes, C., and Dale, P. J. Herbicide Sensitivity of Transgenic Multiple Herbicide-Tolerant
Oilseed Rape. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 58, (4): 405-412.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155446
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,MCPP 1 ,MTSM,PQT,PZM,S S
164. Shelp, B. J.; Swanton, C. J.; Mersey, B. G., and Hall, J. C. Glufosinate (Phosphinothricin) Inhibition of
Nitrogen Metabolism in Barley and Green Foxtail Plants. BCMSOIL,ENV; 1992; 139, (5): 605-
610.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155604
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
165. Shibaya, T. Herbicides: Fruit Trees. NOCSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 47, 28-30.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 117868
Chemical of Concern:
ACR,ASM,DBN,DQT,DU,FZP,GFS,GYP,LNR,NaC10,ODZ,PAQT,PPN,SXD,TFN
166. Shin, J. S.; Kim, K. M.; Lee, D. J.; Lee, S. B.; Burgos, N. R., and Kuk, Y. I. Resistance Levels and Fitness of
Glufosinate-Resistant Transgenic Sweet Potato in Field Experiments.
BCM,CEL,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 121, (3): 324-332.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155480
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,OXF,PQT
167. Shirgurkar, M. V.; Naik, V. B.; Von Arnold, S.; Nadgauda, R. S., and Clapham, D. An Efficient Protocol for
Genetic Transformation and Shoot Regeneration of Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) via Particle
Bombardment. GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 25, (2): 112-116.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155725
AI-19
-------
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
168. Skora Neto, F.; Coble, H. D., and Corbin, F. T. Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism of 14C-
Glufosinate in Xanthium strumarium, Commelina difusa, and Ipomoea purpurea. ACCSOIL,ENV;
2000; 48, 171-175.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59665
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
169. Smith, D. A. and Hallett, S. G. Interactions Between Chemical Herbicides and the Candidate Bioherbicide
Microsphaeropsis amaranthi. POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 54, (3): 532-537.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 119975
Chemical of Concern: ACF,ATZ,BMN,CFE,CLNS,GFS,GIB,GYP,IZT,LCF,MBZ,PAQT,PMSM
170. Smith, R. L.; Grando, M. F.; Li, Y. Y.; Seib, J. C., and Shatters, R. G. Transformation of Bahiagrass
(Paspalum notatum Flugge). MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2002; 20, (11): 1017-1021.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155734
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
171. Song, X.; Wang, Z.; Zuo, J.; Huangfu, C., and Qiang, S. Potential Gene Flow of Two Herbicide-Tolerant
Transgenes from Oilseed Rape to Wild B. juncea var. gracilis. MOR. Weed Research Laboratory,
Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 120, (8): 1501-1510.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155493
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI
172. Sripaoraya, S.; Keawsompong, S.; Insupa, P.; Power, J. B.; Davey, M. R., and Srinives, P. Genetically
Manipulated Pineapple: Transgene Stability, Gene Expression and Herbicide Tolerance Under Field
Conditions. GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 125, (4): 411-413.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155696
Chemical of Concern: EPH,GFSNH
173. Sripaoraya, S.; Marchant, R.; Power, J. B., and Davey, M. R. Herbicide-Tolerant Transgenic Pineapple
(Ananas comosus) Produced by Microproiectile Bombardment. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 88,
(4): 597-603.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155448
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
174. Steckel, G. J.; Wax, L. M.; Simmons, F. W., and Phillips II, W. H. Glufosinate Efficacy on Annual Weeds is
Influenced by Rate and Growth Stage. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 11, (3): 484-488.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155450
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
175. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E., and Sikkema, P. H. Time of Day Impacts Postemergence Weed Control in Corn.
POPENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (3): 346-355.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 153932
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,BMN,DMB,GFS,GYPK,NSF
176. Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A.; Lovelace, M. L., and Scherder, E. F. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small
Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1999. POPSOIL,ENV; 2000: 1-22.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 153250
Chemical of Concern:
AZF,BT,CLNS,CMZ,CPR,DEF,DMM,DU,FFC,FMC,FSF,FTS,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT,HSF,IA
Z,IZT,IZX,LCF,LNR,MTC,MTL,OXF,OYZ,PHMD,PYD,RIM,SFZ,SXD,SZ,TFN,TPZ,TSF
177. Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. Influence of Herbicide Application Rate, Timing, and Interrow Cultivation on
Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays) Yield in Glufosinate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Resistant Corn.
AI-20
-------
GRO,POP. kells@pilot.msu.edu//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (4): 807-813.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63509
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,NHS04,NSF
178. —. Residual Herbicides Used in Combination with Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Corn (Zea mays).
GRO,POP. Golden Harvest Seeds, Cordova, IL 61242//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 274-
281.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155516
Chemical of Concern: AC0,ATZ,FTS,GFS,GYP,MTL,NHS04,PDM
179. Thomas, W. E.; Everman, W. J.; Allen, J.; Collins, J., and Wilcut, J. W. Economic Assessment of Weed
Management Systems in Glufosinate-Resistant, Glyphosate-Resistant, Imidazolinone-Tolerant, and
Nontransgenic Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1): 191-198.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155535
Chemical of Concern: AMTR,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTC
180. Toler, J. E.; Willis, T. G.; Estes, A. G., and McCarty, L. B. Postemergent Annual Bluegrass Control in
Dormant Nonoverseeded Bermudagrass Turf. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 42, (3): 670-672.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155804
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,BP,CLT,DQTBr,FZS,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MTS,PZM,RIM,SFS,SZ
181. Tsai, C. J.; Wang, C. S., and Wang, C. Y. Physiological Characteristics of Glufosinate Resistance in Rice.
ACC,GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2006; 54, (4): 634-640.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100969
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
182. Van Wychen, L. R.; Harvey, R. G.; VanGessel, M. J.; Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. Efficacy and Crop
Response to Glufosinate-Based Weed Management in PAT-Transformed Sweet Corn (Zea mays).
POP. lrv@montana.edu//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (1): 104-111.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 64314
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,MTL
183. Vaseva-Gemisheva, I.; Lee, D., and Karanov, E. Response of Pisum sativum Cytokinin
Oxidase/Dehydrogenase Expression and Specific Activity to Drought Stress and Herbicide
Treatments. BCM,CELSOIL,ENV; 2005; 46, (3): 199-208.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155739
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS
184. Whitaker, J. R. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth in North
Carolina. ACC,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009: 247 p. (UMI# 3357856).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155933
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,24DXYBEE,ACP,ADC,CLT,CRM,DCTP,DMT,DU,FMU,FMX,FSF,GFSNH,GYPK,
GYPT,IMC,LCYT,LNR,MBZ,MSMA,MTC,MTL,NHS04,OML,PDM,PMT,PTB,PTBNa,THFM,T
MX
185. Wild, A.; Sauer, H., and Ruhle, W. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis I.
Inhibition of Photosynthesis and Accumulation of Ammonia. PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1987;
42, (3): 263-269.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155676
Chemical of Concern: GFS,KN03
186. Wilson, D. G. Jr.; York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. Effect of Row Spacing on Weed Management in
Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (2): 489-495.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155536
AI-21
-------
Chemical of Concern:
ACP,ADC,BORON,EPH,FMU,GFSNH,IMC,MQC,MSMA,MTC,NHN,PDM,PTB,TBF,TDZ
187. Wilson, R. G.; Yonts, C. D., and Smith, J. A. Influence of Glyphosate and Glufosinate on Weed Control and
Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Yield in Herbicide-Tolerant Sugarbeet. B CM,PHY,POP SOIL,ENV;
2002; 16, 66-73.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 62972
Chemical of Concern: CPR,DDP,GFS,GYP,PHMD
188. Winkelmann, T.; Kaviani, K., and Serek, M. Development of a Shoot Regeneration Protocol for Genetic
Transformation in Pelargonium zonale and Pelargonium peltatum Hybrids.
GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 80, (1): 33-42.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155740
Chemical of Concern: BAD,GFS,TDZ
189. Wright, M.; Dawson, J.; Dunder, E.; Suttie, J.; Reed, J.; Kramer, C.; Chang, Y.; Novitzky, R.; Wang, H., and
Artim-Moore, L. Efficient Biolistic Transformation of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Wheat (Triticum
aestivumL.) Using the Phosphomannose Isomerase Gene, PMI, as the Selectable Marker.
GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 20, (5): 429-436.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155741
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH,GIB,NAA
190. Yi, G.; Shin, Y. M.; Choe, G.; Shin, B.; Kim, Y. S., and Kim, K. M. Production of Herbicide-Resistant Sweet
Potato Plants Transformed with the Bar Gene. MORSOIL,ENV; 2007; 29, (4): 669-675.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155454
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
191. You, W. and Barker, A. V. Herbicidal Actions of Root-Applied Glufosinate Ammonium on Tomato Plants.
BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 127, (2): 200-204.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66763
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NH4
192. Zaragoza, C.; Munoz-Bertomeu, J., and Arrillaga, I. Regeneration of Herbicide-Tolerant Black Locust
Transgenic Plants by SAAT. GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 22, (11): 832-838.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155743
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
193. Zeldin, E. L.; Jury, T. P.; Serres, R. A., and McCown, B. H. Tolerance to the Herbicide Glufosinate in
Transgenic Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) and Enhancement of Tolerance in Progeny.
GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 127, (4): 502-507.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 70927
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GFSNH
194. Zhang, N.; Linscombe, S., and Oard, J. Out-Crossing Frequency and Genetic Analysis of Hybrids Between
Transgenic Glufosinate Herbicide-Resistant Rice and the Weed, Red Rice. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV;
2003; 130, (1): 35-45.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 101221
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
AI-22
-------
III. Acceptable to ECOTOX - Additional Publications
The following publications were considered Acceptable according to ECOTOX screening criteria but were not
incorporated directly into the current risk assessment because they (1) primarily address pesticide efficacy, and/or
(2) do not provide information of suitable quality with more sensitive endpoints than those currently used in risk
estimation.
1. Ahn, I. P. Glufosinate Ammonium-Induced Pathogen Inhibition and Defense Responses Culminate in Disease
Protection in bar-Transgenic Rice. BCM,CEL,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 146, (1): 213-227.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152808
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
2. Balyan, R. S. Effect of Sulfosulfuron, Chlorsulfuron and Glufosinate-Treated Water on Mungbean, Soybean,
Pearlmillet, Maize and Sorghum. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1998; 132, (Suppl.): 36-37.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155495
Chemical of Concern: BT,CSF,GFSNH
3. Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. Effect of Preharvest Desiccants on Weed Seed Production and Viability.
GRO,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 530-538.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59336
Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,GYP,NaC10,OXF,PQT
4. Blackshaw, R. E. HOE-39866 Use in Chemical Fallow Systems. GRO,POP SOIL,ENV, MIXTURE; 1989; 3,
(2): 420-428.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155611
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,CSF,GFSNH,GYP,MTS,NHS04,PAQT
5. Blair-Kerth, L. K.; Dotray, P. A.; Keeling, J. W.; Gannaway, J. R.; Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E.
Tolerance of Transformed Cotton to Glufosinate. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 375-380.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66801
Chemical of Concern: GFS
6. Bovey, R. W.; Dahlberg, J. A.; Senseman, S. A.; Miller, F. R., and Madera-Torres, P. Desiccation and
Germination of Grain Sorghum as Affected by Glufosinate. PHY,REP. 18906//: SOIL,ENV; 1999;
91, (3): 373-376.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 81633
Chemical of Concern: GFS
7. Brabham, C. The Inheritance, Fitness, and Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed.
GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011: 95 p. (UMI# 1502120).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155907
Chemical of Concern: FSF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,NHS04
8. Braverman, M. P. Control of Mannagrass (Glyceria declinata) and Southern Watergrass (Luziola fluitans) in
Water-Seeded Rice (Oiyza sativa). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 10, (1): 68-71.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 96386
Chemical of Concern: CLT,FNP,FZF,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT,SXD
9. Brown, L.; Soltani, N.; Shropshire, C.; Spieser, H., and Sikkema, P. H. Efficacy of Four Corn (Zea mays L.)
Herbicides when Applied with Flat Fan and Air Induction Nozzles. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 7, (1):
55-61.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155609
Chemical of Concern: BMN,DMB,GFS,NSF
10. Buckmann, H.; Petersen, J.; Schlinker, G., and Marlander, B. Weed Control in Genetically Modified Sugar
AI-23
-------
Beet - Two Year Experiences of a Field Trial Series in Germany. BCM,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 17,
353-362.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155540
Chemical of Concern: CPR,DDP,EFS,GFSNH,GYPI,PHMD
11. Carpenter, D. and Boutin, C. Sublethal Effects of the Herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium on Crops and Wild
Plants: Short-Term Effects Compared to Vegetative Recovery and Plant Reproduction.
GRO,MOR,POP,REP. Science & Technology, Environment Canada, Carleton University, 1125
Colonel By Drive (Raven Road), Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3, Canada.//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 19, (7):
1322-1336.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155486
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
12. Cathcart, R. J.; Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. Fertilizer Nitrogen Rate and the Response of Weeds to
Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 52, (2): 291-296.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155883
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,GYP,NSF
13. Clay, D. V.; Dixon, F. L., and Willoughby, I. Natural Products as Herbicides for Tree Establishment.
GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 78, (1): 1-9.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 111710
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI
14. Czarnota, M. A. and Derr, J. Controlling Bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.) with Herbicides.
GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 21, (1): 80-83.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154909
Chemical of Concern: CLT,DBN,DTP,FNP,FZF,GFS,GYP,IZP,MSMA,QNC,SXD
15. De Greef, W.; Delon, R.; De Block, M.; Leemans, J., and Botterman, J. Evaluation of Herbicide Resistance in
Transgenic Crops Under Field Conditions. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1989; 7, (1): 61-64.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155790
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
16. De Snoo, G. R.; De Jong, F. M. W.; Van Der Poll, R. J., and Van der Linden, M. G. A. M. Effects of
Glufosinate-Ammonium on Off Crop Vegetation - Interim Results. PHY,POP. Centre of
Environmental Science, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.//:
SOIL,ENV; 2001; 66, (2b): 731-741.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155654
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
17. DeFelice, M. S. and Henning, J. C. Renovation of Endophyte (Acremonium coenophialum)-Infected Tall
Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Pastures with Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 38, (6): 628-633.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100973
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,SXD
18. Degenhardt, R. F.; Harker, K. N.; Topinka, A. K.; McGregor, W. R., and Hall, L. M. Effect of Herbicides on
Field Violet (Viola arvensis) in Four Direct-Seeded Canola Management Systems.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 608-622.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120677
Chemical of Concern: CPR,EMSF,GFS,GYP,IZT,IZX,SXD,THF
19. Derr, J. F. Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Response to Mowing and Herbicide Application.
GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2008; 1, (1): 12-16.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 103875
Chemical of Concern: CLT,DTP,FNP,FZF,GFS,GYPI,MSMA,QNC,SXD
AI-24
-------
20. Dinehart, S. K.; Smith, L. M.; McMurry, S. T.; Anderson, T. A.; Smith, P. N., and Haukos, D. A. Toxicity of
a Glufosinate- and Several Glyphosate-Based Herbicides to Juvenile Amphibians from the Southern
High Plains, USA. MORSOIL,ENV; 2009; 407, (3): 1065-1071.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152560
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK
21. Dinehart, S. K.; Smith, L. M.; McMurry, S. T.; Smith, P. N.; Anderson, T. A., and Haukos, D. A. Acute and
Chronic Toxicity of Roundup Weathermax and Ignite 280 SL to Larval Spea multiplicata and S.
bombifrons from the Southern High Plains, USA. MOR. simon.dinehart@okstate.edu//Department
of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078//: AQUA; 2010; 158, (8): 2610-2617.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155517
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK
22. Druart, C.; Millet, M.; Scheifler, R.; Delhomme, O.; Raeppel, C., and De Vaufleury, A. Snails as Indicators
of Pesticide Drift, Deposit, Transfer and Effects in the Vineyard. ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;
2011; 409, (20): 4280-4288.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155488
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,SFR,TEZ
23. Druart, C.; Scheifler, R.; Millet, M., and De Vaufleury, A. Landsnail Eggs Bioassays: A New Tool to Assess
Embryotoxicity of Contaminants in the Solid, Liquid or Gaseous Phase of Soil. MORENV; 2012;
53, (0): 56-64.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155483
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,SFR,TEZ
24. Eleftherohorinos, I. G. and Dhima, K. V. Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Control in Rice (O. sativa) with
Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides. POP AQUA; 2002; 16, (3): 537-540.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 95840
Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,DMM,GFS,GYP,MTL,PQT,QZFE
25. Ellis, J. M.; Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. Herbicide Combinations for Preharvest Weed Desiccation in
Early Maturing Soybean (Glycine max). BCM,PHY,POP. Prof. J.M. Ellis, Dept. of Plant and Soil
Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, United States//:
SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 12, (1): 157-165.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63873
Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,GYPI,NaC10,OXF,PAQT
26. Esekhade, T. U.; Imarhiagbe, E. O.; Ugwa, I. K.; Aigbekaen, E. O., and Ojikepon, F. I. Efficacy and
Comparative Cost of Weed Control Methods in a Mature Rubber Plantation in Nigeria.
POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 9, (2): 117-122.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155644
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT
27. Eubank, T. W.; Poston, D. H.; Nandula, V. K.; Koger, C. H.; Shaw, D. R., and Reynolds, D. B. Glyphosate-
Resistant Horsewood (Conyza canadensis) Control Using Glyphosate-, Paraquat-, and Glufosinate-
Based Herbicide Programs. POP. Place of Meeting: Delta Research and Extension
Center,Mississippi State University,Stoneville,MS////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 22, (1): 16-21.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155518
Chemical of Concern:
24DIO,24DXY,CRM,DMB,FMX,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,LNR,MBZ,MTC,OXF,PQT,SFZ,THFM
28. Everman, W. J.; Burke, I. C.; Allen, J. R.; Collins, J., and Wilcut, J. W. Weed Control and Yield with
Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Weed Management Systems. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007;
21, (3): 695-701.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155523
Chemical of Concern: GFS,MSMA,MTC,PMT,PTB
AI-25
-------
29. Everman, W. J.; Clewis, S. B.; York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Weed Control and Yield with Flumioxazin,
Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed
Management. POP SOIL, ENV, MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (3): 391-397.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155935
Chemical of Concern: FMX,FSF,GFSNH,MTC,PDM,PMT
30. Evers, G. W. Herbicides for Desiccating Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) - Bermudagrass (Cynodon
dactylon) Pasture Sod Prior to Overseeding with Annual Ryegrass, (Lolium multiflorum).
POPSOIL,ENV; 2002; 16, 235-238.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 62987
Chemical of Concern: FZFP,GFS,GYP,PAQT
31. Fabian, D.; Bystriansky, J.; Burkus, J.; Rehak, P.; Legath, J., and Koppel, J. The Effect of Herbicide BASTA
15 on the Development of Mouse Preimplantation Embryos In Vivo and In Vitro. CEL,GRO.
Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Koaice, Slovak Republic.
fabian@saske.sk//: ENV,ORAL; 2011; 25, (1): 73-79.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155484
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
32. Fischer, A. J.; Ateh, C. M.; Bayer, D. E., and Hill, J. E. Herbicide-Resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E.
phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa Fields. MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 48, (2): 225-230.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59421
Chemical of Concern: BP,CMZ,FNPE,GFS,GYP,MLT,PDM,PPN,TBC
33. Fodorpataki, L.; Bartha, C., and Keresztes, Z. G. Stress-Physiological Reactions of the Green Alga
Scenedesmus opoliensis to Water Pollution with Herbicides. BCM,PHY,POP.
lfodorp@gmail.com//Department of Biology, Babes-Bolyai University, 1 Kogalniceanu Str., 400084
Cluj-Napoca, Romania////: AQUA; 2009; 16, (1): 51-56.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 150127
Chemical of Concern: DU,GFS,PQT
34. Griffin, J. L. and Dabney, S. M. Preplant-Postemergence Herbicides for Legume Cover-Crop Control in
Minimum Tillage Systems. POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 4, (2): 332-336.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155679
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,PAQT
35. Groninger, J. W.; Zedaker, S. M., and Seiler, J. R. Herbicides to Control Tree Roots in Sewer Lines.
PHYSOIL,ENV; 1997; 23, (5): 169-180.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 111591
Chemical of Concern: ASM,DCPA,EPTC,GFSNH,GYPI,MSMA,NaC10,TPRT
36. Grossmann, K.; Berghaus, R., and Retzlaff, G. Heterotrophic Plant Cell Suspension Cultures for Monitoring
Biological Activity in Agrochemical Research. Comparison with Screens Using Algae, Germinating
Seeds and Whole Plants. POP,REPSOIL,AQUA,ENV; 1992; 35, (3): 283-289.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 78497
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACFNa,ACR, ASM,ATZ,BT,CPP,CSF,DBN,DFPM,DU,GFSNH,GYP,IMQ,IZT,MBZ,
MCPA,NFZ,NP,OXF,PAQT,PDM,PHMD,PMT,PPN,SXD
37. Hagood, E. S. Jr. Herbicide Treatments for No-Till Alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., Establishment in Sod.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1988; 2, (3): 327-332.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155456
Chemical of Concern: FZF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,PAQT,PQT,SXD
38. Hare, M. D.; Rolston, M. P.; Foote, A. G.; Archie, W. J., and Hagerty, G. Herbicide Tolerance of Grasslands
AI-26
-------
Puna Chicory. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 46, 282-287.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 77601
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ATZ,BMN,BT,CPP,CPR,CRM,DMB,DU,EFL,FTS,GFSNH,GYP,MBZ,MCPB,PCL,P
QT,PZM,TFN,TRB
39. Harrington, K. C. Herbicide Tolerance of Three Ground Cover Species with Potential for Use in Orchards.
POPSOIL,ENV, MIXTURE; 1993: 11-14.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120532
Chemical of Concern:
AMTL,ASM,CPR,DBN,DMDP,DQT,DU,GFS,GYP,LNR,MCPA,NFZ,ODZ,OXC,OXF,OYZ,PAQ
T,PDM, SZ,TNM,TRB
40. Harrington, K. C. and Rahman, A. Tolerance to Herbicides of Ground Cover Species for New Zealand
Orchards. PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 13, (3): 111-115.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 70295
Chemical of Concern:
AMTL,ASM,CLT,CPR,CSF,DBN,DMB,DMDP,DQTBr,DU,EFS,FZF,GFS,GYP,LNR,MCPA,MC
PP2,NFZ,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PAQT,PDM,PQT,SXD,SZ,TBNU,TPR
41. Harrington, K. C. and Zhang, T. Herbicides for Controlling Weeds in Mercury Bay Weed.
GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 50, 462-466.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120479
Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,AMTL,ASM,CPP,CPR,CSF,DMB,DMDP,DQT,DU,GFS,GFSNH,GYP,GYPI,LNR,M
CPA,MCPP2,NFZ,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PQT,SZ,TBNU,TNM,TPR,TPRB
42. Harshavardhan, D.; Santha, B.; Rani, T. S.; Ulaganathan, K.; Madhulety, T. Y.; Laxminarayana, C., and
Seetharama, N. Simple and Economical Assay Systems for Evaluation of Phosphinothricin Resistant
Transgenics of Sorghum, Sorghum bicolor. (L.) Moench., and Pearl Millet, Pennisetum glaucum (L.)
R. Br. MOR,REPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 41, (2): 141-148.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155759
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
43. Higgins, J. M.; Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Control with
Non-Selective Heibicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 1991; 5, (4): 884-886.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155458
Chemical of Concern: ACR,GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT,PAQT
44. Howard, S. W.; Cameron, J. S., and MacConnell, C. B. Evaluation of Cane Burning Materials for Red
Raspberry. GRO, POP, REP SOIL, ENV; 1989; 262, 365-372.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155952
Chemical of Concern: ACF,GFS,LCF,OXF
45. Humara, J. M. and Ordas, R. J. The Toxicity of Antibiotics and Herbicides on In Vitro Adventitious Shoot
Formation on Pinus pinea L. Cotyledons. GRO,MOR. R.J. Ordas, Universidad de Oviedo, Depto.
Biol, de Organismos y Sist., Unidad de Fisiologia Vegetal, C/ Catedratico Rodrigo Uria s /n, E-
33071 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain//: ENV; 1999; 35, (4): 339-343.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 64628
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
46. Hutchinson, P. J. S.; Beutler, B. R., and Hancock, D. M. Desiccant Evaluations: Late-Season Hairy
Nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) Control and Seed Response. POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20,
(1): 37-40.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155624
Chemical of Concern: CFE,DQT,GFSNH,PAQT,SUA
AI-27
-------
47. Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. Effects of Tank-Mix Combinations of Non-Selective Foliar and Selective
Soil-Applied Herbicides on Three Weed Species. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 8, (1): 129-
133.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155527
Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MBZ,PAQT,PQT
48. —. Non-Selective and Selective Herbicide Combinations in Stale Seedbed (Glycine max).
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 9, (1): 158-165.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155529
Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,GYPT,IMQ,MBZ,PAQT
49. Ikuenobe, C. E. Field Evaluation of Glufosinate-Ammonium and Glyphosate-Trimesium Against Siam Weed
(Chromolaena odorata (L.)). POPSOIL,ENV; 1992; 13, 44-45.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155610
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT
50. Ipor, I. B. and Tawan, C. S. Efficacy of Four Herbicides Applied with a Rope-Wick Wiper to Ischaemum
magnum. ACC,POPSOIL,ENV; 1993; 6, (2): 141-151.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155608
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT
51. Jhala, A. J.; Raatz, L. L.; Dexter, J. E., and Hall, L. M. Adventitious Presence: Volunteer Flax (Linum
usitatissimum L.) in Herbicide Resistant Canola (Brassica napus L.). POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2010;
24, 244-252.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155934
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYPK
52. Koger, C. H.; Price, A. J.; Faircloth, J. C.; Wilcut, J. W., and Nichols, S. P. Effect of Residual Herbicides
Used in the Last POST-Directed Application on Weed Control and Cotton Yield in Glyphosate- and
Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (2): 378-383.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155461
Chemical of Concern: DU,FMU,GFSNH,GYPK,LNR,OXF,PDM,PMT
53. Kumaratilake, A. R.; Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., and Preston, C. A Comparative Study of Glufosinate Efficacy
in Rigid Ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) and Sterile Oat (Avena steiilis). ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;
2002; 50, (5): 560-566.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155509
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
54. Kumaratilake, A. R. and Preston, C. Low Temperature Reduces Glufosinate Activity and Translocation in
Wild Radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (1): 10-16.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155510
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
55. Lanie, A. J.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. Weed Control with Non-Selective Herbicides
in Soybean (Glycine max) Stale Seedbed Culture. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 8, (1): 159-
164.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155470
Chemical of Concern: FSF,FZFP,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT
56. Legleiter, T. R. and Bradley, K. W. Evaluation of Herbicide Programs for the Management of Glyphosate-
Resistant Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Maize. POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28,
(11): 917-922.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155490
Chemical of Concern: ACO,ATZ,FFC,GFS,GYP,IXF,MTC
AI-28
-------
57. Lombard, A.; Gauvrit, C., and Chauvel, B. Chemical Control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia on Non-Crop Areas:
Are There Alternatives to Glyphosate? ACC,GRO,POP,REP. Unite mixte de recherche Biologie et
Gestiondes Adventices, INRA, BP 86510, F-21065 Dijon Cedex, France.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE;
2005; 70, (3): 447-457.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155631
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,MTSM,NHS04
58. Maruska, D. W. Glufosinate Efficacy and Phytotoxicity in Field Corn (Zea mays L.).
GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996: 131 p. (UMI# 0665827).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155481
Chemical of Concern: CBF,DMB,GFS,NH3,NSF
59. McCullough, P. E.; Hart, S. E.; Askew, S.; Dernoeden, P. H.; Reicher, Z., and Weisenberger, D. Kentucky
Bluegrass Control with Postemergence Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 41, (1): 255-258.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 87931
Chemical of Concern: CLT,GFSNH,GYPI,RIM,SXD
60. Merkel, U.; Rathke, G. W.; Schuster, C.; Warnstorff, K., and Diepenbrock, W. Use of Glufosinate-
Ammonium to Control Cruciferous Weed Species in Glufosinate-Resistant Winter Oilseed Rape.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 85, (2/3): 237-249.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155542
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
61. Metzger, J. A. and Pfeiffer, D. G. Topical Toxicity of Pesticides Used in Virginia Vineyards to the Predatory
Mite, Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman). MOR. dgpfeiff@vt.edu//: TOP; 2002; 37, (4): 329-337.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 73149
Chemical of Concern:
AZ,AZX,CBL,CHX,DCF,DU,FBOX,FO,FRM,GFS,GFSNH,KRSM,MZB,OXF,PQT,PRB,PSM,PZ
M,TEZ,TFZ
62. Miliszkiewicz, D.; Wieczorek, P.; Lejcazk, B.; Kowalik, E., and Kafarski, P. Herbicidal Activity of
Phosphonic and Phosphinic Acid Analogues of Glutamic and Aspartic Acid. GROSOIL,ENV,TOP;
1992; 34, (4): 349-354.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155682
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
63. Miller, D. K.; Downer, R. G.; Burris, E.; Leonard, B. R., and Williams, B. J. Control of Selected Broadleaf
Weeds with Glufosinate as Influenced by Insecticide Coapplication.
GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 719-723.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155512
Chemical of Concern: ACP,ACT,BFT,CYF,DCTP,EMMB,GFSNH,IDC,IMC,LCYT,MFZ,SS,TMX
64. Miller, D. K.; Downer, R. G.; Leonard, B. R.; Holman, E. M., and Kelly, S. T. Response of Non-Glufosinate-
Resistant Cotton to Reduced Rates of Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 51, (5): 781-
785.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155511
Chemical of Concern: GFS
65. Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Reducing Herbicide Inputs when Establishing No-Till Soybeans
(Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1990; 4, (1): 14-19.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 73993
Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFSNH,GYP,IMQ,IMZ,LNR,MBZ,MTL,PAQT
66. Nelson, K. A. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Growth and Development, White Mold (Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary) Incidence, and Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) Control as
AI-29
-------
Affected by Glyphosate and Other Herbicides.
BCM,GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,INJECT,MIXTURE; 2000: 279 p. (UMI# 9971967).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120063
Chemical of Concern:
ACF,ACFNa,BT,CLNS,CLT,CRM,FMC,FSF,FTCM,GFS,GYPI,HSF,IZP,IZT,IZX,LCF,NHS04,0
DZ,OXF,PTB ,RIM, SFZ, SXD,THF
67. Nielson, R. L. Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Biological Parameters for the Development of a
Mechanistic Agronomic Model. PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 158 p. (UMI#
MR45862).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155893
Chemical of Concern: DFC,FDX,GFS,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,QZFPE,SXD,TMX
68. Nolte, S. A. Characterizing the Response of gdhA Transformed Tobacco to Glufsoinate.
ACC,BCM,GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2009: 163 p. (UMI# 3390866).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155899
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
69. Oard, J. H.; Linscombe, S. D.; Braverman, M. P.; Jodari, F.; Blouin, D. C.; Leech, M.; Kohli, A.; Vain, P.;
Cooley, J. C., and Christou, P. Development, Field Evaluation, and Agronomic Performance of
Transgenic Herbicide Resistant Rice. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 2, (4): 359-368.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 101235
Chemical of Concern: GFS
70. Onsando, J. M.; Magambo, M. J. S., and Omolo, J. G. Evaluation of Basta on Kikuyu Grass (Pennisetum
clandestinum chiov.), in Kenya. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 36, (4): 346-348.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155607
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT
71. Panwar, R. S.; Balyan, R. S., and Malik, R. S. Evaluation of Glufosinate for Control of Weeds in Cotton.
POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 32, (1/2): 94-95.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 69001
Chemical of Concern: GFS,PDM,TFN
72. Park, S. H.; Pinson, S. R. M., and Smith, R. H. T-DNA Integration into Genomic DNA of Rice Following
Agrobacterium Inoculation of Isolated Shoot Apices. CEL,MOR,REP SOIL,ENV; 1996; 32, (6):
1135-1148.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100946
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
73. Peng, G. and Byer, K. N. Interactions of Pyricularia setariae with Herbicides for Control of Green Foxtail
(Setariaviridis). GRO, POP, REP SOIL, ENV, MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 589-598.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155678
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,PPN,TKY
74. Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. Influence of Climatic Conditions and Plant Physiology on Glufosinate-Ammonium
Efficacy. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 41, (1): 31-39.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155422
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHS04
75. Pline, W. A.; Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. Weed and Herbicide-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)
Response to Glufosinate and Glyphosate Plus Ammonium Sulfate and Pelargonic Acid.
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 667-674.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59606
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NONA
AI-30
-------
76. Qian, H.; Chen, W.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, W., and Fu, Z. The Effect of Exogenous Nitric Oxide on
Alleviating Herbicide Damage in Chlorella vulgaris.
BCM,CEL,POP AQUA,MIXTURE,Unspecified; 2009; 92, (4): 250-257.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 118900
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS
77. Qian, H.; Chen, W.; Sheng, G. D.; Xu, X.; Liu, W., and Fu, Z. Effects of Glufosinate on Antioxidant
Enzymes, Subcellular Structure, and Gene Expression in the Unicellular Green Alga Chlorella
vulgaris. BCM,CEL,POP. College of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Zhejiang
University of Technology, Hangzhou 310032, People's Republic of China////: AQUA; 2008; 88, (4):
301-307.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 114622
Chemical of Concern: GFS
78. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. Effect of Humectants on the Uptake and Efficacy of
Glufosinate in Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Plants and Isolated Cuticles Under Dry Conditions.
GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 54, (2): 205-211.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155513
Chemical of Concern: DEG,GFSNH,PEG,TEG
79. Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. Effects of Harvest-Aid Herbicides on Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) Seed
Yield and Quality. POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1992; 6, (4): 985-989.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155438
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,PQT
80. Riemens, M. M.; Dueck, T., and Kempenaar, C. Predicting Sublethal Effects of Herbicides on Terrestrial
Non-crop Plant Species in the Field from Greenhouse Data. GRO,PHY,POP,REP. Wageningen
University and Research Centre, Plant Research International B.V., P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA
Wageningen, The Netherlands////: SOIL,ENV; 2008; 155, (1): 141-149.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 112387
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
81. Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. Weed Management Systems Utilizing Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)
and Soybean (Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (1): 89-94.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66932
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CRM,FNP,FZFP,GFS,MBZ,MTL
82. Rothe, R.; Hartung, H.; Marks, G.; Bergmann, H.; Gotz, R., and Schone, F. Glucosinolate Contents in
Vegetative Tissues of Winter Rape Cultivars. BCM,MOR.
Rothe,R.//Hartung,H.//Marks,G.//Bergmann,H.//Gotz,R.//Schone,F.////: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 78, (1):
41-47.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155645
Chemical of Concern: GFS
83. Sahid, I. and Kalithasan, K. Effects of Glufosinate-Ammonium and Terbuthylazine on Germination and
Growth of Two Weed Species. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1994; 9, (1): 15-19.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 120312
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,TBZ
84. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P.; Jodari, F.; Linscombe, S. D., and Oard, J. H. Evaluation of Glufosinate on
Rice (Oryza sativa) Transformed with the BAR Gene and Red Rice (Oryza sativa).
GRO,PHY,POP AQUA; 1997; 11, (1): 70-75.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100972
Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-31
-------
85. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. Glufosinate-Resistant, BAR-Transformed Rice (Oryza
sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Response to Glufosinate Alone and in Mixtures.
GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (4): 662-666.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100966
Chemical of Concern: ACF,BSF,BT,GFS,PDM,PPN,QNC,TBC,TPR
86. —. Response of BAR-Transformed Rice (Oryza sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa) to Glufosinate
Application Timing. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (2): 303-307.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100970
Chemical of Concern: BMY,GFS
87. Sellers, B. A.; Smeda, R. J., and Li, J. Glutamine Synthetase Activity and Ammonium Accumulation is
Influenced by Time of Glufosinate Application. ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 78, (1): 9-20.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155445
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
88. Shiboleth, Y. M.; Arazi, T.; Wang, Y., and Gal-On, A. A New Approach for Weed Control in a Cucurbit
Field Employing an Attenuated Potyvirus-Vector for Herbicide Resistance.
CEL,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 92, (1): 37-46.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155447
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHS04
89. Shrestha, A.; Rajcan, I.; Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. An Integrated Weed Management Strategy for
Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (3): 517-522.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 67103
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,MTL
90. Simard, M. J.; Legere, A.; Seguin-Swartz, G.; Nair, H., and Warwick, S. Fitness of Double vs. Single
Herbicide-Resistant Canola. POPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (4): 489-498.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155886
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZT
91. Simard, M. J.; Rouane, S., and Leroux, G. D. Herbicide Rate, Glyphosate/Glufosinate Sequence and
Corn/Soybean Rotation Effects on Weed Seed Banks. POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 59, (3): 398-403.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155473
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK
92. Smeda, R. J.; Snipes, C. E., and Barrentine, W. L. Identification of Graminicide-Resistant Johnsongrass
(Sorghum halepense). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (1): 132-137.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155808
Chemical of Concern: CLT,FNPE,FZFP,GFS,GYP,GYPT,IZT,LNR,MSMA,NSF,PAQT,PQT,SXD
93. Smith, A. E. Herbicides for Killing Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Infected with Fescue Endophyte
(Acremonium coenophialum). POPSOIL,ENV; 1989; 3, (3): 485-489.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 70588
Chemical of Concern: FZFP,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,PQT,SXD,SZ
94. Smith, J. F. Early-Season Management of Twospotted Spider Mite on Cotton and Impacts of Infestation
Timing on Cotton Yield Loss. POP,REPENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 124 p. (UMI# 3398552).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155894
Chemical of Concern:
ABM,ACP,ADC,BFT,DCF,DMB,EXZ,FDX,GFSNH,GYPI,IMC,PAQT,PPG,PQT,SPM,TMX
95. Steckel, G. J.; Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. Absorption and Translocation of Glufosinate on Four Weed
Species. ACC,POP. l-wax@uiuc.edu//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (3): 378-381.
AI-32
-------
Notes: EcoReference No.: 64483
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
96. Steckel, L. E.; Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Control
with Glufosinate Prior to Planting No-Till Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).
POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 20, (4): 1047-1051.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155515
Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,DMB,DU,FMX,GFS,GYP,PDM,PMT
97. Steckel, L. E.; Craig, C. C.; Hayes, R. M., and Miller, D. K. Response of Three Nonglufosinate-Resistant
Cotton Varieties to Reduced Rates of Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007;
21, (3): 780-784.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155451
Chemical of Concern: ACP,BORON,DMB,EPH,GFS,GYP,IMC,MQC,NHN,TBF,TDZ
98. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E.; Cowbrough, M., and Sikkema, P. H. How Long can a Herbicide Remain in the
Spray Tank Without Losing Efficacy? POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28, (12): 1086-1090.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154055
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,DMM,GFSNH,GYP,IXF,MTC,RIM
R.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A.; Curless, J. K., and Miesner, J. Field Evaluations of
Herbicides on Small Fruit Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1995.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 452, 43 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155618
Chemical of Concern:
ACFNa,BT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,DCPA,DDP,DMDP,DU,EPTC,FSF,GFSNH,GYPI,IXB,IZT,MBZ,MT
L,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PHMD,PQT,PRM,SXD,TFN,TPZ
R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A.; Curless, J. K., and Miesner, J. Field Evaluation of
Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1995.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 452, 38 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 73745
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ACFNa,ACO,BT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CYC,DCPA,DDP,DMDP,DMM,DU,EPTC,FSF,FTS,FZ
FP,GFSNH,GSF,GYP,GYPI,HSF,IXB,IZT,MBZ,MTL,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PHMD,PQT,PRM,SXD,TF
N,TPZ
R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on
Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1994. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 447,
53 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 73916
Chemical of Concern:
BT,CLT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CYC,DCPA,DEE,DMDP,DMM,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF,FTS,FZP,GFSNH,G
YPI,IZT,MBZ,MTL,NPP,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,PQT,QNC,SFZ,SXD,TFN,TPRT,TPZ,Ziram
R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Carey III, V. F., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit,
Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1993. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 440, 60 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 73236
Chemical of Concern:
ACF,ATZ,BT,CLT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CYC,DCPA,DEE,DMB,DMDP,DMM,DTP,EFL,EFS,EPTC,FS
F,GFSNH,GYP,IXB,LCF,MCPA,MCPPl,MSMA,MTL,NPP,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,PYZ,P
ZM,QNC,SXD,TBC,TFN,TPR,TPZ
R. E.; Wichert, R. A.; Carey III, V. F.; Johnson, D. H.; Ruff, D. F., and Kendig, J. A. Field
Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops 1991.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1992; 417, 58 p.
99. Talbert,
100. Talbert,
101. Talbert,
102. Talbert,
103. Talbert,
AI-33
-------
Notes: EcoReference No.: 70759
Chemical of Concern:
ACFNa,ATZ,BS,BT,CLT,CMZ,CRM,DCPA,DTP,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF,FZFP,GFSNH,GYPI,IMQ,I
XB,IZT,MBZ,MTL,NPM,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PQT,PYD,SXD,SZ,TFN,TPZ,TRB
104. Talbert, R. E.; Wichert, R. A.; McCarty, J. T.; Johnson, D. H.; Ruff, D. R.; Kendig, J. A., and Carey, V. F.
Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops 1990.
PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 412, 56 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155813
Chemical of Concern:
ACF,ACFNa,ACR,ATZ,BS,BT,CLT,CMZ,CPR,CRME,CYC,DCPA,DEE,DTP,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF
,GFSNH,GYPI,IAZ,IMQ,IXB,IZT,LCF,MB,MTL,MTZ,NPM,NPP,NSF,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,P
QT,PRM,SXD,TFN,TRB
105. Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Seed Production and Viability as Influenced by
Late-Season Postemergence Herbicide Applications. POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (4): 497-501.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155452
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,PAQT
106. Todorova, S. I.; Coderre, D.; Duchesne, R. M., and Cote, J. C. Compatibility of Beauveriabassiana with
Selected Fungicides and Herbicides. MOR,POP,REPENV; 1998; 27, (2): 427-433.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 97417
Chemical of Concern: CTN,DQTBr,GFSNH,MMM,MZB,Maneb,TPM,Zineb
107. Van Eerd, L. L.; Stephenson, G. R.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Grossmann, K., and Hall, J. C. Physiological and
Biochemical Characterization of Quinclorac Resistance in a False Cleavers (Galium spurium L.)
Biotype. ACC,BCM,GRO,MOR. Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, NIG 2W1 Canada////: SOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (4): 1144-1151.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154924
Chemical of Concern:
24DNH,BT,CPR,DMB,ETL,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,MCPAD,PCLK,QNC,THF,TPR
108. Vermey, D. J. Interactions Between Nitrogen and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Densities on Glufosinate
and Glyphosate Efficacy. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 82 p. (UMI# MR41875).
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155895
Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,NHS04
109. Wang, Y.; Kausch, A. P.; Chandlee, J. M.; Luo, H.; Ruemmele, B. A.; Browning, M.; Jackson, N., and
Goldsmith, M. R. Co-Transfer and Expression of Chitinase, Glucanase, and Bar Genes in Creeping
Bentgrass for Conferring Fungal Disease Resistance. MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 165, (3): 497-
506.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155697
Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFSNH
110. Webster, T. M.; Hanna, W. W., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) Dose-Response
Relationships with Clethodim, Glufosinate and Glyphosate. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 60, (12):
1237-1244.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155802
Chemical of Concern: CLT,GFS,GYP
111. Wherrett, A. D.; Sivasithamparam, K., and Barbetti, M. J. Establishing the Relationship of Ascospore Loads
with Blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) Severity on Canola (Brassica napus). POPSOIL,ENV;
2004; 55, (8): 849-854.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100967
Chemical of Concern: FTF,GFSNH
AI-34
-------
112. Wibawa, W.; Mohamad, R.; Omar, D., and Juraimi, A. S. Less Hazardous Alternative Herbicides to Control
Weeds in Immature Oil Palm. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 7, (4): 242-247.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155423
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT
113. Wilson, H. P.; Hines, T. E.; Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224,
Paraquat, and Glyphosate in No-Till Corn (Zea mays). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 33, (4):
531-536.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 31424
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,MTL,PQT
114. Wilson, R. G. and Smith, J. A. Influence of Harvest-Aid Herbicides on Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
Desiccation, Seed Yield, and Quality. BCM,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, 109-115.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 62977
Chemical of Concern: ACR,GFS,GYP,PAQT
115. Yadav, A.; Banga, R. S.; Balyan, R. S.; Malik, R. K., and Punia, S. S. Evaluation of Herbicides Against
Dodder (Cuscuta reflexa) Infesting the Hedges of Bougainvillea (Bougainvillaea purpurea) and
Cleridendron (Cleridendron splendena). POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 77, (7): 462-463.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155499
Chemical of Concern: 24DIO,24DXY,GFSNH,GYPI
IV. Excluded by ECOTOX (Unacceptable Publications)
1. . Activity of Glufosinate Liberty Against Red Rice Biotyes in Glufosinate-Resistant Gulfmont Rice. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
2. . Annual Assessment of Subsistence Bowhead Whaling Near Cross Island, 2001 and 2002: ANIMIDA Task
4. (GRA&I), Issue 07, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
3. . ASBESTOS CONCENTRATIONS IN GASKET STORAGE AREA PREPARED BY LIBERTY
MUTUAL. #878210178.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
4. . ASBESTOS SURVEY IN GASKET STORAGE AREA PREPARED BY LEBERTY MUTUAL.
#878210177.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
5. . Bar Gene Transfer From Transgenic Rice Oryza Sativa to Red Rice Oryza Sativa. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
6. . EFFECT OF THE HERBICIDES BASTA STARANE AND FUSILADE SUPER ON THE WEEDS
MICROFLORA AND CERTAIN AGROPHYSICAL SOIL PROPERTIES IN AN APPLE
PLANTATION AU - STAMATOVI. 24(7). 1987.34-40..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
7. . Ellis Island Development Concept Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (GRA&I), Issue 22, 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
8. . Environmental Audit, Western Area Power Administration, Phoenix Area. Phoenix Area Operation and
Maintenance Complex, Amargosa Substation, Basic Substation, Mead Substation, Coolidge
Substation,Liberty Substation, Phoenix Substation. (GRA&I), Issue 13, 2091.
AI-35
-------
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Environmental Management Systems: Systematically Improving Your Performance. Meat Processing
Sector. (GRA&I), Issue 16, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. EVALUATION OF AIRBORNE INK MIST WITH COVER LETTER. #878211188.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO METHYL CHLOROFORM IN THE INK
DEPARTMENT AND TO PAPER DUST IN THE BALE ROOM WITH COVER LETTER.
#878211189.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Genetic transformation of aspen (Populus tremula X Populus alba) by Agrobacterium rhizogenes and
regeneration of plants tolerant to herbicide. AU - DEVILLARD C. 314 (6). 1992. 291-298K..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Health Consultation: National Energy Technology Laboratory-Albany, Albany, Oregon (Formerly Known
As: Albany Research Center), United States Department of Energy. EPA Facility ID: OR214159008.
(GRA&I), Issue 26, 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Health Consultation: Proposed Shellfish Harvesting Site, Liberty Bay, Kitsap County, Washington. EPA
Facility ID: ILD053219259. (GRA&I), Issue 25, 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Liberty Development and Production Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (on CD-ROM).
(GRA&I), Issue 09, 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. (Executive
Summary, Sections I through IX, Bibliography, Index). (GRA&I), Issue 11, 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 2 (Tables,
Figures, and Maps for Volume 1). (GRA&I), Issue 11, 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 3 (Appendices).
(GRA&I), Issue 11,2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Liberty Development Project. Environmental Report. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. McCullough to Liberty fiber optics project. (GRA&I), Issue 04, 2098.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Report: HETA No. 2005-0033-2984 and 2005-0234-2984, Liberty
Central School District, Liberty, New York, November 2005. (GRA&I), Issue 06, 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. [Optimization of Biological and Physical Parameters for Biolistic Genetic Transformation of Common
Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Using a Particle Inflow Gun],
AI-36
-------
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34
35.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glufosinate Ammonium. (GRA&I), Issue 21, 2093.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Public Health Assessment for Liberty Industrial Finishing Corporation, Farmingdale, Nassau County, New
York, March 22, 2005. EPA Facility ID: NYD000337295. (GRA&I), Issue 14, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Public Health Assessment for Petro-Chemical, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) Liberty, Liberty County, Texas, Region
6. CERCLIS No. TXD980873350. (GRA&I), Issue 14, 2093.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Public Health Assessment for Village of Liberty Water Supply System - Elm Street Well, Liberty, Sullivan
County, New York, May 6, 2005. EPA Facility ID: NYXCRA673000. (GRA&I), Issue 17, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR D5 (DECAMETHYLCYCLOPENTASILOXANE) AT SELECTED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS WITH COVER LETTER DATED 08/31/93.
#86940001688.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Sources, Concentrations and Dispersion Pathways for Suspended Sediment in the Coastal Beaufort Sea:
ANIMIDA Task 5. (GRA&I), Issue 08, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Superfund Record of Decision Amendment (EPA Region 6): Petro-Chemical Systems (Turtle Bayou),
Liberty County, TX., April 30, 1998. (GRA&I), Issue 16, 2099.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Superfund Record of Decision (EPA Region 6): Petro-Chemical (Turtle Bayou), Liberty County, TX.
(Second Remedial Action), September 1991. (GRA&I), Issue 18, 2092.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
. Superfund Record of Decision (EPA Region 7): Lee Chemical Site, Liberty, MO. (First Remedial Action),
March 1991. (GRA&I), Issue 18, 2092.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Abdeen, A. and Miki, B. The Pleiotropic Effects of the Bar Gene and Glufosinate on the Arabidopsis
Transcriptome.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Abell, L. M. ; Schineller, J.; Keck, P. J., and Villafranca, J. J. Effect of Metal-Ligand Mutations on
Phosphoryl Transfer Reactions Catalyzed by Escherichia Coli Glutamine Synthetase.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Accinelli, Cesare; Screpanti, Claudio; Vicari, Alberto, and Catizone, Pietro. Influence of insecticidal toxins
from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-
ammonium in soil samples. 2004 Aug; 103, (3): 497-507.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Agostinetto, D.; Fleck, N. G.; Menezes, V. G., and Nunes Costa, E. L. Suppression of Red Rice Seed
Production by Herbicides Applied to Irrigated Rice (Supressao Da Producao De Sementes De Arroz-
Vermelho Pela Aplicacao De Herbicidas Em Arroz Irrigado). 2002; 37, (1): 57-65(POR) (ENG
ABS). 135098.
AI-37
-------
36.
37.
38.
39
40.
41
42.
43
44
45.
46.
47.
48
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,PAQT
Ahuja, Manmeet and Punekar, Narayan S. Phosphinothricin resistance in Aspergillus niger and its utility as a
selectable transformation marker. 2008 Jul; 45, (7): 1103-1110.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Alarcon, C. M.; Umthun, A. R., and Register III, J. C. Use of Epitope Tags for Routine Analysis of Transgene
Expression. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Alijah, R.; Dorendorf, J.; Talay, S.; Puhler, A., and Wohlleben, W. Genetic Analysis of the Phosphinothricin-
Tripeptide Biosynthetic Pathway of Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Tu494. 34 (6), 749-755.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Allen-King, R. M.; Butler, B. J., and Reichert, B. Fate of the Herbicide Glufosinate-Ammonium in the Sandy,
Low-Organic-Carbon Aquifer at Cfb Borden, Ontario, Canada. 1995.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ALTMANN, T.; JESSOP, A.; MORRIS, P. C.; SCHMIDT, R., and WILLMITZER, L. DEVELOPMENT OF
A TRANSPOSON MUTAGENESIS SYSTEM FOR ARABIDOPSIS-THALIANA. 1910 Jan 20-
1991 Jan 17; 0 (15 PART A). 1991. 110..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AMBROSE, C. andHOGGARD, P. E. METAL COMPLEXES OF GLUFOSINATE. 37 (5). 1989. 1442-
1444..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Anders, M. W. andDekant, W. Aminoacylases. 1994(27): 431-448. 174081.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,HCB
ANON. Meeting on Molecular Biology to Advance Plant Protection in the 2000s held at the Annual
Convention of the Israeli Fund for Advancement of Research on and Development of Pesticides (Bet
Dagan, Israel; November 5, 1997). 26 (2). 1998. 149-152..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aono, M.; Wakiyama, S.; Nagatsu, M.; Nakajima, N.; Tamaoki, M.; Kubo, A., and Saji, H. Detection of Feral
Transgenic Oilseed Rape With Multiple-Herbicide Resistance in Japan. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Appenzeller, Laura M.; Malley, Linda; MacKenzie, Susan A.; Hoban, Denise, and Delaney, Bryan.
Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran
resistant (DAS-+' 15+'7-lxDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2009 Jul; 47, (7):
1512-1520.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aris, A. and Leblanc, S. Maternal and Fetal Exposure to Pesticides Associated to Genetically Modified Foods
in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Asami, T. and Imura, H. Absolute Determination Method for Trace Quantities of Enantiomer of Glufosinate
by Gamma-Cyclodextrin Modified Capillary Zone Electrophoresis Combined With Solid-Phase
Extraction and on-Capillary Concentration.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Asami, T.; Imura, H.; Ohashi, A.; Ohashi, K., and Ishiwata, T. Absolute Determination Method Using
AI-38
-------
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60.
Chirality for Glufosinate and Bialaphos by Gamma-Cyclodextrin Modified Capillary Zone
Electrophoresis.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Asanuma, Y.; Jinkawa, T.; Tanaka, H.; Gondo, T.; Zaita, N., and Akashi, R. Assays of the Production of
Harmful Substances by Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus L.) Plants in
Accordance With Regulations for Evaluating the Impact on Biodiversity in Japan.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Atkins, D. J. Applying Space Technology to Enhance Control of an Artificial Arm for Children and Adults
With Amputations. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2099.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aulinger, I. E.; Peter, S. O.; Schmid, J. E., and Stamp, P. Rapid Attainment of a Doubled Haploid Line From
Transgenic Maize (Zea Mays L.) Plants by Means of Anther Culture. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aulrich, K.; Bohme, H.; Daenicke, R.; Halle, I., and Flachowsky, G. Novel feeds - a review of experiments at
our Institute. 2002; 35, (2-3): 285-293.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aumaitre, A. Safety assessment and feeding value for pigs, poultry and ruminant animals of pest protected
(Bt) plants and herbicide tolerant (glyphosate, glufosinate) plants: interpretation of experimental
results observed worldwide on GM plants. 2004; 3, (2): 107-121.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Autio, Sari; Siimes, Katri; Laitinen, Pirkko; Ramo, Sari; Oinonen, Seija, and Eronen, Liisa. Adsorption of
sugar beet herbicides to Finnish soils. 2004 Apr; 55, (2): 215-226.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Autran, J. C.; Be(acute)ne(acute)trix, F.; Bloc, D.; Burghart, P.; Chaurand, M.; Combe, N., and Melcion, J. P.
Composition and Technological Value of Genetically Modified and Conventional Maize (Zea Mays
L.) Grains. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Avila, C.; Garcia-Gutierrez, A.; Crespillo, R., and Canovas, F. M. Effects of phosphinotricin treatment on
glutamine synthetase isoforms in Scots pine seedlings. 1998; 36, (12): 857-863.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aziz, A. N.; Sauve(acute), R. J., and Zhou, S. Genetic Transformation of Stella De Oro Daylily by Particle
Bombardment. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Aziz, Aris. Response to Bayer CropScience's position on the findings of glufosinate and its metabolite. 2011;
32, (4): 496-497.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Babic, V.; Datla, R. S.; Scoles, G. J., and Keller, W. A. Development of an Efficient Agrobacterium-
Mediated Transformation System for Brassica Carinata. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BAHAT, A. and AGROCHEM, D. E. P. STAFF. GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM FOR GENERAL WEED
CONTROL IN VINEYARDS CITRUS AND OTHER FRUIT ORCHARDS AND
UNCULTIVATED AREAS. 13 (3-4). 1985 (RECD. 1986). 239..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-39
-------
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
BAHRY, R. W. CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE CIRSIUM ARVENSE L. SCOP. WITH
GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN HCN92 CANOLA. 1994; 75 (1). 1995. 302..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BAKER-FULCO, C. J.; BUCHBINDER, J. C., and TORRI, S. A. DIETARY INTAKES OF MARINES ON
LIBERTY. 1995 Jan 9-1995 Jan 13; 9 (3). 1995. A176..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Balci, B.; Oturan, M. A.; Oturan, N.; SirÉ, and S, I. Decontamination of Aqueous Glyphosate,
(Aminomethyl)Phosphonic Acid, and Glufosinate Solutions by Electro-Fenton-Like Process With
Mn2+ as the Catalyst.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Baldwin, F. L. The value and exploitation of herbicide-tolerant crops in the US. 1999: 653-660.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bales, &Nbsp and C. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) for
cold tolerance. 2010.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Balestrazzi, A.; Bonadei, M.; Zelasco, S.; Quattrini, E. ; Calvio, C.; Galizzi, A., and Carbonera, D. Recovery
of Useful Traits From Isolates Inhabiting an Agricultural Soil Cultivated With Herbicide-Resistant
Poplars.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Balkcom, Kipling S.; Price, Andrew J.; Van Santen, Edzard; Delaney, Dennis P.; Boykin, Deborah L.;
Arriaga, Francisco J.; Bergtold, Jason S.; Kornecki, Ted S., and Raper, Randy L. Row spacing,
tillage system, and herbicide technology affects cotton plant growth and yield. 2010 Jun 3-; 117,
(2rCo3): 219-225.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Baranger, A. ; Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F., and Renard, M. Effect of Oilseed Rape Genotype on the Spontaneous
Hybridization Rate With a Weedy Species: an Assessment of Transgene Dispersal. 91 (6/7), 956-
963.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Baranger, A. ; Delourme, R.; Foisset, N.; Eber, F.; Barrett, P.; Dupuis, P.; Renard, M., and Chevre, A. M.
Wide Mapping of a T-Dna Insertion Site in Oilseed Rape Using Bulk Segregant Analysis and
Comparative Mapping. 116 (6), 553-560.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Barazani, O. and Friedman, J. Allelopathic Bacteria and Their Impact on Higher Plants. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Allelopathic Bacteria and Their Impact on Higher Plants (NOT DUPLICATE). 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Barker, Allen V. and Prostak, Randall G. Alternative Management of Roadside Vegetation. 2009; 19, (2):
346-352.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Baron, A.; Tobin, A., and Wallsgrove, R. M. The Kinetics of Azaserine and Phosphinothricin Inhibition of
Glutamate Synthase Cycle Enzymes From Barley Leaves. 1994.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-40
-------
74. Barrell, P. J.; Yongjin, S.; Cooper, P. A., and Conner, A. J. Alternative Selectable Markers for Potato
Transformation Using Minimal T-Dna Vectors. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
75. Barrett, M. Herbicide Selectivity Mechanisms in Maize: Using What We Know for the Future. 1997: 587-
596.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,
GYP,SXD,GFS„IZT,CPR,PYD,BT,BMN,DMB,FTS,NSF,ATZ,EPTC,ACO
76. Barrios-Llerena, Martin E.; Pritchard, Julie C.; Kerr, Lorraine E., and Le Bihan, Thierry. The use of a novel
quantitation strategy based on Reductive Isotopic Di-Ethylation (RIDE) to evaluate the effect of
glufosinate on the unicellular algae Ostreococcus tauri: Pharmacoproteomics and Toxicoproteomics.
2011 Nov 18-; 74, (12): 2798-2809.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
77. Barro, F.; Barcelo, P.; Lazzeri, P. A.; Shewry, P. R.; Martin, A., and Ballesteros, J. Field Evaluation and
Agronomic Performance of Transgenic Wheat. 105 (6/7), 980-984.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
78. Barro, F.; Cannell, M. E.; Lazzeri, P. A., and Barcelo, P. The Influence of Auxins on Transformation of
Wheat and Tritordeum and Analysis of Transgene Integration Patterns in Transformants. 97 (5/6),
684-695.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
79. Barsch, Aiko ; Carvalho, Helena G.; Cullimore, Julie V., and Niehaus, Karsten. GC-MS based metabolite
profiling implies three interdependent ways of ammonium assimilation in Medicago truncatula root
nodules. 2006 Dec 15; 127, (1): 79-83.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
80. Barthes, L.; Deleens, E.; Bousser, A.; Hoarau, J., and Prioul, J. L. Xylem Exudation Is Related to Nitrate
Assimilation Pathway in Detopped Maize Seedlings: Use of Nitrate Reductase and Glutamine
Synthetase Inhibitors as Tools. 47 (297), 485-495.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
81. Bartsch, D.; Brand, U.; Morak, C.; Pohl-Orf, M.; Schuphan, I., and Ellstrand, N. C. Biosafety of Hybrids
Between Transgenic Virus-Resistant Sugar Beet, and Swiss Chard. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
82. BARTSCH, K.; DICHMANN, R.; SCHMITT, P.; UHLMANN, E., and SCHULZ, A. Stereospecific
production of the herbicide phosphinothricin (glufosinate) by transamination: Cloning,
characterization, and overexpression of the gene encoding a phosphinothricin-specific transaminase
from Escherichia coli. 56 (1). 1990.7-12..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
83. Bartsch, K.; Schneider, R., and Schulz, A. Stereospecific Production of the Herbicide Phosphinothricin
(Glufosinate): Purification of Aspartate Transaminase From Bacillus Stearothermophilus, Cloning of
the Corresponding Gene, Aspc, and Application in a Coupled Transaminase Process.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
84. BARTSCH, K. and TEBBE, C. C. INITIAL STEPS IN THE DEGRADATION OF PHOSPHINOTHRICIN
GLUFOSINATE BY SOIL BACTERIA. 55 (3). 1989. 711-716..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
85. Bauer-Weston, B.; Schulz, A.; Oelck, M. M., and Deschamps, R. J. A. Determination of Phosphinothricin
Acetyltransferase in Genetically Transformed Canola Seed by a Two-Antibody Sandwich Enzyme
AI-41
-------
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93
94.
95.
96
97
Immunoassay. 14 (2), 134-142.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bechtold, N. ; Jaudeau, B.; Jolivet, S.; Maba, B.; Vezon, D.; Voisin, R., and Pelletier, G. The Maternal
Chromosome Set Is the Target of the T-Dna in the in Planta Transformation of Arabidopsis
Thaliana. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Beckie, H. J. and Holm, F. A. Response of Wild Oat (Avena fatua) to Residual and Non-Residual Herbicides
in Canola (Brassica napus) in Western Canada. SOIL; 2002; 82, (4): 797-802.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: EFL,GFS,GYPI,IZT,IZX,SXD,TRL
Beckie, H. J.; Warwick, S. I.; Nair, H., and Seguin-Swartz, G. Gene Flow in Commercial Fields of Herbicide-
Resistant Canola (Brassica Napus). 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Begg, G. S.; Elliott, M. J.; Cullen, D. W.; Iannetta, P. P. M., and Squire, G. R. Heterogeneity in the
distribution of genetically modified and conventional oilseed rape within fields and seed lots. 2008;
17, (5): 805-816.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BEHKI, R. M. DEGRADATION OF THIOCARBAMATE HERBICIDES AND ORGANOPHOSPHORUS
INSECTICIDES BY RHODOCOCCUS SPECIES. 515p 27; 0 (0). 1994. 234-255..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BEHRENDT, H. ; MATTHIES, M.; GILDEMEISTER, H., and GOERLITZ, G. Leaching and transformation
of glufosinate-ammonium and its main metabolite in a layered soil column. 9 (5). 1990. 541-550..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Belligno, A. ; Sambuco, F., and Izzo, R. Action of glyphosate ammonium (GPA) on the nitrification potential
of soil treated with two different slow-release N-fertilizers. 2000; 9, (7-8): 489-498.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bellinder, R. R.; Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. Mode of Action Investigations with the Herbicides HOE-
39866 and SC-0224. SOIL; 1985; 33, (6): 779-785.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPT
Berlicki, L. and Kafarski, P. Computer-aided analysis of the interactions of glutamine synthetase with its
inhibitors. 2006; 14, (13): 4578-4585.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BIER, B.; LANGELUEDDEKE, P., and SCHUMACHER, H. WEED CONTROL IN POTATOES A NEW
USE FOR BASTA. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT
PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.
XXVTI+524P. KOMMIS SIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.
MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 245-246..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BLACK, B. D.; RUSSIN, J. S.; GRIFFIN, J. L., and SNOW, J. P. IMPACT OF SOYBEAN GLYCINE
MAX HERBICIDES ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF RHIZOCTONIA SOLANIAG-1
IN VITRO AND IN FIELD. 1928 Jan 1-1995 Feb 1; 85 (4). 1995. 508..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Blacker, A.; Breum, R.; Dacus, S.; Kwiatkowski, P.; Laporte, F.; Mallyon, B.; Rupprecht, K., and Stumpf, K.
AI-42
-------
Bayer CropScience's Position on the Findings of Glufosinate and Its Metabolite. 2011; 32, (4): 494-
495.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
98. Blair, L. K. ; Dotray, P. A.; Keeling, J. W.; Gannaway, J. R.; Lyon, L. L.; Quisenberry, J. E., and Oliver, M.
J. Crop Tolerance and Weed Management in Liberty (Glufosinate)-Tolerant Cotton. 2, 1458-1459.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
99. Blanke, M. M. Soil Respiration in an Apple Orchard . 36 (3), 339-348.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
100. BLEIFELD, H. and HUFF, H. P. LOWER LEAF TREATMENT IN MAIZE AN INDICATION FOR
BASTA. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT
PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.
XXVTI+524P. KOMMIS SIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.
MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 206..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
101. Block, M. de and Debrouwer, D. Two T-Dna's Co-Transformed Into Brassica Napus by a Double
Agrobacterium Tumefaciens Infection Are Mainly Integrated at the Same Locus. 82 (3), 257-263.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
102. Blodgett, J. A.; Thomas, P. M.; Li, G.; Velasquez, J. E. ; VanDerDonk, W. A.; Kelleher, N. L., and Metcalf,
W. W. Unusual Transformations in the Biosynthesis of the Antibiotic Phosphinothricin Tripeptide.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
103. BLUMENFELD, T.; KLEIFELD, Y.; HERZLINGER, G.; BUCSBAUM, H., and GOLAN, S.
TERMINATING APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES IN DRIP-IRRIGATED COTTON. 1990 Feb
26-1990 Feb 27; 18 (3). 1990. 265..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
104. BOEGER, P. and SANDMANN, G. ACTION OF MODERN HERBICIDES. (ED.). PHOTOSYNTHESIS: A
COMPREHENSIVE TREATISE. XVIII+376P. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: NEW
YORK, NEW YORK, USA; CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-521-57000-X.; 0 (0). 1998.
337-351..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
105. Bohme, H.; Aulrich, K.; Daenicke, R., and Flachowsky, G. Genetically Modified Feeds in Animal Nutrition.
2nd Communication: Glufosinate Tolerant Sugar Beets (Roots and Silage) and Maize Grains for
Ruminants and Pigs. 2001; 54, (3): 197-207. 137937.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
106. Bohorova, N.; Zhang, W.; Julstrum, P.; McLean, S.; Luna, B.; Brito, R. M.; Diaz, L.; Ramos, M. E.; Estanol,
P.; Pacheco, M.; Salgado, M., and Hoisington, D. Production of Transgenic Tropical Maize With
Cryiab and Cryiac Genes Via Microprojectile Bombardment of Immature Embryos. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
107. Boijesson, E. and Torstensson, L. New methods for determination of glyphosate and
(aminomethyl)phosphonic acid in water and soil. 2000; 886, (1-2): 207-216.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
108. Born, G. L. ; Lucas, S. V.; Scott, R. D.; DeFries, T. H., and Kishan, S. Effect of Use of Low Oxygenate
Gasoline Blends upon Emissions from California Vehicles. (GRA&I), Issue 23, 2094.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-43
-------
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Botterman, J.; Gossele, V.; Thoen, C., and Lauwereys, M. Characterization of PhosphinotMcin
Acetyltransferase and C-Terminal Enzymatically Active Fusion Proteins. 102 (1), 33-37.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BOUHARMONT, P. and ABOLO, D. EFFICACY OF SOME HERBICIDE TREATMENTS IN COFFEE
PLANTATIONS IN CAMEROON. 1993; 37, (2): 129-138.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bower, R.; Elliott, A. R.; Potier, B. A. M., and Birch, R. G. High-Efficiency, Microprojectile-Mediated
Cotransformation of Sugarcane, Using Visible or Selectable Markers. 2 (3), 239-249.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bradley, K. Killing Frost-Damaged Corn - It's Not as Easy as It Sounds. 17, (6).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bradley, Kevin. Missouri New Herbicide/Label Update for 2009. 18, (18): 123, 126-123, 127.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brar, G. S.; Cohen, B. A.; Vick, C. L., and Johnson, G. W. Recovery of Transgenic Peanut (Arachis
Hypogaea L.) Plants From Elite Cultivars Utilizing Accell Technology. 5 (5), 745-753.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Braverman, M. P. and Linscombe, S. D. Field Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Glufosinate Resistant
Rice Lines (NO DUP). 37 (3), 29.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Braverman, M. P.; Zhang, W.; Wilde, R. O., and Habetz, R. J. Simulated Glufosinate Drift on Rice and
Soybean. 51, 269.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bregitzer, P.; Cooper, L. D.; Hayes, P. M.; Lemaux, P. G.; Singh, J., and Sturbaum, A. K. Viability and Bar
Expression Are Negatively Correlated in Oregon Wolfe Barley Dominant Hybrids. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bregitzer, P.; Halbert, S. E., and Lemaux, P. G. Somaclonal Variation in the Progeny of Transgenic Barley.
96 (3/4), 421-425.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Bregitzer, P. and Tonks, D. Crop Breeding, Genetics & Cytology: Inheritance and Expression of Transgenes
in Barley. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Inheritance and expression of transgenes in barley. 2003; 43, (1): 4-12.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Breitler, J. C.; Meynard, D.; VanBoxtel, J.; Royer, M.; Bonnot, F.; Cambillau, L., and Guiderdoni, E. A
novel two T-DNA binary vector allows efficient generation of marker-free transgenic plants in three
elite cultivars of rice (Oryza sativaL.). 2004; 13, (3): 271-287.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brettschneider, R.; Becker, D., and Lorz, H. Efficient Transformation of Scutellar Tissue of Immature Maize
Embryos. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brommer, C. L.; Shaw, D. R., andLaMastus, F. E. Weed Control in Liberty-Link Soybean. 51, 269-270.
AI-44
-------
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brouk, M. J.; Cvetkovic, B.; Rice, D. W.; Smith, B. L.; Hinds, M. A.; Owens, F. N.; Iiams, C., and Sauber,
T. E. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from
genetically modified corn containing event DAS-59122-7 compared to a nontransgenic, near-
isogenic control. 2011 Apr; 94, (4): 1961-1966.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from genetically
modified corn containing event DAS-59122-7 compared with a nontransgenic, near-isogenic control.
2011; 94, (4): 1961-1966.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brown, J. ANIMADA Task 2. Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediment Cores in the ANIMIDA
Study Area. (GRA&I), Issue 22, 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BROWN, J.; THILL, D. C.; BROWN, A. P., and BRAMMER, T. A. GENE TRANSFER BETWEEN
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CANOLA BRASSICA NAPUS L. AND RELATED WEED
SPECIES. 1996 Aug 3-1996 Aug 3; 83 (6 SUPPL.). 1996. 55..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brukhin, V. ; Clapham, D.; Elfstrand, M., and Von Arnold, S. Basta Tolerance as a Selectable and Screening
Marker for Transgenic Plants of Norway Spruce. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Brunelle, S. A.; Hazard, E. S.; Sotka, E. E., and Van Dolah, F. M. Characterization of a Dinoflagellate
Cryptochrome Blue-Light Receptor With a Possible Role in Circadian Control of the Cell Cycle.
2007; 43, (3): 509-518.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Buckelew, L. D.; Pedigo, L. P.; Mero, H. M.; Owen, M. D. K., and Tylka, G. L. Effects of Weed
Management Systems on Canopy Insects in Herbicide-Resistant Soybeans. SOIL; 2000; 93, (5):
1437-1443.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,MBZ,NHS04
Buising, C. M. and Benbow, R. M. Molecular Analysis of Transgenic Plants Generated by Microprojectile
Bombardment: Effect of Petunia Transformation Booster Sequence.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BURGE, M. N. MICROBES AND MICROBIAL PHYTOTOXINS AS HERBICIDES. (ED.). ELLIS
HORWOOD SERIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY: DRUGS FROM NATURAL
PRODUCTS: PHARMACEUTICALS AND AGROCHEMICALS. VII+171P. ELLIS HORWOOD:
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA; CHICHESTER, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-13-096546-4.; 0 (0).
1993. 82-98..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Burnie, D. Ecotourists in Paradise. 1994.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Burton, N. C.; Edmonds, M. A.; Decker, J. A., and Kovein, R. J. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 92-
044-2265, General Castings Co., Liberty Road Facility, Delaware, Ohio. (GRA&I), Issue 19, 2093.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Butterfield, M. K; Irvine, J. E.; Valdez Garza, M., and Mirkov, T. E. Inheritance and Segregation of Virus
AI-45
-------
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145.
146
147
and Herbicide Resistance Transgenes in Sugarcane. 104 (5), 797-803.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
BYRD, J. C. ; SHAPIRO, R. S., and SCHIEDERMAYER, D. L. PASSIVE SMOKING A REVIEW OF
MEDICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES. 79 (2). 1989. 209-215..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cabrera-Ponce, J. L.; Lopez, L.; Assad-Garcia, N.; Medina-Arevalo, C.; Bailey, A. M., and Herrera-Estrella,
L. An Efficient Particle Bombardment System for the Genetic Transformation of Asparagus
(Asparagus Officinalis L.). 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cantone, Frank A. and Vandenberg, John D. Use of the Green Fluorescent Protein for Investigations of
Paecilomyces fumosoroseus in Insect Hosts. 1999 Sep; 74, (2): 193-197.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cao, J.; Duan, X. L.; McElroy, D., and Wu, R. Regeneration of Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Rice Plants
Following Microprojectile-Mediated Transformation of Suspension Culture Cells. 11 (11), 586-
591.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cao Ming Qing; Fan, L.; Lei, Y.; Bouchez, D.; Tourneur, C.; Yan, L., and Robaglia, C. Transformation of
Pakchoi (Brassica Rapa L. Ssp. Chinensis) by Agrobacterium Infiltration. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Caplan, A.; Dekeyser, R., and Van Montagu, M. Selectable Markers for Rice Transformation.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Carroll, B. J.; Klimyuk, V. I.; Thomas, C. M.; Bishop, G. J.; Harrison, K.; Scofield, S. R., and Jones, J. D. G.
Germinal Transpositions of the Maize Element Dissociation From T-Dna Loci in Tomato. 139 (1),
407-420.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Carvalho, H. G.; Lopes-Cardoso, I. A.; Lima, L. M.; Melo, P. M., and Cullimore, J. V. Nodule-Specific
Modulation of Glutamine Synthetase in Transgenic Medicago Truncatula Leads to Inverse
Alterations in Asparagine Synthetase Expression. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Casas, A. M.; Kononowicz, A. K.; Haan, T. G.; Zhang, L.; Tomes, D. T.; Bressan, R. A., and Hasegawa, P.
M. Transgenic Sorghum Plants Obtained After Microprojectile Bombardment of Immature
Inflorescences. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
CASAS, A. M.; KONONOWICZ, A. K.; ZEHR, U. B.; TOMES, D. T.; AXTELL, J. D.; BUTLER, L. G.;
BRESSAN, R. A., and HASEGAWA, P. M. Transgenic sorghum plants via microprojectile
bombardment. 90 (23). 1993. 11212-11216..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Castillo, A. M.; Vasil, V., and Vasil, I. K. Rapid Production of Fertile Transgenic Plants of Rye (Secale
Cereale L.). 12 (13), 1366-1371.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Castro-Sowinski, S.; Herschkovitz, Y.; Okon, Y., and Jurkevitch, E. Effects of inoculation with plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria on resident rhizosphere microorganisms. 2007; 276, (1): 1-11.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-46
-------
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Cathcart, R. J.; Topinka, A. K.; Kharbanda, P.; Lange, R.; Yang, R. C., and Hall, L. M. Rotation Length,
Canola Variety and Herbicide Resistance System Affect Weed Populations and Yield. SOIL; 2006;
54, (4): 726-734.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24DIO,24DXY,BMN,DFC,EMSF,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,MCPA,SXD,TBNU,THF,TKY
Cervino James M; Winiarski-Cervino Kathryn; Poison Shawn W; Goreau Thomas, and Smith Garnet W.
Identification of Bacteria Associated With a Disease Affecting the Marine Sponge Ianthella Basta in
New Britain, Papua New Guinea. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chair, H.; Legavre, T., and Guiderdoni, E. Transformation of Haploid, Microspore-Derived Cell Suspension
Protoplasts of Rice (Oryza SativaL.). 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chan, Y. C. ; Chang, S. C.; Hsuan, S. L.; Chien, M. S.; Lee, W. C.; Kang, J. J.; Wang, S. C., and Liao, J. W.
Cardiovascular Effects of Herbicides and Formulated Adjuvants on Isolated Rat Aorta and Heart.
2007; 21, (4): 595-603.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chang, S. Y. and Liao, C. H. Analysis of Glyphosate, Glufosinate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid by
Capillary Electrophoresis With Indirect Fluorescence Detection.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
CHELIDZE, P. G.; VON FIRCKS HA, and CHOGOSHYILI, A. G. EFFECTS OF HERBICIDES TO
THYLAKOID MEMBRANES OF SPINACIA-OLERACEA L. 1990 Aug 5-1990 Oct 5; 79 (2
PART 2). 1990. A49..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chemli, H. Results of Trials on the Chemcial Control of the Rhomboid Salpichroa-Rhomboidea Biology
Harmfulness and Means for Control (Resultats D'Essais de Lutte Chimique Contre la Rhomboide
(Salpichroa rhomboidea)). SOIL; 1991: 33 p.(FRE) (ENG ABS).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMC,GFSNH,GYP
Chen, W. P. and Punja, Z. K. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of American Ginseng With a Rice
Chitinase Gene. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F.; Baranger, A.; Hureau, G.; Barret, P.; Picault, H., and Renard, M. Characterization of
Backcross Generations Obtained Under Field Conditions From Oilseed Rape-Wild Radish F1
Interspecific Hybrids: an Assessment of Transgene Dispersal. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F.; Darmency, H.; Fleury, A.; Picault, H.; Letanneur, J. C., and Renard, M. Assessment
of Interspecific Hybridization Between Transgenic Oilseed Rape and Wild Radish Under Normal
Agronomic Conditions. 100 (8), 1233-1239.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chew, O.; Rudhe, C.; Glaser, E., and Whelan, J. Characterization of the Targeting Signal of Dual-Targeted
Pea Glutathione Reductase. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chiu, H. Y.; Lin, Z. Y.; Tu, H. L., and Whang, C. W. Analysis of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic
acid by capillary electrophoresis with electrochemiluminescence detection. 2008; 1177, (1): 195-
198.
AI-47
-------
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. A.; Moon, C. Y.; Liu, J. R., and Choi, P. S. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in Citrullus
lanatus. 2008; 52, (2): 365-369.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Buchanan, B. B., and Lemaux, P. G. Inheritance of Tissue-Specific Expression of
Barley Hordein Promoter-Uida Fusions in Transgenic Barley Plants. 98 (8), 1253-1262.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Jiang, W.; Ha, C. D., and Lemaux, P. G. Endosperm-Specific Expression of Green
Fluorescent Protein Driven by the Hordein Promoter Is Stably Inherited in Transgenic Barley
(Hordeum Vulgare) Plants. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W., and Lemaux, P. G. Transformed T0 Orchardgrass (Dactylis Glomerata
L.) Plants Produced From Highly Regenerative Tissues Derived From Mature Seeds. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Okamoto, D.; Zhang, S., and Lemaux, P. G. Expression of Green Fluorescent
Protein and Its Inheritance in Transgenic Oat Plants Generated From Shoot Meristematic Cultures.
2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cho, M. J.; Ha, C. D., and Lemaux, P. G. Production of Transgenic Tall Fescue and Red Fescue Plants by
Particle Bombardment of Mature Seed-Derived Highly Regenerative Tissues. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
CHOI, K.; JEON, J.; KIM, H.; JOUNG, Y., and JOUNG, H. Stability of transgenic potato plants and their
progenies expressing herbicide resistant gene. 40 (1). 1999. 31-34..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Choi, Y. E. ; Jeong, J. H.; Baek, S. H., and Seo, H. Y. Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Genetic
Transformation of Eleutherococcus Sessiliflorus by Phosphinothricin Acetyl Transferase Gene.
2004; 40, (1): 51-56.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chompoo, Jamnian and Pornprom, Tosapon. RT-PCR based detection of resistance conferred by an
insensitive GS in glufosinate-resistant maize cell lines. 2008 Mar; 90, (3): 189-195.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Christiansen, P.; Andersen, C. H.; Didion, T.; Foiling, M., and Nielsen, K. K. A Rapid and Efficient
Transformation Protocol for the Grass Brachypodium Distachyon. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Chugh, A. and Khurana, P. Herbicide-Resistant Transgenics of Bread Wheat (T. Aestivum) and Emmer
Wheat (T. Dicoccum) by Particle Bombardment and Agrobacterium-Mediated Approaches. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ciavatta, V. T.; Egertsdotter, U.; Clapham, D.; Von Arnold, S., and Cairney, J. A Promoter From Loblolly
Pine Ptnipl;l Gene Directs Expression in an Early-Embryogenesis and Suspensor-Specific Fashion.
2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cicchillo, R. M.; Zhang, H. J.; Blodgett, J. A. V.; Whitteck, J. T.; Li, G. Y.; Nair, S. K.; vanderDonk, W. A.,
AI-48
-------
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
and Metcalf, W. W. An unusual carbon-carbon bond cleavage reaction during phosphinothricin
biosynthesis. 2009; 459, (7248): 871-NIL10.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Claessen, D.; Gilligan, C. A., and van den Bosch, F. Which traits promote persistence of feral GM crops? Part
2: implications of metapopulation structure. 2005; 110, (1): 30-42.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Clapham, D. ; Demel, P.; Elfstrand, M.; Koop, H. U.; Sabala, I., and Von Arnold, S. Gene Transfer by
Particle Bombardment to Embryogenic Cultures of Picea Abies and the Production of Transgenic
Plantlets. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Clayton, G. W.; Harker, K. N.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Dosdall, L.; Stevenson, F. C.; Johnson,
E. N., and Ferguson, T. Polymer Seed Coating of Early- and Late-Fall-Seeded Herbicide-Tolerant
Canola (Brassica napus L.) Cultivars. SOIL; 2004; 84, (4): 971-979.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP
Clewis, S. B.; Thomas, W. E.; Everman, W. J., and Witcut, J. W. Glufosinate-resistant corn interference in
glufosinate-resistant cotton. 2008; 22, (2): 211-216.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Coates, W. Effect of Harvest Method and Date on Lesquerella Seed Yields. 5 (2), 125-132.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cook, &Nbsp and M. Development of new tools for the application of biotechnology to agricultural
improvement and assessing risks of biotechnology and its products. 2008.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cook, S. K. andFreer, J. B. S. Effects of Harvesting Methods on Yield of Linseed Varieties. 132-133.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cooley, J.; Ford, T., and Christou, P. Molecular and Genetic Characterization of Elite Transgenic Rice Plants
Produced by Electric-Discharge Particle Acceleration. 90(1), 97-104.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cornelissen, M. Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Sites for Anti-Sense Control.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cornelissen, M. and Vandewiele, M. Both Rna Level and Translation Efficiency Are Reduced by Anti-Sense
Rna in Transgenic Tobacco.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Costello, R. W.; Miller, D. K.; Leonard, B. R.; Holman, E. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R.; Wilson, C. F.,
and Lee, D. R. Effect of Simulated Drift Rates of Roundup Ultra (Glyphosate), Buctril
(Bromoxynil), and Liberty (Glufosinate) on Growth and Yield of Conventional Cotton. 2, 1488.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Coutinho, C. F. B.; Coutinho, L. F. M.; Mazo, L. H.; Nixdorf, S. L., and Camara, C. A. P. Rapid and direct
determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water using anion-exchange
chromatography with coulometric detection. 2008; 1208, (1-2): 246-249.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cox, C. Herbicide Factsheet: Glufosinate. 16 (4), 15-19.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-49
-------
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
Creissen, G.; Reynolds, H.; Xue, Y., and Mullineaux, P. Simultaneous Targeting of Pea Glutathione
Reductase and of a Bacterial Fusion Protein to Chloroplasts and Mitochondria in Transgenic
Tobacco.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Cromwell, G. L.; Henry, B. J.; Scott, A. L.; Gerngross, M. F.; Dusek, D. L., and Fletcher, D. W. Glufosinate
Herbicide-Tolerant (Libertylink) Rice Vs. Conventional Rice in Diets for Growing-Finishing Swine.
2005; 83, (5): 1068-1074. 141077.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
CRUEGER, G. and BRAMMEIER, H. Developments of plant protection in agriculture and horticulture:
From the proceedings of the German Plant Protection Service (1950-1997). 348;
(COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 348. 100 YEARS RESEARCH IN
PLANT PROTECTION: INFORMATION, LAW, HISTORY). 131P.+++PAREY BUCHVERLAG
BERLIN: BERLIN, GERMANY. ISBN 3-8263-3202-4.; 0 (348). 1998. 19-62..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
D'halluin, K.; De Block, M.; Denecke, J.; Janssens, J. ; Leemans, J.; Reynaerts, A., and Botterman, J. The Bar
Gene as Selectable and Screenable Marker in Plant Engineering.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
D'halluin, K.; Vanderstraeten, C.; Stals, E.; Cornelissen, M., and Ruiter, R. Homologous Recombination: a
Basis for Targeted Genome Optimization in Crop Species Such as Maize.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dang, Wei and Wei, Zhi-ming. An optimized Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for soybean for
expression of binary insect resistance genes. 2007 Oct; 173, (4): 381-389.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Darmency, H.; Lefol, E., and Fleury, A. Spontaneous Hybridizations Between Oilseed Rape and Wild
Radish. 7(11), 1467-1473.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dave, Kashyap and Punekar, Narayan S. Utility of Aspergillus niger citrate synthase promoter for
heterologous expression. 2011 Sep 10-; 155, (2): 173-177.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Davies, Anna M.; Tata, Ren+ e; Snape, Alison; Sutton, Brian J., and Brown, Paul R. Structure and substrate
specificity of acetyltransferase ACIAD1637 from Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1. 2009 Apr; 91, (4):
484-489.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DE BLOCK M. Factors influencing the tissue culture and the Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated
transformation of hybrid aspen and poplar clones. (BETHESDA); 93 (3). 1990. 1110-1116..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DE BLOCK M; BOTTERMAN, J.; VANDEWIELE, M.; DOCKX, J.; THOEN, C.; GOSSELE, V.;
MOWA, N. R.; THOMPSON, C.; VAN MONTAGU M, and LEEMANS, J. ENGINEERING
HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN PLANTS BY EXPRESSION OF A DETOXIFYING ENZYME.
1987; 6, (9): 2513-2518.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
De Block, M.; D'Halluin, K.; Botterman, J., and Leemans, J. The Use of Phosphinothricin Resistance as a
Selectable Marker in Tobacco Protoplast Transformation. 389-390.
AI-50
-------
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
De Block, M.; De Sonville, A., and Debrouwer, D. The Selection Mechanism of Phosphinothricin is
Influenced by the Metabolic Status of the Tissue. SOIL; 1995; 197, (4): 619-626.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,NHC1
De Freitas, D. S.; Coelho, M. C. F.; Souza, M. T. Jr.; Marques, A., and Ribeiro, B. M. Introduction of the
Anti-Apoptotic Baculovirus p35 Gene in Passion Fruit Induces Herbicide Tolerance, Reduced
Bacterial Lesions, but does not Inhibits Passion Fruit Woodiness Disease Progress Induced by
Cowpea Aphid-Borne Mosaic Virus (CABMV). SOIL; 2007; 29, (1): 79-87.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
De Villiers, S. M.; Kamo, K.; Thomson, J. A.; Bornman, C. H., and Berger, D. K. Biolistic Transformation of
Chincherinchee (Ornithogalum) and Regeneration of Transgenic Plants. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Delhomme, Olivier; Raeppel, Caroline; Briand, Olivier, and Millet, Maurice. Analytical Method for
Assessing Potential Dermal Exposure to Pesticides of a Non-Agricultural Occupationally Exposed
Population. 399, (3): 1325-1334.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Delporte, F.; Li, S., and Jacquemin, J. M. Calluses Initiated From Thin Mature Embryo Fragments Are
Suitable Targets for Wheat Transformation as Assessed by Long-Term Gus Expression Studies.
2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Demeke, T.; Giroux, R. W.; Reitmeier, S., and Simon, S. L. Development of a polymerase chain reaction
assay for detection of three canola transgenes. 2002; 79, (10): 1015-1019.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Demont, Matty; Rodenburg, Jonne; Diagne, Mandiaye, and Diallo, Souleymane. Ex ante impact assessment
of herbicide resistant rice in the Sahel. 2009 Sep; 28, (9): 728-736.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Denecke, J.; Botterman, J., and Deblaere, R. Protein Secretion in Plant Cells Can Occur Via a Default
Pathway.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Deng, F.; Jelesko, J.; Cramer, C. L.; Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. Use of an Antisense Gene to Characterize
Glutathione S-Transferase Functions in Transformed Suspension-Cultured Rice Cells and Calli.
2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Denis, M.; Delourme, R.; Gourret, J. P.; Mariani, C., and Renard, M. Expression of Engineered Nuclear Male
Sterility in Brassica Napus. Genetics, Morphology, Cytology, and Sensitivity to Temperature. 101
(4), 1295-1304.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Depeiges, A.; Degroote, F.; Espagnol, M. C., and Picard, G. Translation Initiation by Non-Aug Codons in
Arabidopsis Thaliana Transgenic Plants. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Depeiges, A.; Farget, S.; Degroote, F., and Picard, G. A New Transgene Assay to Study Microsatellite
Instability in Wild-Type and Mismatch-Repair Defective Plant Progenies . 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-51
-------
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
Dever, L. V.; Bailey, K. J.; Lacuesta, M.; Leegood, R. C., and Lea, P. J. The Isolation and Characterization
of Mutants of the C4 Plant Amaranthus Edulis. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Devine, M. D. Why Are There Not More Herbicide-Tolerant Crops? 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DiÉ Guez, M. J.; Vaucheret, H.; Paszkowski, J., and Mittelsten Scheid, O. Cytosine Methylation at
Cg and Cng Sites Is Not a Prerequisite for the Initiation of Transcriptional Gene Silencing in Plants,
but It Is Required for Its Maintenance.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Diaz, A.; Lacuesta, M., and Munoz-Rueda, A. Comparative Effects of Phosphinothricin on Nitrate and
Ammonium Assimilation and on Anaplerotic Co Inferior 2 Fixation in N-Deprived Barley Plants.
1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dietz-Pfeilstetter, A. and Kirchner, M. Analysis of Gene Inheritance and Expression in Hybrids Between
Transgenic Sugar Beet and Wild Beets. 7 (12), 1693-1700.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DIMITROVA, T. Weed control with the aid of single-purpose lucerne seed production seedings. 27 (6).
1990. 11-16..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dong, N.; Montanez, B.; Creelman, R. A., and Cornish, K. Low Light and Low Ammonium Are Key Factors
for Guayule Leaf Tissue Shoot Organogenesis and Transformation. 2006; 25, (1): 26-34.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dong, Y. and Von Arnim, A. G. Novel Plant Activation-Tagging Vectors Designed to Minimize 35s
Enhancer-Mediated Gene Silencing. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DONN, G.; KNIPE, B.; MALVOISIN, P., and ECKES, P. FIELD EVALUATION OF GLUFOSINATE
TOLERANT CROPS BEARING A MODIFIED PPT - ACETYLTRAN SFERASE GENE FROM
STREPTOMYCES VIRIDOCHROMOGENES. 1916 Apr 19; 0 (14 PART E). 1990. 298..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Donn, G.; Tischer, E.; Smith, J. A., and Goodman, H. M. Herbicide-Resistant Alfalfa Cells: an Example of
Gene Amplification in Plants.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DOUCE, R.; JOB, D., and JOYARD, J. New approaches about crop protection: Towards the creation of new
herbicides and transgenic plants resistant to herbicides. 81 (6). 1995. 47-62. AB - BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT: BIOL ABS. The impressive increases in crop productivity achieved over the last
forty years have largely resulted from the use of herbicides. In this article we describe the mode of
action of various known herbicides as well as new approaches for the design of chemicals behaving
as herbicides. Resistance conferred by the transfer of engineered genes encoding either less-
suceptible proteins or enzyme capable to metabolize the herbicide is also described..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
DOURSON, M. L. and LU, F. C. Safety/risk assessment of chemicals compared for different expert groups.
8 (1). 1995. 1-13..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-52
-------
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Downard, R. W. and Morishita, D. W. Effect of Application Rate, Method, and Ammonium Sulfate on
Glufosinate Efficacy. 51, 103-104.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Droge, W.; Broer, I., and Puhler, A. Transgenic Plants Containing the Phosphinothricin-N-Acetyltransferase
Gene Metabolize the Herbicide L-Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) Differently From Untransformed
Plants. 187 (1), 142-151.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Druart, Coline; Delhomme, Olivier; De Vaufleury, Annette; Ntcho, Evodie, and Millet, Maurice.
Optimization of Extraction Procedure and Chromatographic Separation of Glyphosate, Glufosinate
and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil. 399, (4): 1725-1732.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dudek, W. D.; Clark, W., and Lucas, S. V. Effect of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Gasolines on Evaporative and
Exhaust Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles. (GRA&I), Issue 24, 2096.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. Taking Stock of Herbicide-Resistant Crops Ten Years After Introduction. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. The use of transgenes for weed management. 2006: 3-10.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. and Cerdeira, A. L. Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Current Status and Potential for the
Future. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. ; Dayan, F. E.; Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. Natural Products as Sources of Herbicides:
Current Status and Future Trends. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. andLydon, J. Herbicides from Natural Compounds. SOIL; 1987; 1, (2): 122-128.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: AMTL,ASM,DBN,DFP,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT
DUKE, S. O. and LYDON, J. NATURAL PHYTOTOXINS AS HERBICIDES. 524; 203RD NATIONAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
USA, APRIL 5-10, 1992. X+357P. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON, DC,
USA. ISBN 0-8412-2638-5.; 0 (0). 1993. 110-124..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. ; Rimando, A. M.; Baerson, S. R.; Scheffler, B. E.; Ota, E., and Belz, R. G. Strategies for the Use
of Natural Products for Weed Management. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Duke, S. O. ; Wedge, D. E.; Cerdeira, A. L., and Matallo, M. B. Herbicide Effects on Plant Disease. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dunst, R. M.; Mahoney, M. J., and Pool, R. M. Results of Chemical Suckering Trials in 'concord' Grapevines.
43, 140-141.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Dusi, D. M. A.; Dubald, M.; Almeida, E. R. P.; Caldas, L. S., and Gander, E. S. Transgenic Plants of Ramie
(Boehmeria Nivea Gaud.) Obtained by Agrobacterium Mediated Transformation. 12 (11), 625-628.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-53
-------
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
Earnest, L. D.; Webster, E. P., and Hooks, G. G. Systems for Weed Control in Liberty Tolerant Corn. 51,
261-262.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Eason, J. R.; O'Donoghue, E. M., and King, G. A. Asparagine Synthesis and Localization of Transcripts for
Asparagine Synthetase in Tips of Harvested Asparagus Spears. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
EBERT, E.; LEIST, K. H., and MAYER, D. Summary of safety evaluation toxicity studies of glufosinate
ammonium. 28 (5). 1990. 339-350..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Eckes, P.; Schmitt, P.; Daub, W., and Wengenmayer, F. Overproduction of Alfalfa Glutamine Synthetase in
Transgenic Tobacco Plants.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ECKES, P.; UIJTEWAAL, B., and DONN, G. A SYNTHETIC GENE CONFERS RESISTANCE AGAINST
THE BROAD SPECTRUM HERBICIDE L PHOSPHINOTHRICIN IN PLANTS. 1989 Apr 18; 0
(13 PART D). 1989. 334..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ehlhardt, M. and Comer, D. Rely: a New Herbicide for Trees and Vines. 58.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
El-Banna, Antar; Hajirezaei, Mohammad-Reza; Wissing, Joseph; Ali, Zahid; Vaas, Lea; Heine-Dobbernack,
Elke; Jacobsen, Hans-J+ rg; Schumacher, Heinz Martin, and Kiesecker, Heiko. Over-expression of
PR-lOa leads to increased salt and osmotic tolerance in potato cell cultures. 2010 Nov; 150, (3): 277-
287.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
El-Itriby, H. A.; Assem, S. K.; Hussein, E. H. A.; Abdel-Galil, F. M., and Madkour, M. A. Regeneration and
Transformation of Egyptian Maize Inbred Lines Via Immature Embryo Culture and a Biolistic
Particle Delivery System. 39 (5), 524-531.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Linscombe, S. D.; Webster, E. P., and Godley, J. L. Crop Response to Roundup
Ultra and Liberty Simulated Drift. 52, 256-257.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R., and Godley, J. L. Corn Response to Simulated Drift of Roundup
Ultra and Liberty and Utility of Drift Agents. 51, 21.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Emani, C.; Sunilkumar, G., and Rathore, K. S. Transgene Silencing and Reactivation in Sorghum. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Erickson, F. L. and Lemaux, P. G. Issues Related to the Development and Use of Engineered Herbicide-
Tolerant Crops in California. 45-53.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Etheridge, R. E.; Womac, A. R., and Mueller, T. C. Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns
of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. 1999; 13, (4): 765-770.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Eto, M. Functions of Phosphorus Moiety in Agrochemical Molecules. 1997; 61, (1): 1-11.
AI-54
-------
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ACP,DDVP,DZ,FNF,FNT,FOSNH,FST,GFS,GYP,MLN,PFF,TCF
250. EUROPEAN, A. N. D. MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION. GUIDELINE ON
GOOD PLANT PROTECTION PRACTICE POTATO. 1994; 24 , (4): 825-845.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
251. European Commission DG Environment. Endocrine Disrupters: Study on Gathering Information on 435
Substances with Insufficient Data. 2002: 279 p.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 110504
Chemical of Concern:
24DB,ABM,ADC,AMZ,AZD,A1,BAP,BFT,BMC,BMN,BMY,BTN,CBF,CBL,CPY,CPZ,CTZ,CZE
,Cd,Cu,DDT,DDVP,DFC,DFZ,DM,DMBA,DMT,ECZ,EDB,EFV,EFX,ETU,FGSNH,FML,FNB,FN
T,FPN,FRM,FRN,FTF,FVL,FYC,FZFB,GFS,GYP,Hg,ILL,IODN,LCYT,MBZ,MEM,MLT,MOM,
MVP,MXC,MYC,MZB,NATL,Nabam,OXD,OXN,OYZ,PAH,PCL,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PHTH,PL,PMR
,PMT,PPB,PPCP,PPHD,PYN,Pb,QZFE,RSM,SMT,TCF,TDM,TEZ,TFN,TPZ,TVP,TZA
252. —. Endocrine Disrupters: Study on Gathering Information on 435 Substances With Insufficient Data. 2002:
279 p. 208542.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24DB,ABM,ADC,AMZ,AZD,A1,BAP,BFT,BMC,BMN,BMY,BTN,CBF,CBL,CPY,CPZ,CTZ,CZE
,Cd,Cu,DDT,DDVP,DFC,DFZ,DM,DMBA,DMT,ECZ,EDB,EFV,EFX,ETU,FGSNH,FML,FNB,FN
T,FPN,FRM,FRN,FTF,FVL,FYC,FZFB,GFS,GYP,Hg,ILL,IODN,LCYT,MBZ,MEM,MLT,MOM,
MVP,MXC,MYC,MZB,NATL,Nabam,OXD,OXN,OYZ,PAH,PCL,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PHTH,PL,PMR
,PMT,PPB,PPCP,PPHD,PYN,Pb,QZFE,RSM,SMT,TCF,TDM,TEZ,TFN,TPZ,TVP,TZA
253. Evers EAIM and deJong APJM. Bouw van een Eigen Ontwerp Electrospray Ionisatiebron voor een
Quadrupool Massa-Spectrometer en Enkele Toepassingen (Manufacturing of Home-Built
Electrospray Ionisation Source for a Quadrupole Mass-Spectrometer and Some Applications).
(GRA&I), Issue 03, 2095.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
254. Evstigneeva, Z. G.; Solov'eva, N. A., and Sidel'nikova, L. I. [Methionine Sulfoximine and Phosphinothricin-
Glutamine Synthetase Inhibitors and Activators and Their Herbicidal Activity (a Review)].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
255. Ezell, A. W. and Nelson, L. R. Site Prep Applications of Dicamba Mixed With Glyphosate, Imazapyr,
Triclopyr, Glufosinate, and Fosamine-Brownout Results. 52, 103.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
256. FABER, M. J.; STEPHENSON, G. R., and THOMPSON, D. G. Persistence and leachability of glufosinate-
ammonium in a northern Ontario terrestrial environment. 45 (9). 1997. 3672-3676..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
257. Facella, P. ; Lopez, L.; Chiappetta, A.; Bitonti, M. B.; Giuliano, G., and Perrotta, G. Cry-Dash Gene
Expression Is Under the Control of the Circadian Clock Machinery in Tomato. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
258. Fan, Yanhua ; Zhang, Shizhu; Kruer, Nathan, and Keyhani, Nemat O. High-throughput insertion mutagenesis
and functional screening in the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. 2011 Feb; 106, (2):
274-279.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
259. Faria, J. C.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; Cancado, L. J.; da Cunha, N. B.; Silva, L. D.; Vianna, G. R.,
and Aragao, F. J. L. Partial resistance to Bean golden mosaic virus in a transgenic common bean
(Phaseolus vulgar L.) line expressing a mutated rep gene. 2006; 171, (5): 565-571.
AI-55
-------
260
261
262
263.
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Faria, J. C.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; Cancado, L. J.; Da Cunha, N. B.; Silva, L. M.; Vianna, G. R.,
and Aragao, F. J. L. Partial Resistance to Bean Golden Mosaic Virus in a Transgenic Common Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Line Expressing a Mutated Rep Gene. SOIL; 2006; 171, (5): 565-571.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Faria, J. C.; Carneiro, G. E., and AragCo, F. J. Gene flow from transgenic common beans expressing the bar
gene.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Feng, Yuanyuan; Yang, Tao; Zhang, Wei; Jiang, Chen, and Jiao, Kui. Enhanced sensitivity for
deoxyribonucleic acid electrochemical impedance sensor: Gold nanoparticle/polyaniline nanotube
membranes. 2008 Jun2-; 616, (2): 144-151.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
FernÁ and Ndez Da Silva, R. [Establisment of a Genetic Transformation Method of Coffee (Coffea
Arabica Cv. Catimor) and Incorporation of Bar Gene for Ammonium Glufosinate Resistance].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ferna(acute)ndez Da Silva, R. Establishment of a Genetic Transformation Method of Coffee (Coffea Arabica
Cv. Catimor) and Incorporation of Bar Gene for Ammonium Glufosinate Resistance. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Figueiredo, J. G.; Goulin, E. H.; Tanaka, F.; Stringari, D.; Kava-Cordeiro, V.; Galli-Terasawa, L. V.; Staats,
C. C.; Schrank, A., and Glienke, C. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of
Guignardia citricarpa. 2010 Feb; 80, (2): 143-147.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Fleeger, J. W.; Carman, K. R., and Nisbet, R. M. Indirect Effects of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems.
2003; 317, 207-233.219638.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
ATZ,BNZ,CBD,CBL,CPY,CYP,Cd,Cu,DM,EFV,ES,FNV,GFS,HCCH,LNR,LPS,PAH,PCP,PFOS,
PMR,PPCP,TBT,TMP
Flores, T.; Karpova, O.; Su, X. J.; Zeng, P. Y.; Bilyeu, K.; Sleper, D. A.; Nguyen, H. T., and Zhang, Z. J.
Silencing of GmFAD3 gene by siRNA leads to low alpha-linolenic acids (18 : 3) of fad3-mutant
phenotype in soybean Glycine max (Merr.). 2008; 17, (5): 839-850.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Folta, K. M.; Dhingra, A.; Howard, L.; Stewart, P. J., and Chandler, C. K. Characterization of Lf9, an
Octoploid Strawberry Genotype Selected for Rapid Regeneration and Transformation.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Fornstrom, K. J. and Miller, S. D. Weed Management After Mid-Season Sugarbeet Defoliation. 51, 102.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Franco, A. R.; Diaz, M. E.; Pineda, M., and Cardenas, J. Characterization of a Mutant of Chlamydomonas
Reinhardtii That Uses L-Methionine-S-Sulfoximine and Phosphinothricin as Nitrogen Sources for
Growth. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Fredshavn, J. R.; Poulsen, G. S.; Huybrechts, I., and Rudelsheim, P. Competitiveness of Transgenic Oilseed
Rape. 4 (2), 142-148.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-56
-------
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
Freese, L.; Scholdberg, T. A.; Burton, D. D.; Norden, T. D.; Shokere, L. A., and Jenkins, G. R. Evaluating
Homogeneity of L1601 Rice in Commercial Lots Using Quantitative Real-Time Per. 55, (15): 6060-
6066.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Freuze, I.; Jadas-Hecart, A.; Royer, A., and Communal, P. Y. Influence of complexation phenomena with
multivalent cations on the analysis of glyphosate and aminomethyl phosphonic acid in water. 2007;
1175, (2): 197-206.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Fu, X.; Le Tan Due; Fontana, S.; Bui Ba Bong; Tinjuangjun, P.; Sudhakar, D.; Twyman, R. M.; Christou, P.,
and Kohli, A. Linear Transgene Constructs Lacking Vector Backbone Sequences Generate Low-
Copy-Number Transgenic Plants With Simple Integration Patterns. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
FUGGI, A.; ABENAVOLI, M. R.; MUSCOLO, A., and PANUCCIO, M. R. GLUT AMINE SYNTHETASE
IN CELLS FROM CARROT DAUCUS CAROTA L. INTERACTION BETWEEN
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AND GLUTAMATE. 1922; VIIITH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON
PLANT TISSUE AND CELL CULTURE, FLORENCE, ITALY, JUNE 12-17, 1994. XV+697P.
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS: DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS; NORWELL,
MASSACHUSETTS, USA. ISBN 0-7923-3322-5.; 22 (0). 1995. 589-594..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
FUJII, T. and OHATA, T. ALTERATION IN THE RESPONSE TO KAINIC ACID IN RATS EXPOSED
TO GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM DURING INFANTILE PERIOD OR FETAL LIFE. 1994 Jun
9-1994 Jun 9; 19 (4). 1994. 328..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
FUJINO, Y. and FUJII, T. EFFECTS OF A HERBICIDE GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON ADRENAL
CHROMAFFIN CELLS IN RATS. 1995 Mar 25-1995 Mar 28; 67 (SUPPL. 1). 1995. 246P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Fukumoto, M.; Hori, Y.; Iseki, T.; Fukuie, C.; Namera, A., and Yashiki, M. [Proposal of an Analytical
Pathway for the Treatment of Poisonings-Application of Blood Concentration to the Evaluation of
Toxicity: Nomogram and Outcome].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Funk, Tristan; Wenzel, Gerhard, and Schwarz, Gerhard. Outcrossing frequencies and distribution of
transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) in the nearest neighbourhood. 2006 Jan; 24, (1): 26-34.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gallina, M. A. and Stephenson, G. R. Dissipation of [14c]Glufosinate Ammonium in Two Ontario Soils. 40
(1), 165-168.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GALLINA, M. A. and STEPHENSON, G. R. Dissipation of (carbon-14) glufosinate ammonium in two
Ontario soils. 40 (1). 1992. 165-168..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gallo-Meagher, M. and Irvine, J. E. Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Sugarcane Plants Containing the bar
Gene. SOIL; 1996; 36, (5): 1367-1374.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Gao, C.; Jiang, L.; Foiling, M.; Han, L., and Nielsen, K. K. Generation of Large Numbers of Transgenic
Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa Pratensis L.) Plants Following Biolistic Gene Transfer. 2006.
AI-57
-------
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GARCIA, A. M.; BENAVIDES, F. G.; FLETCHER, T., and ORTS, E. Paternal exposure to pesticides and
congenital malformations. 24 (6). 1998. 473-480..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Garcia-Ortega, S.; Holliman, P. J., and Jones, D. L. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal and Commercial
Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine Sediment. 2006; 366, (2-3): 826-836.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PTP
—. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal and Commercial Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine
Sediment. 2006; 366, (2-3): 826-836. 144762.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PTP
Garcia-Ortega Susana; Holliman Peter J, and Jones Davey L. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal [Registered]
and Commercial Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine Sediment. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gay, G.; Bovio, M.; Minati, J. L.; Morando, A.; Novello, V., and Ambrosoli, R. Soil Management in Relation
to Training System in a Steep Vineyard. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gebhard, F. and Smalla, K. Monitoring Field Releases of Genetically Modified Sugar Beets for Persistence
of Transgenic Plant Dna and Horizontal Gene Transfer. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gertz, J. M.; Vencill, W. K., and Hill, N. S. Tolerance of transgenic soybean (Glycine max) to beat stress.
1999: 835-840.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gertz, J. M. J. and Vencill, W. K. Heat Stress Tolerances of Transgenic Soybeans. 52, 171.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Giovannetti, M.; Sbrana, C., and Turrini, A. The impact of genetically modified crops on soil microbial
communities. 2005; 98, (3): 393-417.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GIRARDET, I.; ALTENBURGER, R.; FAUST, M., and GRIMME, L. H. THE EFFECT OF GLYPHOSATE
AND PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON SINGLE CELLED GREEN ALGAE AU - LUETJEN K. 1988;
(COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE
AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT PROTECTION
CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988. XXVII+524P.
KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS. MAPS.
PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 396. 245. 46. DEUTSCHE PFLANZENSCHUTZ-
TAGUNG.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Givens, W. A.; Shaw, D. R.; Johnson, W. G.; Weller, S. C.; Young, B. G.; Wilson, R. G.; Owen, M. D. K.,
and Jordan, D. A Grower Survey of Herbicide Use Patterns in Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping
Systems. 2009; 23, (1): 156-161.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GLOMB, V.; ARTNER, P., and SEQUENS, J. Injections of chemical preparations to stimulate resin
production in trees. (PRAGUE); 37 (4-5). 1991. 327-332..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-58
-------
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
Goldman, J. J.; Hanna, W. W.; Fleming, G., and Ozias-Akins, P. Fertile Transgenic Pearl Millet [Pennisetum
Glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Plants Recovered Through Microprojectile Bombardment and
Phosphinothricin Selection of Apical Meristem-, Inflorescence-, and Immature Embryo-Derived
Embryogenic Tissues. 2003; 21, (10): 999-1009. 145421.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Goldman, J. J.; Hanna, W. W.; Fleming, G. H., and Ozias-Akins, P. Ploidy Variation Among Herbicide-
Resistant Bermudagrass Plants of Cv. Tifeagle Transformed With the Bar Gene. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gonza(acute)lez-Moro, M. B.; Iriberri, N.; Dun(tilde)abeitia, M. K.; Loureiro-Beldarrain, I., and
Gonza(acute)lez-Murua, C. Effect of Phosphinothricin Herbicide on Nitrogen Metabolism in Pinus
Radiata and Laccaria Bicolor. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gonzales-Moro, M. B.; Lacuesta, M.; Iriberri, N.; Munoz-Rueda, A., and Gonzalez-Murua, C. Comparative
Effects of Ppt and Aoa on Photosynthesis and Fluorescence Chlorophyll Parameters in Zea Mays.
1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gonzalez-Martinez, M. A.; Bran, E. M.; Puchades, R.; Maquieira, A.; Ramsey, K., and Rubio, F. Glyphosate
immunosensor. Application for water and soil analysis. 2005; 77, (13): 4219-4227.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gonzalez-Moro, B.; Mena-Petite, A.; Lacuesta, M.; Gonzalez-Murua, C., and Munoz-Rueda, A. Glutamine
Synthetase From Mesophyll and Bundle Sheath Maize Cells: Isoenzyme Complements and Different
Sensitivities to Phosphinothricin. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GONZALEZ-MORO, B.; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A., and GONZALEZ-MURUA, C. EFFECT OF
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN ZEA-MAYS. 79 (2 PART 2). 1990. A48..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
GONZALEZ-MORO, M. B.; LACUESTA, M.; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A.; BECERRIL-SOTO, J. M., and
GONZALEZ MURUA C. EFFECT OF PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON NITROGEN METABOLISM
IN ZEA-MAYS. 1990 Jul 29-1990 Aug 2; 93 (1 SUPPL.). 1990. 151..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Goodwin, L. ; Hanna, M.; Startin, Jr.; Keely, B. J., and Goodall, D. M. Isotachophoretic separation of
glyphosate, glufosinate, AMPA and MPP with contactless conductivity detection. 2002; 127, (2):
204-206.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Goodwin, L.; Startin, J. R.; Goodall, D. M., and Keely, B. J. Tandem Mass Spectrometric Analysis of
Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid and Methylphosphinicopropionic Acid.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Goodwin, L. ; Startin, J. R.; Keely, B. J., and Goodall, D. M. Analysis of Glyphosate and Glufosinate by
Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry Utilising a Sheathless Microelectrospray Interface.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gopalakrishna, S.; Singh, P., and Singh, N. K. Transient Expression of Foreign Genes in Mature Wheat
Embryo Explants Following Particle Bombardment. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-59
-------
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
Gotz, R. and Ammer, F. Results of Liberty Application in Transgenic Winter Rape in Thuringia (Ergebnisse
Der Anwendung Von Liberty in Transgenem Winterraps in Thuringen). 2000; 17, 397-401(GER)
(ENG ABS). 145604.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Grammel, N.; Schwartz, D.; Wohlleben, W., and Keller, U. Phosphinothricin-Tripeptide Synthetases From
Streptomyces Viridochromogenes.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gray, M. E. Relevance of Traditional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies for Commercial Corn
Producers in a Transgenic Agroecosystem: A Bygone Era? 2011; 59, (11): 5852-5858.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Green, J. M. Evolution of Glyphosate-Resistant Crop Technology. 2009; 57, (1): 108-117.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gressel, J. Indiscriminate Use of Selectable Markers-Sowing Wild Oats? 10 (11), 382.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gressel, J. and Valverde, B. E. A Strategy to Provide Long-Term Control of Weedy Rice While Mitigating
Herbicide Resistance Transgene Flow, and Its Potential Use for Other Crops with Related Weeds.
John Wiley & Sons, Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex P019 1UD UK,
[mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/]//: SOIL; 2009; 65, (7): 723-731.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: BT,GFS,GYP
Griffin, J. L.; Clay, P. A.; Grymes, C. F., and Hanks, J. E. Bermudagrass Control With Roundup Using a
Sensor Controlled Hooded Sprayer in Sugarcane. 51, 23.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gubbels, G. H.; Bonner, D. M., and Kenaschuk, E. O. Effect of Swathing and Desiccation Time on Seed
Yield and Quality of Flax. 73 (2), 397-404.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gueritaine, G.; Sester, M.; Eber, F.; Chevre, A. M., and Darmency, H. Fitness of Backcross Six of Hybrids
Between Transgenic Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus) and Wild Radish (Raphanus Raphanistrum).
2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Guo, Jinchao; Chen, Lili; Liu, Xin; Gao, Ying; Zhang, Dabing, and Yang, Litao. A multiplex degenerate PCR
analytical approach targeting to eight genes for screening GMOs. (0).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Guo, Z. X.; Cai, Q., and Yang, Z. Ion Chromatography /Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for
Simultaneous Determination of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Fosamine and Ethephon at Nanogram
Levels in Water.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Guo, Z. X.; Cai, Q. T., and Yang, Z. G. Determination of glyphosate and phosphate in water by ion
chromatography - inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry detection. 2005; 1100, (2): 160-
167.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Gyamfi, Stephen; Pfeifer, Ulrike; Stierschneider, Michael, and Sessitsch, Angela. Effects of transgenic
glufosinate-tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and the associated herbicide application on
eubacterial and Pseudomonas communities in the rhizosphere. 2002 Sep; 41, ( 3): 181-190.
AI-60
-------
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
321. HÖ Fte, H., and CMspeels, M. J. Protein Sorting to the Vacuolar Membrane.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
322. Hahn, Bum Soo; Sim, Joon Soo; Kim, Hyeong Mi; Ahn, Mi Young; Pak, Hyo Kyung; Kim, Nan A., and
Kim, Yong Hwan. Expression and Characterization of Human Tissue-Plasminogen Activator in
Transgenic Tobacco Plants. 27, (2): 209-216.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
323. Hails, R. S.; Rees, M.; Kohn, D. D., and Crawley, M. J. Burial and Seed Survival inBrassica Napus Subsp.
Oleifera and Sinapis Arvensis Including a Comparison of Transgenic and Non-Transgenic Lines of
the Crop. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
324. Hall, R. D.; Riksen-Bruinsma, T.; Weyens, G. J.; Rosquin, I. J.; Denys, P. N.; Evans, I. J.; Lathouwers, J. E.;
Lefebvre, M. P.; Dunwell, J. M.; Van Tunen, A., and Krens, F. A. A High Efficiency Technique for
the Generation of Transgenic Sugar Beets From Stomatal Guard Cells. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
325. Han, J. S.; Kim, C. K.; Park, S. H.; Hirschi, K. D., and Mok, I. G. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation
of Bottle Gourd (Lagenaria Siceraria Standi.). 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
326. Hanke, Irene; Singer, Heinz, and Hollender, Juliane. Ultratrace-Level Determination of Glyphosate,
Aminomethylphosphonic Acid and Glufosinate in Natural Waters by Solid-Phase Extraction
Followed by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Performance Tuning of
Derivatization, Enrichment and Detection. 391, (6): 2265-2276.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
327. Hansch, R.; Mendel, R. R., and Schulze, J. A Rapid and Sensitive Method to Evaluate Genotype Specific
Tolerance to Phosphinothricin-Based Selective Agents in Cereal Transformation.
R.R.Mendel,Botanical Institute,Technical University of Braunschweig,Humboldtstrasse 1,D-38106
Braunschweig,Germany////: SOIL; 1998; 152, (2/3): 145-150.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
328. Hao, C. Y.; Morse, D.; Morra, F.; Zhao, X. M.; Yang, P., and Nunn, B. Direct aqueous determination of
glyphosate and related compounds by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry using
reversed-phase and weak anion-exchange mixed-mode column. 2011; 1218, (33): 5638-5643.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
329. Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; Blackshaw, R. E.; O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. Seeding Rate,
Herbicide Timing and Competitive Hybrids Contribute to Integrated Weed Management in Canola
(Brassica napus). SOIL; 2003; 83, (2): 433-440.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,HCCH,PPCP,THM
330. Hart, S. E. and Wax, L. M. Review and Future Prospectus on the Impacts of Herbicide Resistant Maize on
Weed Management. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
331. Harth, G. and Horwitz, M. A. An Inhibitor of Exported Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Glutamine Synthetase
Selectively Blocks the Growth of Pathogenic Mycobacteria in Axenic Culture and in Human
Monocytes: Extracellular Proteins as Potential Novel Drug Targets .
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-61
-------
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341.
342
343
344
Harvey, A.; Moisan, L.; Lindup, S., and Lonsdale, D. Wheat Regenerated From Scutellum Callus as a Source
of Material for Transformation. 57 (2), 153-156.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Haskew, H. M.; Eng, K. D.; Liberty, T. F., and Reuter, R. M. Running Loss Emissions from In-Use Vehicles
(CRC Project No. E-35-2). (GRA&I), Issue 21, 2099.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Haskew, H. M. and Liberty, T. F. Diurnal Emissions from In-Use Vehicles. CRC Project E-9. (GRA&I),
Issue 02, 2099.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Haskew, H. M.; Liberty, T. F., and McClement, D. Fuel Permeation from Automotive Systems. (GRA&I),
Issue 26, 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hassan, Fathi; Meens, Jochen; Jacobsen, Hans-J+ rg, and Kiesecker, Heiko. A family 19 chitinase (Chit30)
from Streptomyces olivaceoviridis ATCC 11238 expressed in transgenic pea affects the
development of T. harzianum in vitro. 2009 Sep 25-; 143, (4): 302-308.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hayashi, M. ; Toriyama, K.; Kondo, M.; Hara-Nishimura, I., and Nishimura, M. Accumulation of a Fusion
Protein Containing 2s Albumin Induces Novel Vesicles in Vegetative Cells of Arabidopsis. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
He, X.; Hall, M. B.; Gallo-Meagher, M., and Smith, R. L. Improvement of forage quality by downregulation
of maize O-methyltransferase. 2003; 43, (6): 2240-2251.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
He, X. Y.; Huang, K. L.; Li, X.; Qin, W.; Delaney, B., and Luo, Y. B. Comparison of grain from corn
rootworm resistant transgenic DAS-59122-7 maize with non-transgenic maize grain in a 90-day
feeding study in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2008 Jun; 46, (6): 1994-2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Heinzelmann, E.; Kienzlen, G.; Kaspar, S.; Recktenwald, J.; Wohlleben, W., and Schwartz, D. The
Phosphinomethylmalate Isomerase Gene Pmi, Encoding an Aconitase-Like Enzyme, Is Involved in
the Synthesis of Phosphinothricin Tripeptide in Streptomyces Viridochromogenes.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Heisey, R. M. and Heisey, T. K. Herbicidal effects under field conditions of Ailanthus altissima bark extract,
which contains ailanthone. 2003; 256, (1): 85-99.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
HENRIQUES, W.; JEFFERS, R. D.; LACHER, T. E JR, and KENDALL, R. J. Agrochemical use on banana
plantations in Latin America: Perspectives on ecological risk. 16 (1). 1997. 91-99..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Herouet, C.; Esdaile, D. J.; Mallyon, B. A.; Debruyne, E. ; Schulz, A.; Currier, T.; Hendrickx, K.; van der
Klis, R. J., and Rouan, D. Safety Evaluation of the Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase Proteins
Encoded by the Pat and Bar Sequences That Confer Tolerance to Glufosinate-Ammonium Herbicide
in Transgenic Plants. 2005; 41, (2): 134-149.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Hess, F. D. Light-dependent herbicides: an overview. 2000; 48, (2): 160-170.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-62
-------
345. Hessler, M. D.; Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. Glufosinate Sensitivity Among Texas Red Rice (Oryza
Sativa) Ecotypes. 51, 36.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
346. Hidalgo, C.; Rios, C.; Hidalgo, M.; Salvado, V.; Sancho, J. V., and Hernandez, F. Improved coupled-column
liquid chromatographic method for the determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic
acid residues in environmental waters. 2004; 1035, (1): 153-157.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
347. Hirose, Y.; Kobayashi, M.; Koyama, K.; Kohda, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Honda, H.; Hori, Y.; Yoshida, K., and
Kikuchi, M. A Toxicokinetic Analysis in a Patient With Acute Glufosinate Poisoning. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
348. HOAGLAND, R. E. BIOCHEMICAL INTERACTIONS OF THE MICROBIAL PHYTOTOXIN
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AND ANALOGS WITH PLANTS AND MICROBES. 1997 Sep 7-1997
Sep 7; 214 (1-2). 1997. AGRO 50..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
349. Hoagland, R. E. Microbial allelochemicals and pathogens as bioherbicidal agents. 2001; 15, (4): 835-857.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
350. Hoerlein, G. Glufosinate (Phosphinothricin), a Natural Amino Acid With Unexpected Herbicidal Properties.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
351. HOFFAMN, M. G. and ZEISS, H. J. A novel and convenient route to L-homoserine lactones and L-
phosphinothricin from L-aspartic acid. 33 (19). 1992.2669-2672..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
352. Hogendoorn, E. A.; Ossendrijver, F. M.; Dijkman, E., and Baumann, R. A. Rapid determination of glyphosate
in cereal samples by means of pre-column derivatisation with 9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate and
coupled-column liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. 1999; 833, (1): 67-73.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
353. Hommel, B. and Pallutt, B. Evaluation of Herbicide Resistance From a Point of View of Integrated Plant
Protection Within a System of a 4-Field Crop Rotation Including Glufosinate-Resistant Rape and
Maize (Bewertung Der Herbizidresistenz Fur Den Integrierten Pflanzenschutz Im System Einer 4-
Feldrigen Fruchtfolge Mit Glufosinatresistentem Raps Und Mais). 2000; 17, 411-420(GER) (ENG
ABS). 147763.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
354. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K., and Hirose, Y. Determination of Glufosinate Ammonium and Its
Metabolite, 3-Methylphosphinicopropionic Acid, in Human Serum by Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry Following Mixed-Mode Solid-Phase Extraction and T-Bdms Derivatization.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
355. —. Determination of the Herbicide Glyphosate and Its Metabolite in Biological Specimens by Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. A Case of Poisoning by Roundup Herbicide .
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
356. —. Determination of the herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite in biological specimens by gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry. A case of poisoning by Roundup (R) herbicide. 2003; 27, (3):
162-166.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
357. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Sato, M.; Honda, M., and Hirose, Y. Enantioselective Analysis of
AI-63
-------
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
Glufosinate Using Precolumn Derivatization With (+)-l-(9-Fluorenyl)Ethyl Chloroformate and
Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Sato, M.; Kikuchi, M.; Honda, M., and Hirose, Y. Quantitative
determination of glufosinate in biological samples by liquid chromatography with ultraviolet
detection after p-nitrobenzoyl derivatization. 2002; 767, (2): 255-262.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hori, Y.; Iwasaki, Y.; Kudo, K.; Kuroki, Y.; Komiyayama, Y.; Nakaya, Y.; Namera, A.; Yashiki, M., and
Yamaguchi, Y. [Practical Analysis of Toxic Substances Useful for Clinical Toxicology-
Glufosinate].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hori, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Fujisawa, M., and Shimada, K. Toxicokinetics of Dl-Glufosinate Enantiomer in Human
Basta Poisoning.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hori Yasushi; Koyama Kanji; Fujisawa Manami; Nakajima Mariko; Shimada Kenji; Hirose Yasuo; Kohda
Yukinao, and Akuzawa Hisashi. Protein Binding of Glufosinate and Factors Affecting It Revealed
by an Equilibrium Dialysis Technique. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
HOROWITZ, M. and GOTLIEB, Y. CONTROL OF THE WEED WANDERING JEW IN RUSCUS
PLOTS. 1990 Feb 26-1990 Feb 27; 18 (3). 1990. 267..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hoyle, E. R. and Holloway, P. J. Enhancement Effects of Alkyl Polyglucosides on the Herbicidal Activity of
Glufosinate-Ammonium. 99-104.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hsiao, C. L.; Young, C. C., and Wang, C. Y. Screening and identification of glufosinate-degrading bacteria
from glufosinate-treated soils. 2007; 55, (6): 631-637.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
HUANG, M. N.; RUPPRECHT, J. K.; STUMPF, K. A., and SMITH, S. M. METABOLISM OF-14C-
GLUFOSINATE AND-14-N-ACETYL-GLUFOSINATE IN LACTATING GOATS AND
LAYING HENS. 1996 Mar 24-1996 Mar 28; 211 (1-2). 1996. AGRO 54..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Huang, Y.; Baxter, R.; Smith, B. S.; Partch, C. L.; Colbert, C. L., and Deisenhofer, J. Crystal Structure of
Cryptochrome 3 From Arabidopsis Thaliana and Its Implications for Photolyase Activity. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Hurst, Paul L.; King, Graeme A., and Borst, Wilhelmina M. Postharvest inhibition of glutamine synthetase
activity with phosphinothricin reduces the shelf-life of asparagus. 1993 Dec; 3, (4): 327-334.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Iamtham, S. and Day, A. Removal of Antibiotic Resistance Genes From Transgenic Tobacco Plastids . 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
IbÁ Ñ Ez, M.; Pozo, O. J.; Sancho, J. V.; LÓ Pez, F. J.; HernÁ, and Ndez, F.
Residue Determination of Glyphosate, Glufosinate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Water and
Soil Samples by Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Electrospray Tandem Mass Spectrometry.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-64
-------
370
371
372
373.
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
Ibanez, M.; Pozo, O. J.; Sancho, J. V.; Lopez, F. J., and Hernandez, F. Re-evaluation of glyphosate
determination in water by liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
2006; 1134, (1-2): 51-55.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ignacimuthu, S. Agrobacterium Mediated Transformation of Vigna Sesquipedalis Koern (Asparagus Bean).
2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ilcheva, V. ; San, L. H.; Zagorska, N., and Dimitrov, B. Production of Male Sterile Interspecific Somatic
Hybrids Between Transgenic N. Tabacum (Bar) and N. Rotundifolia (Npt Ii) and Their Identification
by Aflp Analysis. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Isaac, W. A. P.; Brathwaite, R. A. I.; Cohen, J. E., and Bekele, I. Effects of Alternative Weed Management
Strategies on Commelina diffusa Burm. Infestations in Fairtrade Banana (Musa spp.) in St. Vincent
and the Grenadines. Department of Food Production, Faculty of Science and Agriculture,The
University of the West Indies,St. Augustine,Trinidad/Tobago////: SOIL; 2007; 26, (8): 1219-1225.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ACAC,FAS,FSF,GFSNH
Ishida, Y.; Murai, N.; Kuraya, Y.; Ohta, S.; Saito, H.; Hiei, Y., and Komari, T. Improved Co-Transformation
of Maize With Vectors Carrying Two Separate T-Dnas Mediated by Agrobacterium Tumefaciens.
2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ishida, Y.; Saito, H.; Ohta, S.; Hiei, Y.; Komari, T., and Kumashiro, T. High Efficiency Transformation of
Maize (Zea Mays L.) Mediated by Agrobacterium Tumefaciens. 14 (6), 745-750.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ishiwata, T.; Ishijima, C.; Ohashi, A.; Okada, H., and Ohashi, K. Solid Phase Extraction of Phosphorus-
Containing Amino Acid-Type Herbicides and Their Metabolites From Human Blood With Titania
for Determination by Capillary Electrophoresis.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ISKANDAROVA, G. T. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS TO JUSTIFY MACS FOR NEW HERBICIDES
BASTA FURORE-SUPER IN THE AIR OF WORKPLACE. 0 (11). 1997. 35-38..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ismail, B. S. and Ahmad, A. R. Attenuation of the herbicidal activities of glufosinate-ammonium and
imazapyr in two soils. 1994 Jan; 47, (4): 279-285.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ISMAIL, B. S. and WONG, L. K. Effects of herbicides on cellulolytic activity in peat soil. 78 (315). 1994.
117-123..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ITO, K.; TAKAMATSU, M., and HIROI, K. The ecology and control of Paspalum distichum L.: Growth of
cut stems and the effect of herbicide use. 0 (28). 1996. 37-42..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
IVANOVIC, D. and IVANOVIC, M. New approaches in maize breeding for resistance to bioagents and
herbicides. 49 (1). 1998. 5-27..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ivany, Jerry A. Desiccation of potato cultivars with endothal and adjuvants. 2004 Apr; 23, (4): 353-359.
AI-65
-------
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jacobs, C. M.; Utterback, P. L.; Parsons, C. M.; Rice, D.; Smith, B.; Hinds, M.; Liebergesell, M., and Sauber,
T. Performance of laying hens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared with diets
containing nontransgenic maize grain. 2008; 87, (3): 475-479.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jahne, A.; Becker, D.; Brettschneider, R., and Lorz, H. Regeneration of Transgenic, Microspore-Derived,
Fertile Barley. 89 (4), 525-533.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jain, S.; Durand, H., and Tiraby, G. Development of a Transformation System for the Thermophilic Fungus
Talaromyces Sp. C1240 Based on the Use of Phleomycin Resistance as a Dominant Selectable
Marker. 234 (3), 489-493.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jansen, C.; Schuphan, I., and Schmidt, B. Glufosinate Metabolism in Excised Shoots and Leaves of Twenty
Plant Species. 2000; 48, 319-326.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 59495
Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jiang, J. D.; Linscombe, S. D.; Wang, J. L., and Oard, J. H. High efficiency transformation of US rice lines
from mature seed-derived calli and segregation of glufosinate resistance under field conditions.
2000; 40, (6): 1729-1741.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jiang, Qiong; Ying, Sheng-Hua, and Feng, Ming-Guang. Enhanced frequency of Beauveria bassiana
blastospore transformation by restriction enzyme-mediated integration and electroporation. 2007
Jun; 69, (3): 512-517.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Johannessen, M. M.; Damgaard, C.; Andersen, B. A., and Jo(slash)rgensen, R. B. Competition Affects the
Production of First Backcross Offspring on F 1-Hybrids, Brassica Napus X B. Rapa. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
JOHNSON, C. R.; BOETTCHER, B. R.; CHERPECK, R. E., and DOLSON, M. G. Design and synthesis of
potent inhibitors of glutamine synthetase: 1. Cyclic analogs of phosphinothricin. 18 (2). 1990. 154-
159..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Johnson, W. R.; Marshall, C. F., and Lear, E. M. Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Liberty Development and
Production Plan. (GRA&I), Issue 13, 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E., and Gerik, T. J. Liberty Plus Preemergence or Postemergence
Herbicides and Row Spacing for Weed Control in Liberty-Link Corn. 52, 24.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E. J., and Gerik, T. J. Evaluation of Glufosinate Tank-Mixes and
Row Spacing in Weed Management of Corn. 51, 261.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E. Jr.; Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. Glufosinate
Combinations and Row Spacing for Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). SOIL;
2001; 15, (1): 141-147.
AI-66
-------
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,PDM,PSF
Jones, Curtis A. and Griffin, James L. Red Morningglory (Ipomoea Coccinea) Response to Tillage and
Shade. 30, 11-20.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jones, H. D. and Sparks, C. A. Selection of Transformed Plants.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jones, Huw D. Wheat transformation: current technology and applications to grain development and
composition: New Approaches in Cereal Science. 2005 Mar; 41, (2): 137-147.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Joos, H. J. ; Mauch-Mani, B., and Slusarenko, A. J. Molecular Mapping of the Arabidopsis Locus Rppl 1
Which Conditions Isolate-Specific Hypersensitive Resistance Against Downy Mildew in Ecotype
Rid. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Jordan, M. C. andMcHughen, A. Transformation in Linum Usitatissimum L. (Flax). 22, 244-252.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kamo, K.; Blowers, A., and McElroy, D. Effect of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35s, Actin, and Ubiquitin
Promoters on Uida Expression From a Bar-Uida Fusion Gene in Transgenic Gladiolus Plants. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kamo, K.; Blowers, A.; Smith, F.; Eck, J. van, and Lawson, R. Stable Transformation of Gladiolus Using
Suspension Cell and Callus. 120 (2), 347-352.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kamo, K.; McElroy, D., and Chamberlain, D. Transforming Embryogenic Cell Lines of Gladiolus With
Either a Bar-Uida Fusion Gene or Cobombardment. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kang, T. J. ; Kim, B. G.; Yang, J. Y., and Yang, M. S. Expression of a Synthetic Cholera Toxin B Subunit in
Tobacco Using Ubiquitin Promoter and Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. 2006; 32, (2): 93-100.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kang, T. J. ; Seo, J. E.; Loc, N. H., and Yang, M. S. Herbicide Resistance of Tobacco Chloroplasts
Expressing the Bar Gene. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kataoka, H.; Ryu, S.; Sakiyama, N., and Makita, M. Simple and Rapid Determination of the Herbicides
Glyphosate and Glufosinate in River Water, Soil and Carrot Samples by Gas Chromatography With
Flame Photometric Detection. 726 (1/2), 253-258.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KATAOKA, H. ; RYU, S.; SAKIYAMA, N., and MAKITA, M. Simple and rapid determination of the
herbicides glyphosphate and glufosinate in river water, soil and carrot samples by gas
chromatography with flame photometric detection. 726 (1-2). 1996. 253-258..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Katsura, N. Herbicides: Vegetable Fields. SOIL; 1985; 47, 30-32.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DQT,GFS,LNR,MTL,PQT,SXD
Katsura, N. Herbicides: Vegetable Fields. 1985; 47, 30-32. 149698.
AI-67
-------
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DQT,GFS,LNR,MTL,PQT,SXD
409. Kawai, M.; Iwamuro, Y.; Iio-Ishimaru, R.; Chinaka, S.; Takayama, N., and Hayakawa, K. Analysis of
phosphorus-containing amino acid-type herbicides by sheathless capillary
electrophoresis/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry using a high sensitivity porous sprayer.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
410. Kerlan, M. C.; Chevre, A. M., and Eber, F. Interspecific Hybrids Between a Transgenic Rapeseed (Brassica
Napus) and Related Species: Cytogenetical Characterization and Detection of the Transgene. 36 (6),
1099-1106.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
411. Khenifi, Aicha; Derriche, Zoubir; Forano, Claude; Prevot, Vanessa; Mousty, Christine; Scavetta, Erika;
Ballarin, Barbara; Guadagnini, Lorella, and Tonelli, Domenica. Glyphosate and glufosinate
detection at electrogenerated NiAl-LDH thin films. 2009 Nov 10-; 654, (2): 97-102.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
412. Khrolenko, M. V. and Wieczorek, P. P. Determination of glyphosate and its metabolite
aminomethylphosponic acid in fruit juices using supported-liquid membrane preconcentration
method with high-performance liquid chromatography and UV detection after derivatization with p-
toluenesulphonyl chloride. 2005; 1093, (1-2): 111-117.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
413. Kim, J. K.; Bae, S. C.; Baek, H. J.; Seo, H. W.; Ryu, T. H.; Kim, J. B.; Won, S. Y.; Sohn, S. I.; Kim, D. H.;
Kim, S. J., and Cho, M. R. Simple and Sensitive Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization
Mass Spectrometry Method for Determination of Glycoalkaloids in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).
2009; 18, (1): 113-117.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
414. Kim, J. K.; Duan, X.; Wu, R.; Soon Jong Seok; Boston, R. S.; Jang, I. C.; Eun, M. Y., and Baek Hie Nahm.
Molecular and Genetic Analysis of Transgenic Rice Plants Expressing the Maize Ribosome-
Inactivating Protein B-32 Gene and the Herbicide Resistance Bar Gene. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
415. Kim, S.; Song, J., and Choi, H. T. Genetic Transformation and Mutant Isolation in Ganoderma Lucidum by
Restriction Enzyme-Mediated Integration. 233, (2): 201-204.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
416. Kim, Y. S.; Kim, B. G.; Kim, T. G.; Kang, T. J., and Yang, M. S. Expression of a Cholera Toxin B Subunit in
Transgenic Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.) Using Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation System.
2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
417. Kinsella, T. E. and Kahley, G. R. Filmless Radiography for Aerospace NDT. (GRA&I), Issue 08, 2098.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
418. Kirkbride, R.; Pearse, D.; Ulrich, D.; Mullins, H., and Kleinlein, L. Assessment of the Safety of Onboard
Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems. (GRA&I), Issue 24, 2091.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
419. Kirsten, S. ; Siersleben, S., and Knogge, W. A GFP-based assay to quantify the impact of effectors on the ex
planta development of the slowly growing barley pathogen Rhynchosporium commune.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
420. Kishchenko, E. M.; Komarnitskii, I. K., and Kuchuk, N. V. Production of Transgenetic Sugarbeet (Beta
AI-68
-------
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
Vulgaris L.) Plants Resistant to Phosphinothricin. 2005; 29, (1): 15-19. 150298.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Kittlaus, S.; Lipinski, J., and Speer, K. New Approaches for Determination of Glyphosate and
Aminomethylphosphonic Acid from Different Tea Samples-Prospects and Limits of Cleanup with
Molecularly Imprinted Polymer and Titanium Dioxide. 2009; 92, (3): 703-714.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Klar, T.; Pokorny, R.; Moldt, J.; Batschauer, A., and Essen, L. O. Cryptochrome 3 From Arabidopsis
Thaliana: Structural and Functional Analysis of Its Complex With a Folate Light Antenna. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KLEINSCHMIDT, H. QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES INFORMATION
SERIES QI90037 SUBURBAN WEEDS SECOND EDITION. 7242 5; 0 (0). 1991. V+86P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kleter, G. A.; Unsworth, J. B., and Harris, C. A. The impact of altered herbicide residues in transgenic
herbicide-resistant crops on standard setting for herbicide residues. 2011; 67, (10): 1193-1210.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Knispel, A. L. Post-release Monitoring of Genetically Modified Canola (Brassica napus L.) in Western
Canada: Escape, Persistence and Spread of Novel Traits. SOIL; 2010: 245 p. (UMI# NR70338).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF
Kniss, A. R.; Vassios, J. D.; Nissen, S. J., andRitz, C. Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Herbicide
Absorption Studies. 2011; 59, (4): 601-610.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kobrich, D. and Kubiak, R. Ecological Valuation of Mechanical and Chemical Weed Control in Vineyards
Within the Scope of anEco-Balance. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KOECHLIN, D. and WITTKE, A. SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS AND THE PESTICIDE BUSINESS A
COMPARISON. 19847 Jan; ISBN l-85383-430-0(CLOTH).; 0 (0). 1998. 107-135..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kohli, A.; Gahakwa, D.; Vain, P.; Laurie, D. A., and Christou, P. Transgene Expression in Rice Engineered
Through Particle Bombardment: Molecular Factors Controlling Stable Expression and Transgene
Silencing. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kohne, S.; Neumann, K.; Puhler, A., and Broer, I. The Heat-Treatment Induced Reduction of the Pat Gene
Encoded Herbicide Resistance in Nicotiana Tabacum Is Influenced by the Transgene Sequence.
1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Komo[ss]a, Dieter and Sandermann, Heinrich. Plant metabolism of herbicides with C—P bonds:
Phosphinothricin. 1992 Jun; 43, (2): 95-102.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Koprek, T.; Rangel, S.; McElroy, D.; Louwerse, J. D.; Williams-Carrier, R. E., and Lemaux, P. G.
Transposon-Mediated Single-Copy Gene Delivery Leads to Increased Transgene Expression
Stability in Barley. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-69
-------
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
Koyama, K. Glufosinate and a Surfactant: Which Component Produces Effects on the Central Nervous
System in Acute Oral Basta Poisoning?
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KOYAMA, K.; ANDOU, Y.; SARUKI, K., and MATSUO, H. DELAYED AND SEVERE TOXICITIES OF
A HERBICIDE CONTAINING GLUFOSINATE AND A SURFACTANT. 36 (1). 1994. 17-18..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KOYAMA, K.; MATSUO, H.; SARUKI, K., and ANDOU, Y. THE ACUTE ORAL TOXIC DOSE OF A
HERBICIDE CONTAINING GLUFOSINATE. 1995 Sep 16-1995 Sep 19; 33 (5). 1995. 519..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kramer, C.; DiMaio, J.; Carswell, G. K., and Shillito, R. D. Selection of Transformed Protoplast-Derived Zea
Mays Colonies With Phosphinothricin and a Novel Assay Using the Ph Indicator Chlorophenol Red.
190 (4), 454-458.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Krausz, R. F.; Kapusta, G.; Matthews, J. L.; Baldwin, J. L., and Maschoff, J. Evaluation of Glufosinate-
Resistant Corn (Zea mays) and Glufosinate: Efficacy on Annual Weeds. SOIL; 1999; 13, (4): 691-
696.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 63151
Chemical of Concern: ACR,ATZ,BMN,GFS,NHS04,NSF
KRIEG, L. C.; WALKER, M. A.; SENARATNA, T., and MCKERSIE, B. D. EFFECTS OF
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON GROWTH AMMONIUM ACCUMULATION AND GLUT AMINE
SYNTHETASE ACTIVITY IN ALFALFA SHOOT TISSUE AND CELL CULTURES. 1989 Jul
30-1989 Aug 3; 89 (4 SUPPL.). 1989. 9..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kuai, B.; Perret, S.; Wan, S. M.; Dalton, S. J.; Bettany, A. J. E., and Morris, P. Transformation of Oat and
Inheritance of Bar Gene Expression. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kudzin, Z. H.; Gralak, D. K.; Andrijewski, G.; Drabowicz, J., and Luczak, J. Simultaneous analysis of
biologically active aminoalkanephosphonic acids. 2003; 998, (1-2): 183-199.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kumada, Y.; Imai, S., and Nagaoka, K. Conversion of Bialaphos to Other Oligopeptides Containing
Phosphinothricin by Streptomyces Hygroscopicus. 1991; 44, (9): 1006-1012. 151182.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kumar, A.; Rakow, G., and Downey, R. K. Genetic Characterization of Glufosinate-Ammonium Tolerant
Summer Rape Lines. 1998; 38, (6): 1489-1494. 151189.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
—. Isogenic Analysis of Glufosinate-Ammonium Tolerant and Susceptible Summer Rape Lines. 1998; 78,
(3): 401-408. 151190.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Kurepa, J.; Karangwa, C.; Duke, L. S., and Smalle, J. A. Arabidopsis Sensitivity to Protein Synthesis
Inhibitors Depends on 26s Proteasome Activity.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
KURISAKI, E.; SAYAMA, S., and HIRAIWA, K. Identification of the structure of surfactants in herbicides.
34 (0). 1991. 129-136..
AI-70
-------
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kurtz, M. E. and Street, J. E. Rice Injury From Roundup Ultra Drift. 51, 38.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kyong, Y. Y.; Choi, K. H.; Oh, Y. M., and Lee, K. U. "Hyperammonemia following glufosinate-containing
herbicide poisoning: A potential marker of severe neurotoxicity" by Yan-Chido Mao et al., Clin
Toxicol (Phila) 2011; 49:48-52. 2011; 49, (6): 510-512.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Kyong, Y. Y.; Choi, K. H.; Oh, Y. M., and Lee, K. U. &Quot;Hyperammonemia Following Glufosinate-
Containing Herbicide Poisoning: a Potential Marker of Severe Neurotoxicity&Quot; by Yan-Chido
Mao Et Al., Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2011; 49:48-52.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lacuesta, M.; Dever, L. V.; Munoz-Rueda, A., and Lea, P. J. A Study of Photorespiratory Ammonia
Production in the C4 Plant Amaranthus Edulis, Using Mutants With Altered Photosynthetic
Capacities. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LACUESTA, M.; DIAZ, A.; GONZALEZ-MURUA, C., and MUNOZ-RUEDA, A. EFFECT OF
GLUFOSINATE IN PHOTOSYNTHETIC ELECTRON TRANSPORT. 1991 Jul 28-1991 Aug 1;
96 (1 SUPPL.). 1991. 165..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LACUESTA, M.; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A.; GONZALEZ-MURUA, C., and SIVAK, M. N. Effect of
phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence emission by barley
leaves illuminated under photorespiratory and non-photorespiratory conditions. 43 (247). 1992. 159-
165..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. PARTIAL PROTECTION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS FROM PHOSPHINOTHRICIN PPT EFFECT BY
AMINO ACID FEEDING. 1990 Aug 5-1990 Oct 5; 79 (2 PART 2). 1990. A48..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lafleuriel, J.; Degroote, F.; Depeiges, A., and Picard, G. Impact of the Loss of Atmsh2 on Double-Strand
Break-Induced Recombination Between Highly Diverged Homeologous Sequences in Arabidopsis
Thaliana Germinal Tissues. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Laitinen, P.; Ramo, S.; Nikunen, U.; Jauhiainen, L.; Siimes, K., and Turtola, E. Glyphosate and phosphorus
leaching and residues in boreal sandy soil. 2009; 323, (1-2): 267-283.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Laitinen, P.; Siimes, K.; Eronen, L.; Ra(dieresis)mo(dieresis), S.; Welling, L.; Oinonen, S.; Mattsoff, L., and
Ruohonen-Lehto, M. Fate of the Herbicides Glyphosate, Glufosinate-Ammonium, Phenmedipham,
Ethofumesate and Metamitron in Two Finnish Arable Soils. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Laitinen, P.; Siimes, K.; RÄ MÖ S; Jauhiainen, L.; Eronen, L.; Oinonen, S., and Hartikainen, H.
Effects of Soil Phosphorus Status on Environmental Risk Assessment of Glyphosate and
Glufosinate-Ammonium.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LAMB, D. S. and BREITHAUPT, S. A. PROJECT COMPLETION SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF
AI-71
-------
RESTORATION PROCEDURES AT LIBERTY LAKE WASHINGTON USA. 1985 Nov 13-1985
Nov 16; 5 (0). 1986 (RECD. 1987). 204-209..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
458. Lanclos, D. Y.; Webster, E. P., and Zhang, W. Glufosinate-Resistant Rice Lines Treated With Glufosinate at
Intervals Throughout the Season. 52, 213.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
459. LANGELUEDDEKE, P.; BIER, B., and KREBS, B. C. THE USE OF BASTA FOR KILLING POTATO
VINE. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT
PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.
XXVTI+524P. KOMMIS SIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.
MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 158-159..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
460. Larkin, P. J.; Gibson, J. M.; Mathesius, U.; Weinman, J. J.; Gartner, E.; Hall, E.; Tanner, G. J.; Rolfe, B. G.,
and Djordjevic, M. A. Transgenic White Clover. Studies With the Auxin-Responsive Promoter, Gh3,
in Root Gravitropism and Lateral Root Development. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
461. Lawson, R. and Estrade-Chapellaz, E. [Self-Induced Poisoning With Glufosinate (Basta)].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
462. Lea, P. J.; Joy, K. W.; Ramos, J. L., and Guerrero, M. G. The Action of 2-Amino-4-(Methylphosphinyl)-
Butanoic Acid (Phosphinothricin) and Its 2-Oxo-Derivative on the Metabolism of Cyanobacteria and
Higher Plants. 23 (1), 1-6.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
463. Lea, Peter J. and Miflin, Ben J. Glutamate synthase and the synthesis of glutamate in plants. 2003 Jun; 41, (
6-7): 555-564.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
464. Leckband, G. and Lorz, H. Transformation and Expression of a Stilbene Synthase Gene of Vitis Vinifera L.
In Barley and Wheat for Increased Fungal Resistance. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
465. LeClere, S. and Bartel, B. A Library of Arabidopsis 35s-Cdna Lines for Identifying Novel Mutants. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
466. Lee, E. A.; Strahan, A. P., and Thurman, E. M. Method of Analysis by the Geological Survey Organic
Geochemistry Research Group-Determination of Glyphosate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid, and
Glufosinate in Water using Online Solid-Phase Extraction and High-Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
467. Lee, H. Y.; Song, S. Y.; Lee, S. H.; Lee, S. Y.; Kim, S. H., and Ryu, S. W. Vasogenic Edema in Striatum
Following Ingestion of Glufosinate-Containing Herbicide.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
468. Lee, Si Myung; Lee, Yoen Hee; Kim, Hyun uk; Seo, Suk chul; Kwon, Sun jong; Cho, Hyun suk; Kim, Su II;
Okita, Thomas, and Kim, Donghern. Characterization of the Potato Upreglgene, Encoding a
Mutated Adp-Glucose Pyrophosphorylase Large Subunit, in Transformed Rice. 102, (2): 171-179.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-72
-------
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
Leibbrandt, N. B. and Snyman, S. J. Stability of Gene Expression and Agronomic Performance of a
Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane Line in South Africa. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LEISTRA, M. and BOESTEN, J. J TI. PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER IN
WESTERN EUROPE. 26 (3-4). 1989.369-390..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Leroux, P. Effect of Ph, Amino Acids and Various Organic Compounds on the Fungitoxicity of Pyrimethanil,
Glufosinate, Captafol, Cymoxanil and Fenpiclonil in Botrytis Cinerea (Influence Du Ph, D'acides
Amines Et De Diverses Substances Organiques Sur La Fongitoxicite Du Pyrimethanil, Du
Glufosinate, Du Captafol, Du Cymoxanil Et Du Fenpiclonil Vis-a-Vis De Certaines Souches De
Botrytis Cinerea). 1994; 14, (8): 541-554(FRE) (ENG ABS). 152064.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CAP,CMX,GFS,PYM
Li, D. D.; Shi, W., and Deng, X. X. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Embryogenic Calluses of
Ponkan Mandarin and the Regeneration of Plants Containing the Chimeric Ribonuclease Gene.
2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, Fei Fei; Wu, Shen Jie; Chen, Tian Zi; Zhang, Jie; Wang, Hai Hai; Guo, Wang Zhen, and Zhang, Tian
Zhen. Agrobacterium-Mediated Co-Transformation of Multiple Genes in Upland Cotton. 97, (3):
225-235.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, H.; Wylie, S. J., and Jones, M. G. K. Transgenic Yellow Lupin (Lupinus Luteus). 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, J.; Xue, L.; Yan, H.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Lu, Y., and Xie, H. The Nitrate Reductase Gene-Switch: a System
for Regulated Expression in Transformed Cells of Dunaliella Salina.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, J. L.; Meilan, R.; Ma, C.; Barish, M., and Strauss, S. H. Stability of herbicide resistance over 8 years of
coppice infield-grown, genetically engineered poplars. 2008; 23, (2): 89-93.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, L. and Arumuganathan, K. Microcloning of Maize Chromosome 9 by Using a Flow-Sorting Technique.
2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, L.; Arumuganathan, K.; Gill, K. S., and Song, Y. Flow Sorting and Microcloning of Maize Chromosome
1. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, M.; Li, H.; Jiang, H.; Pan, X., and Wu, G. Establishment of an Agrobacteriuim-Mediated Cotyledon Disc
Transformation Method for Jatropha Curcas. 2008.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Li, Z.; Upadhyaya, N. M.; Meena, S.; Gibbs, A. J., and Waterhouse, P. M. Comparison of Promoters and
Selectable Marker Genes for Use in Indica Rice Transformation. 3(1), 1-14.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LIAO, W.; JOE, T., and CUSICK, W. G. Multiresidue screening method for fresh fruits and vegetables with
gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric detection. 74 (3). 1991. 554-565..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-73
-------
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
Ligaj, Marta; Tichoniuk, Mariusz, and Filipiak, Marian. Detection of bar gene encoding phosphinothricin
herbicide resistance in plants by electrochemical biosensor: Special Issue: Cellular Electrochemistry
Proceedings of the XlXth International Symposium on Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics. 2008
Nov; 74, (1): 32-37.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lin, B.; Tan, Z. L.; Xiao, G. Y.; Wang, M.; Cong, Z. H.; Wang, S. P.; Tang, S. X.; Zhou, C. S.; Sun, Z. H.,
and Wang, W. J. Evaluation of compositional and nutritional equivalence of genetically modified
rice to conventional rice using in situ and in vitro techniques. 2009; 89, (9): 1490-1497.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lin, H. S.; Toorn, C. van der; Raemakers, K. J. J. M.; Visser, R. G. F.; Jeu, M. J., and Jacobsen, E. Genetic
Transformation of Alstroemeria Using Particle Bombardment. 6 (4), 369-377.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LIPECKI, J. and BERBEC, S. Soil management in perennial crops: Orchards and hop gardens. 1997; 43,
(1/2): 169-184.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Liscum, F.; Goss, R. L., andRast, W. Characteristics of Water-Quality Data for Lake Houston, Selected
Tributary Inflows to Lake Houston, and the Trinity River near Lake Houston (a Potential Source of
Interbasin Transfer), August 1983-September 1990. (GRA&I), Issue 07, 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Liu, N.; Zhu, P.; Peng, C.; Kang, L.; Gao, H.; Clarke, N. J., and Clarke, J. L. Effect on Soil Chemistry of
Genetically Modified (Gm) Vs. Non-Gm Maize.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Liu, S. J.; Wei, Z. M., and Huang, J. Q. The effect of co-cultivation and selection parameters on
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Chinese soybean varieties. 2008; 27, (3): 489-498.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LluÍ S, M.; NoguÉ S; MirÓ, and O. Severe Acute Poisoning Due to a Glufosinate
Containing Preparation Without Mitochondrial Involvement.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Locke, M. A.; Zablotowicz, R. M., and Reddy, K. N. Integrating soil conservation practices and glyphosate-
resistant crops: impacts on soil. 2008; 64, (4): 457-469.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LOGUSCH, E. W.; WALKER, D. M.; MCDONALD, J. F., and FRANZ, J. E. CYCLIC P-GLYCOSIDIC
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ANALOGUES AS GLUT AMINE SYNTHETASE INHIBITORS AND
HERBICIDES. 1994 Mar 13-1994 Mar 17; 207 (1-2). 1994. AGRO 45..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Logusch, E. W.; Walker, D. M.; McDonald, J. F., and Franz, J. E. Inhibition of Plant Glutamine Synthetases
by Substituted Phosphinothricins. 95 (4), 1057-1062.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LOGUSCH, E. W.; WALKER, D. M.; MCDONALD, J. F., and FRANZ, J. E. Inhibition of plant glutamine
synthetases (EC 6.3.1.2) by substituted phosphinothricins. (BETHESDA); 95 (4). 1991. 1057-1062..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lohar, D. P.; Schuller, K.; Buzas, D. M.; Gresshoff, P. M., and Stiller, J. Transformation of Lotus Japonicus
Using the Herbicide Resistance Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. 2001.
AI-74
-------
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503.
504
505
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Long, D. F. ; Wu, X. L.; Yang, Z. M.; Lenk, I.; Nielsen, K. K., and Gao, C. X. Comparison of three selectable
marker genes for transformation of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) plants by particle
bombardment. 2011; 47, (6): 658-666.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lorenzetti, S.; Marcoccia, D.; Narciso, L., and Mantovani, A. Cell viability and PSA secretion assays in
LNCaP cells: A tiered in vitro approach to screen chemicals with a prostate-mediated effect on male
reproduction within the ReProTect project. 2010; 30, (1): 25-35.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lorz, H.; Becker, D., and Lutticke, S. Molecular Wheat Breeding by Direct Gene Transfer. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lu(dieresis), Y. M.; Jiang, G. Z.; Niu, X. L.; Hou, G. Q.; Zhang, G. X., and Xue, L. X. Cloning and
Functional Analyses of Promoters of Two Carbonic Anhydrase Genes From Dunaliella Salina. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LUETJEN, K.; ALTENBURGER, R.; FAUST, M., and GRIMME, L. H. AMINO ACID
SUPPLEMENTATION AND THE EFFECT GLYPHOSPHATE AND GLUFOSINATE. 1990;
(COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 266. FORTY-SEVENTH GERMAN
PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION); BERLIN, GERMANY, OCTOBER 1-5, 1990.
XXXIX+515P. KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, GERMANY. ILLUS.
PAPER. ISBN 3-489-26600-5.; 0 (0). 1990. 403. 266. 47. DEUTSCHE PFLANZENSCHUTZ-
TAGUNG.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Luetjen, K.; Girardet, I.; Altenburger, R.; Faust, M., and Grimme, L. H. The Effect of Glyphosate and
Phosphinothricin on Single Celled Green Algae. 1988: 396-(GER).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Luo, H.; Hu, Q.; Nelson, K.; Longo, C.; Kausch, A. P.; Chandlee, J. M.; Wipff, J. K., and Fricker, C. R.
Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis Stolonifera L.) Transformation
Using Phosphinothricin Selection Results in a High Frequency of Single-Copy Transgene
Integration. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Luo, H.; Kausch, A. P.; Hu, Q.; Nelson, K.; Wipff, J. K.; Fricker, C. C. R.; Owen, T. P.; Moreno, M. A.; Lee,
J. Y., and Hodges, T. K. Controlling Transgene Escape in Gm Creeping Bentgrass. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
LUPOTTO, E. ; LUSARDI, M. C.; NIELSEN, E., and FORLANI, G. RESISTANCE TO HERBICIDES IN
MAIZE IN-VITRO SELECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EMBRYOGENIC CELL
LINES RESISTANT INHIBITORS OF GLUT AMINE SYNTHETASE. 1926 Oct 28-1988 Oct 28;
42 (4). 1988. 466..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lupwayi, N. Z.; Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; Turkington, T. K.; Rice, W. A., and O'Donovan, J. T. Soil
microbial biomass and diversity after herbicide application. 2004; 84, (2 ): 677-685.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Lutman, P. J. W. and Berry, K. Herbicide-Tolerant Crops - Good or Bad for Europe? 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-75
-------
506. Lutman, P. J. W.; Berry, K.; Payne, R. W.; Simpson, E.; Sweet, J. B.; Champion, G. T.; May, M. J.;
Wightman, P.; Walker, K., and Lainsbury, M. Persistence of Seeds From Crops of Conventional and
Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus). 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
507. Lutz, K. A. ; Knapp, J. E., and Maliga, P. Expression of Bar in the Plastid Genome Confers Herbicide
Resistance. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
508. Lydon, J. The Molecular Genetics of Bacterial Phytotoxins. 24 (3), 111-139.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
509. Ma, B. L.; Subedi, K.; Evenson, L., and Stewart, G. Evaluation of detection methods for genetically modified
traits in genotypes resistant to European corn borer and herbicides. 2005; 40, (4): 633-644.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
510. Ma(dieresis)rla(dieresis)nder, B. Weed Control in Sugar Beet Using Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant
Varieties - a Review of the Economics for Cultivation in Europe. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
511. MacKenzie, Susan A.; Lamb, Ian; Schmidt, Jean; Deege, Lora; Morrisey, Michael J.; Harper, Marc; Layton,
Raymond J.; Prochaska, Lee M.; Sanders, Craig; Locke, Mary; Mattsson, Joel L.; Fuentes, Angel,
and Delaney, Bryan. Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event
DAS-01507-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2007 Apr; 45, (4): 551-562.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
512. Madduri, Krishna M. and Snodderley, Erika M. Expression of phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase in
Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens: Influence of mRNA secondary structure, host, and
other physiological conditions. 2007 Oct; 55, (2): 352-360.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
513. Madsen, K. H.; Blacklow, W. M.; Jensen, J. E., and Streibig, J. C. Simulation of Herbicide Use in a Crop
Rotation with Transgenic Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape.
Kathrine.H.Madsen@agsci.kvl.dk//K.H. Madsen, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Royal
Veterinary /Agricultural Univ., 40 Thorvaldsensvej, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark//: SOIL;
1999; 39, (2): 95-106.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CPR,GFS,GYP,PZM
514. MAERLAENDER, B. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF A POSSIBLE GLUFOSINATE-RESISTANT
SUGAR BEET CROP. 321; (COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 321); 50TH
GERMAN MEETING ON PLANT PROTECTION, MUENSTER, GERMANY, SEPTEMBER 23-
26, 1996. LX+662P. BIOLOGISCHE BUNDESANSTALT FUER LAND- UND
FORSTWIRTSCHAFT: BERLIN-DAHLEM, GERMANY. ISBN 3-8263-3126-5.; 0 (321). 1996.
132..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
515. Mahan, J. R.; Dotray, P. A.; Light, G. G., and Dawson, K. R. Thermal Dependence of Bioengineered
Glufosinate Tolerance in Cotton. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
516. MATER. A.; MUELLER, J.; SCHNEIDER, P.; FIEDLER, H. P.; GROTH, I.; TAYMAN, F. SK;
TELTSCHIK, F.; GUENTHER, C., and BRINGMANN, G. (2E,4Z)-decadienoic acid and
(2E,4Z,7Z)-decatrienoic acid, two herbicidal metabolites from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tue
6105. 1999; 55 , (7): 733-739.
AI-76
-------
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Malley, Linda A.; Everds, Nancy E.; Reynolds, Julia; Mann, Peter C.; Lamb, Ian; Rood, Tracy; Schmidt,
Jean; Layton, Raymond J.; Prochaska, Lee M.; Hinds, Mark; Locke, Mary; Chui, Chok-Fun;
Claussen, Fred; Mattsson, Joel L., and Delaney, Bryan. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7
maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2007 Jul; 45, (7): 1277-1292.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Malone, R. W.; Shipitalo, M. J.; Wauchope, R. D., and Sumner, H. Residual and Contact Herbicide Transport
Through Field Lysimeters Via Preferential Flow.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MANABE, K.; DEGUCHI, H.; MIKI, M.; YABUKI, H., and ITOH, M. Chemical control of weeds in
orchard: Comparison of postemergence herbicides in activity and their practical application. 42 (1).
1990. 123-130..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MANABE, K. and ITOH, M. Soil conservation and chemical weed management in hillside orchard. 46 (2).
1994. 163-168..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MANSDORF, S. Z.; HENRY, N.; ANDERSON, D.; STRONG, M., and ROSSI, D. The permeation of
substituted chlorosilanes through selected protective clothing. 58 (2). 1997. 110-115..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mao, Y. C.; Wang, J. D.; Hung, D. Z.; Deng, J. F., and Yang, C. C. Hyperammonemia Following
Glufosinate-Containing Herbicide Poisoning: a Potential Marker of Severe Neurotoxicity.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mao, Y. C. and Yang, C. C. Response to "Hyperammonemia following glufosinate-containing herbicide
poisoning: A potential marker of severe neurotoxicity" by Yan-Chido Mao et al., Clin Toxicol
(Phila) 2011; 49:48-52. 2011; 49, (6): 513-513.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Maqbool, S. B.; Zhong, H.; El-Maghraby, Y.; Ahmad, A.; Chai, B.; Wang, W.; Sabzikar, R., and Sticklen, M.
B. Competence of Oat (Avena Sativa L.) Shoot Apical Meristems for Integrative Transformation,
Inherited Expression, and Osmotic Tolerance of Transgenic Lines Containing Hval. 105 (2/3),
201-208.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MARINI, R.; BARDEN, J., and SOWERS, D. PERFORMANCE OF NINE APPLE CULTIVARS GROWN
WITH SIX FUNGICIDE REGIMES. 1996 Oct 6-1996 Oct 10; 31 (4). 1996. 675..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MARTIN, C. C. Weed control in tropical ley farming systems: A review. 36 (8). 1996. 1013-1023..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Martin, S. G.; Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. 2001; 49,
(3): 326-333.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Masani, Mat Yunus Abdul; Parveez, Ghulam Kadir Ahmad; Izawati, Abang Masli Dayang; Lan, Chan Pek,
and Siti Nor Akmar, Abdullah. Construction of PHB and PHBV multiple-gene vectors driven by an
oil palm leaf-specific promoter. 2009 Nov; 62, (3): 191-200.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-77
-------
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
Masuta, C.; Yamana, T.; Tacahashi, Y.; Uyeda, I.; Sato, M.; Ueda, S., and Matsumura, T. Development of
Clover Yellow Vein Vims as an Efficient, Stable Gene-Expression System for Legume Species.
2000; 23, (4): 539-546.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Matthews, S. G.; Rhodes, G. N. J.; Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. Roundup Ultra Effects on Roundup
Ready Cotton. 51, 39-40.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Matthies, M.; Behrendt, H.; Trapp, S., and McFarlane, C. Modellierung und Simulation des Verhaltens von
Umweltchemikalien in Boeden und Pflanzen (Modeling and Simulation of the Effect of
(Environmental) Chemicals in Soil and in Plants). (GRA&I), Issue 09, 2092.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
McAlpin, C. E. and Mannarelli, B. Construction and Characterization of a Dna Probe for Distinguishing
Strains of Aspergillus Flavus. 1995.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
McNamara, N. P.; Black, H. I. J.; Beresford, N. A., and Parekh, N. R. Effects of acute gamma irradiation on
chemical, physical and biological properties of soils. 2003 Oct; 24, (2 ): 117-132.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
McNaughton, James L.; Roberts, Mick; Rice, David; Smith, Brenda; Hinds, Mark; Schmidt, Jean; Locke,
Mary; Bryant, Angela; Rood, Tracy; Layton, Ray; Lamb, Ian, and Delaney, Bryan. Feeding
performance in broiler chickens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared to diets
containing non-transgenic maize grain. 2007 Jan 15; 132, (3-4): 227-239.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mcneill, H. V.; Sinha, K. A.; Hormaeche, C. E.; Lee, J. J., and Khan, C. M. Development of a Nonantibiotic
Dominant Marker for Positively Selecting Expression Plasmids in Multivalent Salmonella Vaccines.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
McVetty, Peter B. E. and Zelmer, Carla D. Breeding Herbicide [hyphen (true graphic)]Tolerant Oilseed Rape
Cultivars. Surinder Kumar Gupta, M. Delseny and J. hyphen true graphic C. Kader. Advances in
Botanical Research: Rapeseed Breeding. Volume 45 ed. Academic Press; 2007: 233-270.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Meagher, T. R.; Belanger, F. C., and Day, P. R. Using Empirical Data to Model Transgene Dispersal. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Melchiorre, M. N.; Lascano, H. R., and Trippi, V. S. Transgenic Wheat Plants Resistant to Herbicide Basta
Obtained by Microprojectile Bombardment. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mena-Petite, Amaia; Lacuesta, Maite, and Munoz-Rueda, Alberto. Ammonium assimilation in Pinus radiata
seedlings: effects of storage treatments, transplanting stress and water regimes after planting under
simulated field conditions. 2006 Jan; 55, (1-2): 1-14.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Merkel, U.; Schuster, C.; Schubert, A., and Diepenbrock, W. Development and Control of Sisymbrium
Loeselii L. In Glufosinate-Tolerant Winter Rapeseed. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Messeguer, J.; Fogher, C.; Guiderdoni, E.; Marfa, V.; Catala, M. M.; Baldi, G., and Mele, E. Field
Assessments of Gene Flow From Transgenic to Cultivated Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) Using a Herbicide
AI-78
-------
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
Resistance Gene as Tracer Marker. 103 (8), 1151-1159.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Messeguer, J.; Marfa, V.; Catala, M. M.; Guiderdoni, E., and Mele, E. A Field Study of Pollen-Mediated
Gene Flow From Mediterranean Gm Rice to Conventional Rice and the Red Rice Weed. 13,(1):
103-112.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Metz, P. L. J.; Jacobsen, E.; Nap, J. P.; Pereira, A., and Stiekema, W. J. The Impact onBiosafety of the
Phosphinothricin-Tolerance Transgene in Inter-Specific B. Rapa X B. Napus Hybrids and Their
Successive Backcrosses. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Metz, P. L. J.; Jacobsen, E., and Stiekema, W. J. Occasional Loss of Expression of Phosphinothricin
Tolerance in Sexual Offspring of Transgenic Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus L.). 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Metz, P. L. J.; Stiekema, W. J., and Nap, J. P. A Transgene-Centered Approach to the Biosafety of
Transgenic Phosphinothricin-Tolerant Plants. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MEYER, H. and WOLTERS, V. Ecological effects of the use of broad-spectrum herbicides in herbicide-
resistant tansgenic crops. . ISBN 3-437-25476-6.; 28 (0). 1997 (1998). 337-344..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Middleton, A. T. and Stone, E. M. DNA extraction from bulked samples of canola seed and the use of
multiplex PCR for detection of adventitious contamination with genetically modified seed. 2003; 31,
(2): 487-495.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Miethling, R. and Tebbe, C. C. Resilience of a Soil-Established, Genetically Modified Sinorhizobium
Meliloti Inoculant to Soil Management Practices. 25,(2): 161-167.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Migge, A.; Meya, G.; Carrayol, E.; Hirel, B., and Becker, T. W. Regulation of the Subunit Composition of
Tomato Plastidic Glutamine Synthetase by Light and the Nitrogen Source. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mika, A.; Krzewinska, D., and Olszewski, T. Effects of Mulches, Herbicides and Cultivation as Orchard
Groundcover Management Systems in Young Apple Orchard. SOIL; 1998; 6, (1): 1-13.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,NHS04,OXF,PZM,SZ
Miller, D. K.; Vidrine, P. R., and Stewart, A. M. Assessing Liberty Link Transgenic Technology for Weed
Control in Cotton. 50, (1): 22.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MINEAU, P.; BOERSMA, D. C., and COLLINS, B. An analysis of avian reproduction studies submitted for
pesticide registration. 29 (3). 1994. 304-329..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mishutkina, I. A. V.; Kamionskaia, A. M., and Skriabin, K. G. [Generation of Sugar Beet Transgenic Plants
Expressing Bar Gene].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MIYAZAKI, A. PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS OF OPTICALLY ACTIVE PESTICIDES. 22 (2). 1997.
AI-79
-------
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
136-155. .
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mohr, K. I. and Tebbe, C. C. Field Study Results on the Probability and Risk of a Horizontal Gene Transfer
From Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Oilseed Rape Pollen to Gut Bacteria of Bees. 2007; 75, (3):
573-582. 154914 .
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Molina, M. and Silva, M. Analytical potential of fluorescein analogues for ultrasensitive determinations of
phosphorus-containing amino acid herbicides by micellar electrokinetic chromatography with laser-
induced fluorescence detection. 2002; 23, (7-8): 1096-1103.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Simultaneous Determination of Phosphorus-Containing Amino Acid-Herbicides by Nonionic Surfactant
Micellar Electrokinetic Chromatography With Laser-Induced Fluorescence Detection.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Moore, S.; Croughan, T.; Myers, G., and Vidrine, P. R. Investigation of Transferring the Bar Gene Into
Soybean Via the Pollen-Tube Pathway. 65-66.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Using Pollen Tubes to Transfer Genes in Cotton. 43-44.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Moore, S. H. and Croughan, T. P. Transferring the Bar Gene Into Cotton. 48.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Moore, S. H.; Croughan, T. P., and Myers, G. O. Investigation of Transferring the Bar Gene Into Cotton Via
the Pollen-Tube Pathway. 1, 483.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MOORMAN, T. B. and KELLER, K. E. CROP RESISTANCE TO HERBICIDES EFFECTS ON SOIL
AND WATER QUALITY. LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 1-56670-045-0.; 0 (0). 1996. 283-
302..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Moreland, D. E. Biochemical Mechanisms of Action of Herbicides and the Impact of Biotechnology on the
Development of Herbicides. SOIL; 1999; 24, (3): 299-307.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ATZ,CBL,DDT,DMB,GFS,HCCH,IZP,PCP,PDM,PL,PPCP,SXD,SZ
MORI, H.; SATO, T.; NAGASE, H.; ANDOU, M.; SAKAI, Y.; YAMAGUCHI, S., and YAMAZAKI, F.
Rapid screening method for the cause pesticides of acute toxicosis patient by TLC. 42 (1). 1996.
101-109..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MORI, H.; SATO, T.; NAGASE, H.; TAKADA, K.; NAGASAKA, M., and YAMAZAKI, F. Analytical
method for screening and quantification of phosphated amino acid herbicides in the serum of acutely
intoxicated patients using HPLC with a diode-array-detector. 44 (4). 1998. 245-255..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Motojyuku, M.; Saito, T.; Akieda, K.; Otsuka, H.; Yamamoto, I., and Inokuchi, S. Determination of
Glyphosate, Glyphosate Metabolites, and Glufosinate in Human Serum by Gas Chromatography -
Mass Spectrometry.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-80
-------
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
MOYER, J. R.; ROMAN, E. S.; LINDWALL, C. W., and BLACKSHAW, R. E. Weed management in
conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. 13 (4). 1994. 243-
259..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mu(dieresis)ller, B. P.; Zumdick, A.; Schuphan, I., and Schmidt, B. Metabolism of the Herbicide Glufosinate-
Ammonium in Plant Cell Cultures of Transgenic (Rhizomania-Resistant) and Non-Transgenic
Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris), Carrot (Daucus Carota), Purple Foxglove (Digitalis Purpurea) and Thorn
Apple (Datura Stramonium). 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mueller, T. C.; Mitchell, P. D.; Young, B. G., and Culpepper, A. S. Proactive versus reactive management of
glyphosate-resistant or-tolerant weeds. 2005; 19, (4): 924-933.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
MUELLNER, H.; DONN, G., and ECKES, P. ENGINEERING CROP RESISTANCE TO NATURALLY
OCCURRING GLUTAMINESYNTHETASE INHIBITORS. 1992 Apr 5-1992 Apr 5; 203 (1-3).
1992. AGR0143..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Mullner, H. ; Eckes, P., and Donn, G. Engineering Crop Resistance to the Naturally Occurring Glutamine
Synthetase Inhibitor Phophinothricin. 38-47.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Murdock, E. C. Tolerance of Roundup Ready Cotton to Multiple Postemergence Applications of Glyphosate.
52, 5-6.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Murphy, T. R. Selective Control of Winter Annual Weeds Using Non-Selective Herbicides in Dormant
Bermudagrass Turf. 51, 84-85.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nadolska-Orczyk, A. and Orczyk, W. Study of the Factors Influencing Agrobacterium-Mediated
Transformation of Pea (Pisum Sativum L.). 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nadolska-Orczyk, A.; Pietrusinska, A.; Binka-Wyrwa, A.; Kuc, D., and Orczyk, W. Diploid Potato (Solanum
Tuberosum L.) As a Model Crop to Study Transgene Expression. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nagy, A.; Pauk, J.; Takacs, K., and Gelencser, E. Nutritional evaluation of the proteins of broad range
herbicide resistant spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines. II. Resistance to digestion of marker
proteins in rat model. 2008; 37, (2): 159-166.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nair, Satish K. and van der Donk, Wilfred A. Structure and mechanism of enzymes involved in biosynthesis
and breakdown of the phosphonates fosfomycin, dehydrophos, and phosphinothricin: Special
Section: Trends inEnzymology 2010. 2011 Jan 1-; 505, (1): 13-21.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
NAKAKI, T.; MISHIMA, A.; SUZUKI, E.; SHINTANI, F., and FUJII, T. Glufosinate ammonium, a
herbicide, stimulates nitric oxide production in rat cerebellum. 1999 Mar 22-1999 Mar 25; 79
(SUPPL. 1). 1999. 42P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-81
-------
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
Nakamura, S.; Mano, S.; Tanaka, Y.; Ohnishi, M.; Nakamori, C.; Araki, M.; Niwa, T.; Nishimura, M.;
Kaminaka, H.; Nakagawa, T.; Sato, Y., and Ishiguro, S. Gateway Binary Vectors with the Bialaphos
Resistance Gene, bar, as a Selection Marker for Plant Transformation. 2010; 74, (6): 1315-1319.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nakazato, L.; Dutra, V.; Broetto, L.; Staats, C. C.; Vainstein, M. H., and Schrank, A. Development of an
expression vector for Metarhizium anisopliae based on the tef-1 alpha homologous promoter. 2006;
72, (3): 521-528.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nam, J.; Mysore, K. S.; Zheng, C.; Knue, M. K.; Matthysse, A. G., and Gelvin, S. B. Identification of T-Dna
Tagged Arabidopsis Mutants That Are Resistant to Transformation by Agrobacterium. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nam, J. S.; Mysore, K. S., and Gelvin, S. B. Agrobacterium Tumefaciens Transformation of the Radiation
Hypersensitive Arabidopsis ThalianaMutants Uvhl andRad5. 11 (11), 1136-1141.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nelson, B. K.; Cai, X., and Nebenfu(dieresis)hr, A. A Multicolored Set of in Vivo Organelle Markers for Co-
Localization Studies in Arabidopsis and Other Plants. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
NEWMARK, P. PLANT GENETIC SYSTEMS GETS BASTA RESISTANCE. (N Y); 5 (4). 1987. 321..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nigro, S. A.; Makunga, N. P.; Jones, N. B., and Van Staden, J. A Biolistic Approach Towards Producing
Transgenic Pinus Patula Embryonal Suspensor Masses. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Nogue, S.; Lluis, M.; Miro, O.; Medina, M.; Gonzalez, C., and Munne, P. Central Nervous System
Depression, Acute Respiratory Insufficiency and Alterations in Heart Rate Associated With
Glufosinate Poisoning. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Norris, J. L.; Shaw, D. R.; Snipes, C. E., and Akin, D. S. Influence of Row Spacing and Residual Herbicides
on Weed Control in Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Soybean. 52, 53.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Novak, W. K. and Haslberger, A. G. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in
genetically modified novel foods. 2000 Jun; 38, (6): 473-483.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
NUBBE, M. E.; ADAMS, V. D.; WATTS, R. J., and CLARK, Y. R. ORGANICS. 62 (4). 1990. 359-383..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Obojska, A. ; Berlicki, L.; Kafarski, P.; Lejczak, B.; Chicca, M., and Forlani, G. Herbicidal Pyridyl
Derivatives of Aminomethylene-Bisphosphonic Acid Inhibit Plant Glutamine Synthetase.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Odell, Luke R.; Nilsson, Mikael T.; Gising, Johan; Lagerlund, Olof; Muthas, Daniel; Nordqvist, Anneli;
Karl+_n, Anders, and Larhed, Mats. Functionalized 3-amino-imidazo[ 1,2-a]pyridines: A novel class
of drug-like Mycobacterium tuberculosis glutamine synthetase inhibitors. 2009 Aug 15-; 19, (16):
4790-4793.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-82
-------
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
Oh, S. M.; Shin, D. Y.; Yang, J. S., and Han, H. J. Studies on the Application Method of Herbicides for
Control of Regrowing Rye and Weeds in Nonplowing Direct Sowing Culture of Silage Corn (Zea
mays L.) Cropped After Rye. SOIL; 1992; 34, (2): 57-62(KOR) (ENG ABS).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,MTL,PDM,PMT,SZ
OHNO, C.; OTAKI, M.; MORI, Y.; HISAMATSU, Y., and NAKAZAWA, H. Simultaneous determination
of residual phosphorus-containing amino acid herbicides in agricultural products by HPLC. 40 (1).
1999. 75-79..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ohtake, T.; Yasuda, H.; Takahashi, H.; Goto, T.; Suzuki, K.; Yonemura, K., and Hishida, A. Decreased
plasma and cerebrospinal fluid glutamine concentrations in a patient with bialaphos poisoning. 2001;
20, (8): 429-434.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ohtani, Yoshimi; Hayashi, Harutoshi, and Higuchi, Yoichiro. Simultaneous Determination of Glufosinate,
Glyphosate and Phenoxyalkanoic Acid Herbicides in River Water With Ion-Exchange Cartridge.
1997; 20, (2): 108-111.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Olguin, E. R.; Arrieta-Espinoza, G.; Lobo, J. A., and Espinoza-Esquivel, A. M. Assessment of Gene Flow
From a Herbicide-Resistant Indica Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) To the Costa Rican Weedy Rice (Oryza
Sativa) in Tropical America: Factors Affecting Hybridization Rates and Characterization of F1
Hybrids.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Olofsdotter, M.; Valverde, B. E., andMadsen, K. H. Herbicide Resistant Rice (Oryza Sativa L.): Global
Implications for Weedy Rice and Weed Management. 2000; 13, (3): 279-295.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Omirulleh, S.; Ismagulova, A.; Feher, A.; Bilgin, M.; Morocz, S., and Dudits, D. Differential Activity of
Wheat Histone H4 Promoter in Transgenic Maize. 81, 549-558.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Omura, S.; Hinotozawa, K.; Imamura, N., and Murata, M. The Structure of Phosalacine, a New Herbicidal
Antibiotic Containing Phosphinothricin.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ONO, S.; IWAGAKI, I., and TAKAHARA, T. EFFECTS OF LIGHT AND FACTORS RELATED TO
CULTURE ON THE PHOTOSYNTHESIS OF CITRUS TREES. (KUCHINOTSU); 0 (9). 1987.
25-50..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Orejuela, E. and Silva, M. Rapid and Sensitive Determination of Phosphorus-Containing Amino Acid
Herbicides in Soil Samples by Capillary Zone Electrophoresis With Diode Laser-Induced
Fluorescence Detection.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Orson, J. H.; Oldfield, J. F., and Bcpc. Gene flow and the practical management of genetically modified crops
in the UK. 1999(72): 247-252.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
OUDEJANS, J. HM. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers, 99. 1. Studies on IPM policy in SE Asia:
Two centuries of plant protection in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. 1999 Oct 1; 99 (1). 1999.
XVTII+316P..
AI-83
-------
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Owen, M. D. K. Current Use of Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybean and Corn in the USA. 2000; 19, (8-
10): 765-771.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
OXTOBY, E. and HUGHES, M. A. BREEDING FOR HERBICIDE RESISTANCE USING MOLECULAR
AND CELLULAR TECHNIQUES. 40 (1-2). 1989. 173-180..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Padegimas, L.; Shul'ga, O. A., and Skriabin, K. G. [Creation of Transgenic Plants Nicotiana Tabacum and
Solanum Tuberosum, Resistant to the Herbicide Phosphinothricin].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
PADGETTE, S. R.; DELLA-CIOPPA, G.; SHAH, D. M.; FRALEY, R. T., and KISHORE, G. M.
SELECTIVE HERBICIDE TOLERANCE THROUGH PROTEIN ENGINEERING. (ED.). CELL
CULTURE AND SOMATIC CELL GENETICS OF PLANTS, VOL. 6. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
OF PLANT NUCLEAR GENES. XXVI+494P. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.: TROY, MISSOURI,
USA; LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ILLUS. ISBN 0-12-715006-4.; 0 (0). 1990. 441-476..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pallutt, B. and Hommel, B. The Concept and the First Results of the Assesment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Rape
and Maize in a 4-Field Crop Rotation (Konzept Und Erste Ergebnisse Zur Bewertung Von
Glufosinat-Tolerantem Raps Und Mais Im Rahmen Einer 4-Feldrigen Fruchtfolge). 1998; 16, 427-
433(GER) (ENG ABS). 157153.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
PALMER, C. E. and OELCK, M. The relationship of phosphinothricin to growth and metabolism in cell
cultures of Brassica napus L. 141 (1). 1993. 105-110..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Paoletti, M. G. and Pimentel, D. Environmental risks of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural
pest control. 2000; 12, (3): 279-303.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Park, H. Y.; Lee, P. H.; Shin, D. H., and Kim, G. W. Anterograde Amnesia With Hippocampal Lesions
Following Glufosinate Intoxication.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Park, S. H. ; Lee, B. M.; Salas, M. G.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Shorter T-Dna or Additional
Virulence Genes Improve Agrobactrium-Mediated Transformation. 101 (7), 1015-1020.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pascual, M. B.; Molina-Rueda, J. J.; CÁ Novas, F. M., and Gallardo, F. Spatial Distribution of
Cytosolic Nadp(+)-Isocitrate Dehydrogenase in Pine Embryos and Seedlings.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Patnaik, D. and Khurana, P. Genetic Transformation of Indian Bread (T. Aestivum) and Pasta (T. Durum)
Wheat by Particle Bombardment of Mature Embryo-Derived Calli. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pawlowski, W. P.; Torbert, K. A.; Rines, H. W., and Somers, D. A. Irregular Patterns of Transgene Silencing
in Allohexaploid Oat. 38 (4), 597-607.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-84
-------
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
Paz, M. M.; Martinez, J. C.; Kalvig, A. B.; Fonger, T. M., and Wang, K. Improved Cotyledonary Node
Method Using an Alternative Explant Derived From Mature Seed for Efficient Agrobacterium-
Mediated Soybean Transformation. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Peck, S. C. ; Cooke, H. A.; Cicchillo, R. M.; Malova, P.; Hammerschmidt, F.; Nair, S. K., and Van Der Donk,
W. A. Mechanism and Substrate Recognition of 2-Hydroxyethylphosphonate Dioxygenase.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pellegrineschi, A.; Brito, R. M.; Velazquez, L.; Noguera, L. M.; Pfeiffer, W.; McLean, S., and Hoisington, D.
The Effect of Pretreatment With Mild Heat and Drought Stresses on the Explant and Biolistic
Transformation Frequency of Three Durum Wheat Cultivars. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Perales, Lorena; Pe+_arrubia, Lola, and Cornejo, Mar+ a-Jes+ s. Induction of a polyubiquitin gene promoter
by dehydration stresses in transformed rice cells. 2008 Feb 1-; 165, (2): 159-171.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Perrella, G.; Cremona, G.; Consiglio, F.; Errico, A.; Bressan, R. A., and Conicella, C. Screening for
mutations affecting sexual reproduction after activation tagging in Arabidopsis thaliana. 2006; 47,
(2): 109-111.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Perret, S. J.; Valentine, J.; Leggett, J. M., and Morris, P. Integration, Expression and Inheritance of
Transgenes in Hexaploid Oat (Avena Sativa L.). 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Peterman, D. R.; Elias, B., and Frittelli, J. Transportation Security: Issues for the 110th Congress. (GRA&I),
Issue 01, 2008.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. Control of Cleavers With Liberty in Glufosinate-Resistant Winter Oilseed Rape.
2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Petersen, W.; Umbeck, P.; Hokanson, K., and Halsey, M. Biosafety Considerations for Selectable and
Scorable Markers Used in Cassava (Manihot Esculenta Crantz) Biotechnology.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Petrillo, C. P.; Carneiro, N. P.; Purcino, A. A. C.; Carvalho, C. H. S.; Alves, J. D., and Carneiro, A. A.
Optimization of particle bombardment parameters for the genetic transformation of Brazilian maize
inbred lines. 2008; 43, (3): 371-378.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Phillipson, B. A.; Pimpl, P.; DaSilva, L. L. P.; Crofts, A. J.; Taylor, J. P.; Movafeghi, A.; Robinson, D. G.,
and Denecke, J. Secretory Bulk Flow of Soluble Proteins Is Efficient and Copii Dependent. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Phipps, R. H.; Jones, A. K.; Tingey, A. P., and Abeyasekera, S. Effect of Corn Silage From an Herbicide-
Tolerant Genetically Modified Variety on Milk Production and Absence of Transgenic Dna in Milk.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Phogat, S. K.; Burma, P. K., and Pental, D. High Frequency Regeneration of Brassica Napus Varieties and
Genetic Transformation of Stocks Containing Fertility Restorer Genes for Two Cytoplasmic Male
Sterility Systems. 2000.
AI-85
-------
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
PiÑ Eiro, M.; GarcÍ A-Olmedo, F., and Diaz, I. Redox Modulation of the Expression of
Bacterial Genes Encoding Cysteine-Rich Proteins in Plant Protoplasts.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pinheiro, P. V.; de Faria, J. C.; Nogueira, Eopel, and Aragao, F. J. L. Transgene inheritances and genetic
similarities of near isogenic lines of genetically modified common beans. 2009; 44, (9): 1168-1176.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Piriyapittaya, M.; Jayanta, S.; Mitra, S., and Leepipatpiboon, N. Micro-scale membrane extraction of
glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water followed by high-performance liquid
chromatography and post-column derivatization with fluorescence detector. 2008; 1189, (1-2): 483-
492.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pline, W. A. and Hatzios, K. K. Interactions of Ammonium Sulfate or Pelargonic Acid With Glufosinate or
Glyphosate on Two Perennial and Three Annual Weed Species. 52, 60-61.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Temperature Effects on the Response of Liberty-Link and Roundup-Ready Soybeans to Glufosinate and
Glyphosate Treatments. 52, 172-173.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pline, W. A.; Lacy, G. H.; Stromberg, V., and Hatzios, K. K. Antibacterial Activity of the Herbicide
Glufosinate on Pseudomonas syringae Pathovar Glycinea. 2001; 71, (1): 48-55.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pniewski, T.; Kapusta, J.; Bocią G, P.; Wojciechowicz, J.; Kostrzak, A.; Gdula, M.; Fedorowicz-
Stroń Ska, O.; WÓ Jcik, P.; Otta, H.; Samardakiewicz, S.; Wolko, B.; Pł, and
Ucienniczak, A. Low-Dose Oral Immunization With Lyophilized Tissue of Herbicide-Resistant
Lettuce Expressing Hepatitis B Surface Antigen for Prototype Plant-Derived Vaccine Tablet
Formulation.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pogorelko, Gennady V.; Fursova, Oksana V.; Ogarkova, Olga A., and Tarasov, Valentin A. A new technique
for activation tagging in Arabidopsis. 2008 May 15-; 414, (irQ62): 67-75.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
POHLNER, D. EMEX AUSTRALIS AND DRIED VINE FRUIT PRODUCTION IN SUNRAYSIA. 1996;
11 (4). 1996. 150-153..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
POOL, R. M. ; DUNST, R. M.; KAMAS, J. S., and FENDINGER, A. G. VINEYARD WEED
MANAGEMENT USING NON-PERSISTENT HERBICIDES. 1997 Jul; 48 (2). 1997. 250..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pornprom, T.; Prodmatee, N., and Chatchawankanphanich, O. Glutamine Synthetase Mutation Conferring
Target-Site-Based Resistance to Glufosinate in Soybean Cell Selections.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Pornprom, T.; Surawattananon, S., and Srinives, P. Ammonia Accumulation as an Index of Glufosinate-
Tolerant Soybean Cell Lines. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-86
-------
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
PORTER, W. C. and PARISH, R. L. HOODED SPRAY APPLICATION OF POSTEMERGENCE
HERBICIDES FOR SOUTHERNPEA PRODUCTION. 1996 Feb 3-1996 Feb 5; 31 (5). 1996. 748..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Prasertsongskun, S.; Sangduen, N.; Suwanwong, S.; Santisopasri, V., and Matsumoto, H. Increased Activity
and Reduced Sensitivity of Glutamine Synthetase in Glufosinate-Resistant Vetiver (Vetiveria
Zizanioides Nash) Cells. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Preuss, S. B.; Jiang, C. Z.; Baik, H. K.; Kado, C. I., and Britt, A. B. Radiation-Sensitive Arabidopsis Mutants
Are Proficient for T-Dna Transformation. [Erratum: Dec 1999, V. 262 (4/5), P. 909.]. 261 (4/5),
623-626.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Przetakiewicz, A.; Karas, A.; Orczyk, W., and Nadolska-Orczyk, A. Agrobacterium-Mediated
Transformation of Polyploid Cereals. The Efficiency of Selection and Transgene Expression in
Wheat. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Puchta, H.; Dujon, B., and Hohn, B. Two Different but Related Mechanisms Are Used in Plants for the
Repair of Genomic Double-Strand Breaks by Homologous Recombination. 93 (10), 5055-5060.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
PUEHLER, A. FIELD EXPERIMENTS EVALUATION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNOLOGY
AND RISK ASSESSMENT WITH THE HELP OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MICROORGANISMS.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Punja, Z. K. Transgenic Carrots Expressing a Thaumatin-Like Protein Display Enhanced Resistance to
Several Fungal Pathogens. 2005; 27, (2): 291-296. 158427.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Qian, K.; He, S.; Tang, T.; Shi, T. Y.; Li, J. Q., and Cao, Y. S. A rapid liquid chromatography method for
determination of glufosinate residue in maize after derivatisation. 2011; 127, (2): 722-726.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Quinn, J. P. Biochemistry: Uncharted Route for Antibiotics.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Raemakers CJJM; Sofiari, E.; Jacobsen, E., and Visser, R. G. F. Regeneration and Transformation of
Cassava. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Raemakers, K.; Schreuder, M.; Pereira, I.; Munyikwa, T.; Jacobsen, E., and Visser, R. Progress Made in Fee
Transformation of Cassava. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ramesh, S.; Nagadhara, D.; Reddy, V. D., and Rao, K. V. Production of Transgenic Indica Rice Resistant to
Yellow Stem Borer and Sap-Sucking Insects, Using Super-Binary Vectors of Agrobacterium
Tumefaciens. 2004; 166, (4): 1077-1085.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
RAMOS, J. L.; DUQUE, E., and RAMOS-GONZALEZ, M. I. Survival in soils of an herbicide-resistant
Pseudomonas putida strain bearing a recombinant TOL plasmid. 57 (1). 1991. 260-266..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-87
-------
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
RAMOS TOMBO GM and BELLUS, D. Chirality and crop protection.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. A review of the effects of humidity, humectants, and
surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water-soluble herbicides. 2005 Jun;
82, (2): 162-175.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Rankins, A. ; Byred, J. D.; Mask, D. B.; Barnett, J. W., and Gerard, P. D. Survey of soybean weeds in
Mississippi. 2005; 19, (2): 492-498.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Rasche, E. and Gadsby, M. Glufosinate Ammonium Tolerant Crops - International Commercial
Developments and Experiences. VOLS. 1-3, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, BRIGHTON,
ENGLAND, UK, NOVEMBER 17-20, 1997. XXIV+442P.//: SOIL; 1997; 9, 941-946.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Liu, D.; Li, C. P.; Doherty, A.; Hagemann, K.; Riley, A.; Thompson, T.; Brunkan, C.;
Mitchell, M.; Lowe, K.; Krebbers, E.; Lazzeri, P.; Jayne, S., and Rice, D. Characterisation of the
Expression of a Novel Constitutive Maize Promoter in Transgenic Wheat and Maize. 2003; 21, (6):
569-576.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Read, M. A. and Hewson, R. T. Glufosinate-Ammonium: a New Desiccant for Peas, Beans and Linseed .
379-384.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Reboud, X. Effect of a Gap on Gene Flow Between Otherwise Adjacent Transgenic Brassica Napus Crops.
106 (6), 1048-1058.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
REDMANN, R. E.; QI, M. Q., and BELYK, M. Growth of transgenic and standard canola (Brassica napus
L.) varieties in response to soil salinity. 74 (4). 1994. 797-799..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
REHEUL, D. THE APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES IN GRASS BREEDING. 54 (2 PART A). 1989. 391-
394..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ren, Yanfei; Lv, Jun; Wang, Hua; Li, Linchuan; Peng, Yufa, and Qu, Li-Jia. A comparative proteomics
approach to detect unintended effects in transgenic Arabidopsis. 2009 Oct; 36, (10 ): 629-639.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. Classification of Herbicides by Site of Action for Weed Resistance
Management Strategies. SOIL; 1997; 11, (2): 384-393.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACF,ACO,ACR,AMTL,AMTR,ASM,ATZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BSF,BT,BTC,BTY,C
LT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CRM,CSF,CYC,CZE,DDP,DFP,DFQ,DMB,DMM,DPPl,DQTBr,DSMA,DTP,
DU,EFL,EFS,EMSF,EPTC,FDE,FMC,FNP,FSF,FTCM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I
XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MCPP1,MLNR,MLT,MSMA,MTL,MTS,NFZ,NPM,N
PP,NSF,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PCH,PCL,PDM,PEB,PHMD,PMT,PPN,PPZ,PQT,PRO,PSF,PTB,PYD,PY
Z,PZM,QNC,RIM,SFZ,SID,SMU,SXD,SZ,TBC,TBNU,TET,TFN,THF,TKY,TPR,TRB,TRL,TSF,
VNT
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. Classification of Herbicides by Site of Action for Weed Resistance
AI-88
-------
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
Management Strategies. 1997; 11, (2): 384-393. 127138.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACF,ACO,ACR,AMTL,AMTR,ASM,ATZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BSF,BT,BTC,BTY,C
LT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CRM,CSF,CYC,CZE,DDP,DFP,DFQ,DMB,DMM,DPPl,DQTBr,DSMA,DTP,
DU,EFL,EFS,EMSF,EPTC,FDE,FMC,FNP,FSF,FTCM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I
XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MCPP1,MLNR,MLT,MSMA,MTL,MTS,NFZ,NPM,N
PP,NSF,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PCH,PCL,PDM,PEB,PHMD,PMT,PPN,PPZ,PQT,PRO,PSF,PTB,PYD,PY
Z,PZM,QNC,RIM,SFZ,SID,SMU,SXD,SZ,TBC,TBNU,TET,TFN,THF,TKY,TPR,TRB,TRL,TSF,
VNT
Rhodes, G. N. J.; Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. Performance of Roundup Ready Corn Weed Control
Systems in Tennessee. 51, 20.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Riches, C. R. and Valverde, B. E. Agricultural and biological diversity in Latin America: Implications for
development, testing, and commercialization of herbicide-resistant crops. 2002; 16, (1): 200-214.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
RIEGER, M. A.; PRESTON, C., and POWLES, S. B. Risks of gene flow from transgenic herbicide-resistant
canola (Brassica napus) to weedy relatives in southern Australian cropping systems. 50 (2). 1999.
115-128..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
RIOUX R and RUBE, Y. EFFECT OF GLUFOSINATE ON DEFOLIATION OF POTATOES AND
GERMINATION OF TUBERS . 71 (3). 1990. 146..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Risse, J. M.; Pu(dieresis)hler, A., andFlaschel, E. Production of N-Acetyl-Phosphinothricin: a Substance
Used for Inducing Male Sterility in Transgenic Plants. 2005; 5, (1): 38-45.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Robertson, D. L. and Alberte, R. S. Isolation and Characterization of Glutamine Synthetase From the Marine
Diatom Skeletonema Costatum. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Robinson, D. W. Weed Control in Amenity Plantings. 15-24.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Rodenburg, Jonne and Demont, Matty. Potential of Herbicide-Resistant Rice Technologies for Sub-Saharan
Africa. 12, (3-4): 313-325.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Rojano-Delgado, A. M.; Ruiz-Jimenez, J.; de Castro, M. D. L., and De Prado, R. Determination of glyphosate
and its metabolites in plant material by reversed-polarity CE with indirect absorptiometric detection.
2010; 31, (8): 1423-1430.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Romano, E.; Proite, K.; Soares, A.; Torres, A.; Arieta, J.; Jach, G.; Mentaberry, A., and Monte, D. New
Binary Vectors for Plant Co-Transformation. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Roy-Barman, S.; Sautter, C., and Chattoo, B. B. Expression of the Lipid Transfer Protein Ace-Ampl in
Transgenic Wheat Enhances Antifungal Activity and Defense Responses. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-89
-------
677. Royer, A.; Beguin, S.; Sochor, H., and Communal, P. Y. Determination of Glufosinate Ammonium and Its
Metabolite (Ae F064619 and Ae F061517) Residues in Water by Gas Chromatography With
Tandem Mass Spectrometry After Ion Exchange Cleanup and Derivatization.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
678. Royer, A.; Beguin, S.; Tabet, J. C.; Hulot, S.; Reding, M. A., and Communal, P. Y. Determination of
glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid residues in water by gas chromatography with tandem
mass spectrometry after exchange ion resin purification and derivatization. Application on vegetable
matrixes. 2000; 72, (16): 3826-3832.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
679. RUBOW, T. STATUS FOR HERBICIDE USE IN ORNAMENTALS NURSERIES AND FORESTRY IN
DENMARK. 324; (COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 324); 2ND
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MINOR USES CALLED BY THE FEDERAL
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, JUNE 11-13,
1996. 145P. BIOLOGISCHE BUNDESANSTALT FUER LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT:
BERLIN-DAHLEM, GERMANY. ISBN 3-8263-3129-X.; 0 (324). 1996. 111-113..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
680. Ruhland, M. ; Engelhardt, G., and Pawlizki, K. A Comparative Investigation of the Metabolism of the
Herbicide Glufosinate in Cell Cultures of Transgenic Glufosinate-Resistant and Non-Transgenic
Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus) and Corn (Zea Mays).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
681. Ruiter, R.; Brande, I. van den; Stals, E.; Delaure, S.; Cornelissen, M., and D'Halluin, K. Spontaneous
Mutation Frequency in Plants Obscures the Effect of Chimeraplasty. 53, (5): 675-689.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
682. RUPPRECHT, J. K.; DACUS, S. C.; DANIEL, L. E.; SINGER, S. S.; STUMPF, K. A., and SMITH, S. M.
METABOLISM OF-14C-GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS
TREATED UNDER NORMAL FIELD CONDITIONS. 1996 Mar 24-1996 Mar 28; 211 (1-2).
1996. AGRO 56..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
683. Sabri, N.; Pelissier, B., and Teissie, J. Transient and Stable Electrotransformations of Intact Black Mexican
Sweet Maize Cells Are Obtained After Preplasmolysis. 15 (12), 924-928.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
684. SACHS, A. UPHOLDING HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 1996; W. W.
NORTON AND CO., LTD.: LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-393-31393-X(PAPER); ISBN 0-
393-0385l-3(CLOTH).; 1996 (0). 1996. 133-151..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
685. Sadanandam, A.; Uhrig, H., and Salamini, F. Protoplast Culture of 2n S. Tuberosum as a Source of Mutant
Phenotypes. 379-380.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
686. Sadi, B. B. ; Vonderheide, A. P., and Caruso, J. A. Analysis of Phosphorus Herbicides by Ion-Pairing
Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass
Spectrometry With Octapole Reaction Cell.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
687. Saeglitz, C.; Pohl, M., and Bartsch, D. Monitoring Gene Flow From Transgenic Sugar Beet Using
Cytoplasmic Male-Sterile Bait Plants. 2000.
AI-90
-------
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Saito, T.; Aoki, H.; Namera, A.; Oikawa, H.; Miyazaki, S.; Nakamoto, A., and Inokuchi, S. Mix-mode TiO-
C18 monolith spin column extraction and GC-MS for the simultaneous assay of organophosphorus
compounds and glufosinate, and glyphosate in human serum and urine.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Sakhno, L. O.; Komarnyts'kyĭ Ik; Cherep, M. N., andKuchuk, M. V. [Phosphinothricin-Resistant
Somatic Hybrids Brassica Napus + Orychophragmus Violaceus].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Salas, M. G.; Park, S. H.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Temperature Influence on Stable T-Dna
Integration in Plant Cells. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Salerno, S.; DaiPra, L., and DelleFratte, A. Analisi ambientale di due aziende di produzione di manufatti
ceramici nel comprensorio di Civita Castellana. (Environmental analysis in two manufacturing firms
of Civita Castellana disctrict (Italy)). (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2095.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SANCHO, J. V.; HERNANDEZ, F.; LOPEZ, F. J.; HOGENDOORN, E. A.; DIJKMAN, E., and VAN
ZOONEN P. Rapid determination of glufosinate, glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in
environmental water samples using precolumn fluorogenic labeling and coupled-column liquid
chromatography. 737 (1). 1996. 75-83..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SANCHO, J. V.; LOPEZ, F. J.; HERNANDEZ, F.; HOGENDOORN, E. A., and VAN ZOONEN P. RAPID
DETERMINATION OF GLUFOSINATE IN ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLES USING 9-
FLUORENYLMETHOXYCARBONYL PRECOLUMN DERIVATIZATION LARGE-VOLUME
INJECTION AND COUPLED-COLUMN LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY. 678 (1). 1994. 59-67..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Sandhu, S. Generation, Characterization and Risk Assessment of Transgenic Apomictic Bahaigrass. SOIL;
2008: 117 p. (UMI# 0822783).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Sandhu, S.; Blount, A. R.; Quesenberry, K. H., and Altpeter, F. Apomixis and ploidy barrier suppress pollen-
mediated gene flow in field grown transgenic turf and forage grass (Paspalum notatum Flugg,).
2010; 121,(5): 919-929.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Sato, K.; Jin, J. Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Miwa, T.; Suenami, K.; Takekoshi, Y., and Kanno, S. Integrated Pulsed
Amperometric Detection of Glufosinate, Bialaphos and Glyphosate at Gold Electrodes in Anion-
Exchange Chromatography.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SAUTER, H.; LAUER, M., and FRITSH, H. METABOLIC PROFILING OF PLANTS A NEW
DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUE. 1991, 288-299.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SAWAHEL, W. A. Ultrasound-mediated stable transformation of potato tuber discs. 10 (11). 1996. 821-
824..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schabenberger, O.; Tharp, B. E.; Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. Statistical Tests for Hormesis and Effective
AI-91
-------
Dosages in Herbicide Dose Response. SOIL; 1999; 91, (4): 713-721.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYPI,NHS04
700. Schafers, C.; Hommen, U.; Dembinski, M., and Gonzalez-Valero, J. F. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the
Altes Land, an Intensely Used Orchard Region in Germany: Correlation Between Community
Structure and Potential for Pesticide Exposure. 2006; 25, (12): 3275-3288. 160438.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMY,Captan,FPY,GFS,GYP,KRSM,MZB,PPX,PYM,SFR
701. Schaufele, W. R. and Pfleiderer, U. E. Trials to Control Volunteer Rape Seed, Potatoes and Weed Beets in
Herbicide Resistant Sugar Beets - First Results. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
702. Schenk, B.; Weimer, M.; Bremer, S.; van derBurg, B.; Cortvrindt, R.; Freyberger, A.; Lazzari, G.; Pellizzer,
C.; Piersma, A.; Schafer, W. R.; Seiler, A.; Witters, H., and Schwarz, M. The ReProTect Feasibility
Study, a novel comprehensive in vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants. 2010; 30, (1): 200-
218.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
703. Schenk, Barbara; Weimer, Marc; Bremer, Susanne; van der Burg, Bart; Cortvrindt, Rita; Freyberger, Alexius;
Lazzari, Giovanna; Pellizzer, Cristian; Piersma, Aldert; Sch+rifer, Wolfgang R.; Seiler, Andrea;
Witters, Hilda, and Schwarz, Michael. The ReProTect Feasibility Study, a novel comprehensive in
vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants: ReProTect Special Issue. 2010 Aug; 30, ( 1): 200-
218.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
704. Schinko, Eva; Schad, Klaus; Eys, Sema; Keller, Ullrich, and Wohlleben, Wolfgang. Phosphinothricin-
tripeptide biosynthesis: An original version of bacterial secondary metabolism?: Evolution of
Metabolic Diversity. 2009; 70, (15rŁ616): 1787-1800.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
705. Schmalenberger, A. and Tebbe, C. C. Bacterial Diversity in Maize Rhizospheres: Conclusions on the Use of
Genetic Profiles Based on Pcr-Amplified Partial Small Subunit Rrna Genes in Ecological Studies.
12 (1), 251-262.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
706. Schmalenberger, A. and Tebbe, C. C. Genetic profiling of noncultivated bacteria from the rhizospheres of
sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) reveal field and annual variability but no effect of a transgenic herbicide
resistance. 2003; 49, (1): 1-8.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
707. Schmalenberger, Achim and Tebbe, Christoph C. Bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere of a
transgenic, herbicide-resistant maize (Zea mays) and comparison to its non-transgenic cultivar
Bosphore. 2002 Apr; 40, (1): 29-37.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
708. Schmidt, C. P. and Pannell, D. J. The Role and Value of Herbicide-Resistant Lupins in Western Australian
Agriculture. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
709. Schmidt, M. A.; LaFayette, P. R.; Artelt, B. A., and Parrott, W. A. A comparison of strategies for
transformation with multiple genes via microprojectile-mediated bombardment. 2008; 44, (3): 162-
168.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
710. Scholte, M.; D'Erfurth, I.; Rippa, S.; Mondy, S.; Cosson, V.; Durand, P.; Breda, C.; Trinh, H.; Rodriguez-
AI-92
-------
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
Llorente, I.; Kondorosi, E.; Schultze, M.; Kondorosi, A., and Ratet, P. T-Dna Tagging in the Model
Legume Medicago Truncatula Allows Efficient Gene Discovery. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schulte-Hermann, R.; Wogan, G. N.; Berry, C.; Brown, N. A.; Czeizel, A.; Giavini, E.; Holmes, L. B. ;
Kroes, R.; Nau, H.; Neubert, D.; Oesch, F.; Ott, T.; Pelkonen, O.; Robert-Gnansia, E., and Sullivan,
F. M. Analysis of Reproductive Toxicity and Classification of Glufosinate-Ammonium.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SCHULZ, A.; TAGGESELLE, P.; TRIPIER, D., and BARTSCH, K. Stereospecific production of the
herbicide phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) by transamination: Isolation and characterization of a
phosphinothricin-specific transaminase from Escherichia coli. 56 (1). 1990. 1-6..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schwartz, B. M.; Kenworthy, K. E.; Engelke, M. C.; Genovesi, A. D., and Quesenberry, K. H. Heritability
Estimates for Turfgrass Performance and Stress Response inZoysia spp. 2009; 49, (6): 2113-2118.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schwartz, D.; Alijah, R.; Nussbaumer, B.; Pelzer, S., and Wohlleben, W. The Peptide Synthetase Gene Phsa
From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Is Not Juxtaposed With Other Genes Involved in
Nonribosomal Biosynthesis of Peptides.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. The Peptide Synthetase Gene Phsa From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Is Not Juxtaposed With Other
Genes Involved in Nonribosomal Biosynthesis of Peptides. 62 (2), 570-577.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schwartz, D.; Berger, S.; Heinzelmann, E.; Muschko, K.; Welzel, K., and Wohlleben, W. Biosynthetic Gene
Cluster of the Herbicide Phosphinothricin Tripeptide From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes
TÜ494.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schwartz, D.; Kaspar, S.; Kienzlen, G.; Muschko, K., and Wohlleben, W. Inactivation of the Tricarboxylic
Acid Cycle Aconitase Gene From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes TÜ494 Impairs
Morphological and Physiological Differentiation.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Schwarzlose, G. L.; Ehlhardt, M. H.; Odom, P. N.; Smith, T. L., and Strachan, W. F. Evaluation of Liberty in
Rice. 51, 221.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Scott, M. Paul; Peterson, JoanM.; Moran, Daniel L.; Sangtong, Varaporn, and Smith, LaTrice. A Wheat
Genomic Dna Fragment Reduces Pollen Transmission of Maize Transgenes by Reducing Pollen
Viability. 16, (5): 629-643.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Screpanti, C.; Accinelli, C.; Vicari, A., and Catizone, P. Glyphosate and Glufosinate-Ammonium Runoff
From a Corn-Growing Area in Italy. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SEAMAN, S. R.; BRETTLE, R. P., and GORE, S. M. Mortality from overdose among injecting drug users
recently released from prison: Database linkage study. 316 (7129). 1998. 426-428..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
See, H. H.; Hauser, P. C.; Ibrahim, W. A., and Sanagi, M. M. Rapid and Direct Determination of Glyphosate,
AI-93
-------
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
Glufosinate, and Aminophosphonic Acid by Online Preconcentration Ce With Contactless
Conductivity Detection.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SHAH, D. M.; GASSER, C. S.; DELLA-CIOPPA, G., and KISHORE, G. M. GENETIC ENGINEERING
OF HERBICIDE RESISTANCE GENES. (ED.). PLANT GENE RESEARCH: BASIC
KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION: TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL REGULATION OF PLANT
GENES. XIII+344P. SPRINGER-VERLAG: VIENNA, AUSTRIA; NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
USA. ILLUS. ISBN 3-211-82046-9; ISBN 0-387-82046-9.; 0 (0). 1988. 297-312..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shaner, D. L. Herbicide safety relative to common targets in plants and mammals. 2004; 60, (1): 17-24.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SHANER, D. L. and SINGH, B. K. HOW DOES INHIBITION OF AMINO ACID BIOSYNTHESIS KILL
PLANTS? 7TH ANNUAL PENN STATE SYMPOSIUM IN PLANT PHYSIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, MAY 28-30, 1992. XIII+386P. AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, USA. ISBN 0-943088-
23-2.; 0 (0). 1992. 174-183..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shaner, D. L.; Wiles, L., and Hansen, N. Behavior of Atrazine in Limited Irrigation Cropping Systems in
Colorado: Prior Use is Important. SOIL; 2009; 38, (5): 1861-1869.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ATZ,CPR,DMB,GFS,GYP,MTL,MTS,PDM,SFZ,TBNU,THF
—. Behavior of Atrazine in Limited Irrigation Cropping Systems in Colorado: Prior Use Is Important. 2009;
38, (5): 1861-1869. 161045.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ATZ,CPR,DMB,GFS,GYP,MTL,MTS,PDM,SFZ,TBNU,THF
Sharma, VijendraK.; Monostori, Tamas; Gobel, Cornelia; Hansch, Robert; Bittner, Florian; Wasternack,
Claus; Feussner, Ivo; Mendel, Ralf R.; Hause, Bettina, and Schulze, Jutta. Transgenic barley plants
overexpressing a 13-lipoxygenase to modify oxylipin signature. 2006 Feb; 67, ( 3): 264-276.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shen, G. Z. ; Wang, X. Q.; Yin, L. Q.; Wang, J.; Li, L., and Zhang, J. L. [Genetic Analysis of a Rolled-Leaf
Mutant in Rice Population of T-Dna Insertion],
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shen, W. H. and Hohn, B. Vectors Based on Maize Streak Virus Can Replicate to High Copy Numbers in
Maize Plants. 1995.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SHERMA, J. DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDES BY THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY. 7 (4).
1994. 265-272..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shigaki, T. ; Vyzasatya, R. R.; Sivitz, A. B.; Ward, J. M. ; Sze, H., and Hirschi, K. D. The Cre-Loxp
Recombination-Based Reporter System for Plant Transcriptional Expression Studies. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SHILLITO, R. D.; DIMAIO, J. J.; LE, T.; CARSWELL, G. K., and KRAMER, C. M. THE ACID TEST A
PH INDICATOR-BASED TEST TO IDENTIFY TRANSFORMANTS EXPRESSING PPT
ACETYL-TRANSFERASE. 1992 Apr 10-1992 Apr 16; 0 (16 PART F). 1992. 238..
AI-94
-------
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shim, Y. Y. ; Shin, W. S.; Moon, G. S., and Kim, K. H. Quantitative Analysis of Phosphinothricin-N-
Acetyltransferase in Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Pepper by an Enzyme-Linked
Immunosorbent Assay. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shinohara, M.; Tsuchida, A.; Abe, Y.; Sadakata, H.; Nada, Y.; Koizumi, R.; Matsushima, K.; Yano, S., and
Naruse, T. Hemodialysis and Hemoperfusion in the Successful Treatment of a Poisoning With a
Herbicide Containing Glufosinate Ammonium and a Surfactant.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shipitalo, M. J.; Malone, R. W., and Owens, L. B. Impact of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean and Glufosinate-
Tolerant Corn Production on Herbicide Losses in Surface Runoff. American Society of Agronomy,
677 South Segoe Rd Madison WI 53711 USA//: 2008; 37, (2): 401-408.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ACR,ATZ,GFSNH,LNR,MBZ
Shlapentokh, D. Drunkenness in the Context of Political Culture: The Case of Russian Revolutions.
(GRA&I), Issue 05, 2095.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SHORT, P. and COLBORN, T. Pesticide use in the U.S. and policy implications: A focus on herbicides. 15
(1-2). 1999. 240-275..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Shrawat, Ashok K.; Becker, Dirk, and L+|rz, Horst. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic
transformation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). 2007 Feb; 172, (2): 281-290.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Siimes, K.; Ra(dieresis)mo(dieresis), S.; Welling, L.; Nikunen, U., and Laitinen, P. Comparison of the
Behaviour of Three Herbicides in a Field Experiment Under Bare Soil Conditions. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Simmonds, D. H. and Donaldson, P. A. Genotype Screening for Proliferative Embryogenesis and Biolistic
Transformation of Short-Season Soybean Genotypes. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Simon, S.; Defrance, H., and Sauphanor, B. Effect of Codling Moth Management on Orchard Arthropods.
2007; 122, (3): 340-348.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACP,ALSV,AMTL,AZ,CPY,CYF,Captan,Cu,DMT,DOD,DU,FRM,GFSNH,GYP,HC
Z,IMC,MOIL,MP,MZB,OXD,PHSL,PRB,QZFE,RTN,SFR,SZ,TDF,THM,TPM
Simon, S.; Defrance, H., and Sauphanor, B. Effect of Codling Moth Management on Orchard Arthropods.
2007; 122, (3): 340-348. 289425.
Notes: Chemical of Concern:
24D,24DXY,ACP,ALSV,AMTL,AZ,CPY,CYF,Captan,Cu,DMT,DOD,DU,FRM,GFSNH,GYP,HC
Z,IMC,MOIL,MP,MZB,OXD,PHSL,PRB,QZFE,RTN,SFR,SZ,TDF,THM,TPM
Singh, V.; Baitha, A., and Srivastava, S. Young and Fast Growing Plants as Better Feeding Material for
Deltocephalus Vulgaris, a Leafhopper Vector of Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Phytoplasma. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Siriworakul, M and Benyasut, P. Control and Utilization of Cattail (Typha Latifolia L.). 1992.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-95
-------
746.
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
SKUTERUD, R.; KROK, R.; MOLLERHAGEN, P. J., and STEINSHOLT, P. Y. Potato haulm desiccation:
Alternatives to diquat. 9 (1-2). 1995. 39-49..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Slack, C. H.; Obermeier, M. R.; Moreno, R. E., and Martin, J. R. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)
Pers.) Control in Corn with Glufosinate and Glyphosate. SOIL; 1997; 37, 99-(ABS).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP
SMITH, A. TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14-LABELED GLUFOSINATE IN
SOILS. 37 (1). 1989. 267-271..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SMITH, A. E. FATE OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14 GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN PRAIRIE
SOILS. 1987 Aug 30-1987 Sep 4; 194 (0). 1987. AGRO 123..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Smith, A. E. Persistence and Transformation of the Herbicide [14c]Glufosinate-Ammonium in Prairie Soils
Under Laboratory Conditions. 36 (2), 393-397.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SMITH, A. E. PERSISTENCE AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14-
LABELED GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN PRAIRIE SOILS UNDER LABORATORY
CONDITIONS. 36 (2). 1988. 393-397..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Smith, A. E. Transformation of the Herbicide [14c]Glufosinate in Soils. 37 (1), 267-271.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SMITH, A. E. TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14 GLUFOSINATE IN SOILS.
1988 Sep 25-1988 Sep 30; 196 (0). 1988. AGRO-125..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SMITH, A. E. and BELYK, M. B. FIELD PERSISTENCE STUDIES WITH THE HERBICIDE
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN SASKATCHEWAN CANADA SOILS. 18 (4). 1989. 475-479..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Smith, H. C.; Street, J. E.; Kurtz, M. E., and Reynolds, D. B. Response of Non-Transgenic Rice to Liberty.
52, 12.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Snow, A. A. ; Andersen, B., and Jorgensen, R. B. Costs of Transgenic Herbicide Resistance Introgressed
From Brassica Napus Into Weedy B. Rapa. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Snow, A. A. ; Jorgensen, R. B., and Bcpc. Fitness costs associated with transgenic glufosinate tolerance
introgressed from Brassica napus ssp oleifera (oilseed rape) into weedy Brassica rapa. 1999(72):
137-142.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SOCHOR, H. GLUFOSINATE. (ED.). MANUAL OF PESTICIDE RESIDUE ANALYSIS, VOL. 2.
XVT+483P. VCH VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH: WEINHEIM, GERMANY; VCH
PUBLISHERS, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA. ISBN 3-527-27017-5; ISBN 0-89573-957-
7.; 0 (0). 1992. 217-227..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-96
-------
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
SOKOLOV, M. S.; ISMAILOV, V. YA, and TISHCHENKO, Z. A. MAIN RESULTS STATE OF AND
PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF ECOLOGICAL PLANT
PROTECTION RESEARCH OF THE ALL-RUSSIA SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF
BIOLOGICAL PLANT PROTECTION. 0 (5). 1994.80-89..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Soltani, N.; Vyn, R. J.; Van Eerd, L. L.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Effect of Reduced Herbicide
Rates on Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Corn. SOIL; 2009; 89, (5): 969-
975.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,DMM,GFS,IXF,NSF,RIM
Soltani, N.; Vyn, R. J.; Van Eerd, L. L.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Effect of Reduced Herbicide
Rates on Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Corn. 2009; 89, (5): 969-975.
285411.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,DMM,GFS,IXF,NSF,RIM
Somerville, L.; Walker, R. H., and Belcher, J. Managing Weeds in Liberty Link Cotton. 52, 239-240.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Somleva, M. N.; Tomaszewski, Z., and Conger, B. V. Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation of
Switchgrass. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Song, X.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z., and Qiang, S. Potential Gene Flow From Transgenic Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) To
Different Weedy Rice (Oryza Sativa F. Spontanea) Accessions Based on Reproductive
Compatibility.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Song, X.; Wang, Z., and Qiang, S. Agronomic Performance of Fl, F2 and F3 Hybrids Between Weedy Rice
and Transgenic Glufosinate-Resistant Rice.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Songa, E. A.; Arotiba, O. A.; Owino, J. H. O.; Jahed, N.; Baker, P. G. L., and Iwuoha, E. I. Electrochemical
detection of glyphosate herbicide using horseradish peroxidase immobilized on sulfonated polymer
matrix. 2009; 75, (2): 117-123.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SORENSEN, P. B.; MOGENSEN, B. B.; GYLDENKAERNE, S., and RASMUSSEN, A. G. Pesticide
leaching assessment method for ranking both single substances and scenarios of multiple substance
use. 36 (10). 1998.2251-2276..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Souza, J. r. MT; Venturoli, M. F.; Coelho, M. C. F., and Rech Filho, E. L. Analysis of Marker Gene/Selective
Agent Systems Alternatives to Positive Selection of Transgenic Papaya (Carica Papaya L.) Somatic
Embryos. 2001.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SPAAR, D. PLANT PROTECTION AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. 1987; 36, (10): 853-859.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SPENCER, T. M.; GORDON-KAMM, W. J.; DAINES, R. J.; START, W. G., and LEMAUX, P. G.
Bialaphos selection of stable transformants from maize cell culture. 79 (5). 1990. 625-631..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SPOONER, J. ; WYATT, L.; BRICHFORD, S. L.; LANIER, A. L.; COFFEY, S. W., and SMOLEN, M. D.
AI-97
-------
NONPOINT SOURCES. 62 (4). 1990. 537-546.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
772. Squire, G. R.; Brooks, D. R.; Bohan, D. A.; Champion, G. T.; Daniels, R. E.; Haughton, A. J.; Hawes, C.;
Heard, M. S.; Hill, M. O.; May, M. J.; Osborne, J. L.; Perry, J. N.; Roy, D. B.; Woiwod, I. P., and
Firbank, L. G. On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically
modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 2003; 358, (1439): 1779-1799.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
773. Stalikas, C. D. and Konidari, C. N. Analytical methods to determine phosphonic and amino acid group-
containing pesticides. 2001; 907, (1-2): 1-19.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
774. Stalikas, C. D. and Pilidis, G. A. Development of a method for the simultaneous determination of phosphoric
and amino acid group containing pesticides by gas chromatography with mass-selective detection -
Optimization of the derivatization procedure using an experimental design approach. 2000; 872, (1-
2): 215-225.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
775. Stalikas, C. D.; Pilidis, G. A., and Karayannis, M. I. An integrated gas chromatographic method towards the
simultaneous determination of phosphoric and amino acid group containing pesticides. 2000; 51,
(11-12): 741-746.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
776. STALKER, D. M. DEVELOPING HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN CROPS BY GENE TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY. BLACKIE AND SONS LTD.: GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, UK. ILLUS. ISBN 0-
412-02521-3; ISBN 0-216-92914-8.; 0 (0). 1990. 82-104..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
777. Stapleton, G.; Wayland, M., and Dilbeck, J. Influence of Weed Removal Timing on Corn Grain Yield
Utilizing Lightning and Liberty Herbicide Systems. 52, 26-27.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
778. Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. Evaluation of Chlorimuron, Fomesafen, and Imazethapyr as Potential Tank-
Mixture Partners for Glufosinate. 51, 11.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
779. STEER GROUP CHEM ASPECTS FOOD SURVEILL. GREAT BRITAIN MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD SURVEILLANCE PAPER NO. 41. STEERING
GROUP ON CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF FOOD SURVEILLANCE ANNUAL REPORT 1993.
1941 Oct; 0 (0). 1994. XI+94P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
780. Stein, H. H.; Rice, D. W.; Smith, B. L.; Hinds, M. A. ; Sauber, T. E.; Pedersen, C.; Wulf, D. M., and Peters,
D. N. Evaluation of corn grain with the genetically modified input trait DAS-59122-7 fed to
growing-finishing pigs. 2009; 87, (4): 1254-1260.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
781. Stewart, J. F.; Thorsness, K. B.; Maruska, D. W., and Mayberry, T. W. Weed Control With Glufosinate
Ammonium in Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Sugarbeets. 51, 103.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
782. Stiff, C. M.; Kilian, A.; Zhou Huaping; Kudrna, D. A., and Kleinhofs, A. Stable Transformation of Barley
Callus Using Biolisticr Particle Bombardment and the Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (Bar)
Gene. 1995.
AI-98
-------
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Streb, P. and Feierabend, J. Significance of Antioxidants and Electron Sinks for the Cold-Hardening-Induced
Resistance of Winter Rye Leaves to Photo-Oxidative Stress. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Stringam, G. R.; Ripley, V. L.; Love, H. K., and Mitchell, A. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Canola - the
Canadian Experience. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Strizhov, N.; Keller, M.; Mathur, J.; Koncz-Kalman, Z.; Bosch, D.; Prudovsky, E.; Schell, J.; Sneh, B.;
Koncz, C., and Zilberstein, A. A Synthetic Cryic Gene, Encoding a Bacillus Thuringiensis Delta -
Endotoxin, Confers Spodoptera Resistance in Alfalfa and Tobacco. 1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SUZUKI, A. and KAWANA, M. RAPID AND SIMPLE METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION OF
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM USING PAPER CHROMATOGRAPHY. 43 (1). 1989. 17-21..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
SWEENEY, M. W. Geographic information systems. 71 (5). 1999. 551-556..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Sweet, J. B. and Shepperson, R. The impact of releases of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape
in UK. 1998; 97, (459): 225-234.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tabe, L. M. ; Wardley-Richardson, T.; Ceriotti, A.; Aryan, A.; Mcnabb, W.; Moore, A., and Higgins, T. J. A
Biotechnological Approach to Improving the Nutritive Value of Alfalfa. 1995; 73, (9): 2752-2759.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tadesse, Y. ; Sa(acute)gi, L.; Swennen, R., and Jacobs, M. Optimisation of Transformation Conditions and
Production of Transgenic Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor) Via Microparticle Bombardment. 2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Takagi, K.; Teshima, R.; Nakajima, O.; Okunuki, H., and Sawada, J. Improved Elisa Method for Screening
Human Antigen-Specific Ige and Its Application for Monitoring Specific Ige for Novel Proteins in
Genetically Modified Foods.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Takahashi Hiroshi; Toya Tsuyoshi; Matsumiya Naoki, and Koyama Kanji. A Case of Transient Diabetes
Insipidus Associated With Poisoning by a Herbicide Containing Glufosinate. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Takahashi, M.; Nishihara, M.; Yamamura, S.; Nishizawa, S.; Irifune, K., andMorikawa, H. Stable
Transformation of Eustoma Grandiflorum by Particle Bombardment. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TAKANAKA, A. RECENT PROCESS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES IN
FOOD. 33 (3). 1992. 316-320..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Takayama, M.; Sekiguchi, H.; Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M., and Hirose, Y. [Analysis of Bialaphos and Its Active
Metabolite L-Glufosinate in Biological Specimens by Hplc].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-99
-------
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
Takenaka, M.; Verbitskiy, D.; vanderMerwe, J. A.; Zehrmann, A.; Plessmann, U.; Urlaub, H., and
Brennicke, A. In Vitro Rna Editing in Plant Mitochondria Does Not Require Added Energy. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Takimoto, I.; Christensen, A. H.; Quail, P. H.; Uchimiya, H., and Toki, S. Non-Systemic Expression of a
Stress-Responsive Maize Polyubiquitin Gene (Ubi-1) in Transgenic Rice Plants.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tan, S.; Evans, R., and Singh, B. Herbicidal Inhibitors of Amino Acid Biosynthesis and Herbicide-Tolerant
Crops. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TANAKA, J.; YAMASHITA, M., and YAMAMOTO, T. A comparative study of direct hemoperfusion and
hemodialysis for the removal of glufosinate ammonium. 33 (6). 1995. 691-694..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tanaka Junsuke; Yamashita Mamoru; Yamashita Masatomo; Matsuo Hidenori, and Yamamoto Toshinori.
Two Cases of Glufosinate Poisoning With Late Onset Convulsions. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
tAndersen, Mathias Neumann; Sausse, Christophe; Lacroix, Bernard; Caul, Sandra, and Messean, Antoine.
Agricultural studies of GM maize and the field experimental infrastructure of ECOGEN: SOIL
ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS -
ECOGEN. 2007 Aug 15; 51, (3): 175-184.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tebbe, C. C. and Reber, H. H. Degradation of [14c]Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) in Soil Under Laboratory
Conditions: Effects of Concentration and Soil Amendments on 14co2 Production. 11 (1), 62-67.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TEBBE, C. C. and REBER, H. H. Degradation of carbon-14 phosphinothricin (glufosinate) in soil under
laboratory conditions: Effects of concentration and soil amendments on carbon-14 carbon dioxide
production. 11 (1). 1991. 62-67..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TEBBE, C. C. and REBER, H. H. UTILIZATION OF THE HERBICIDE PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AS A
NITROGEN SOURCE BY SOIL BACTERIA. 29 (1). 1988. 103-105..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Termorshuizen, A. J. and Lotz, L. A. P. Does large-scale cropping of herbicide-resistant cultivars increase the
incidence of polyphagous soil-borne plant pathogens? 2002; 31,(1): 51-54.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tharp, B. E.; Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. Response of Annual Weed Species to Glufosinate and
Glyphosate. SOIL; 1999; 13, (3): 542-547.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 155453
Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NHS04
THOMPSON, C. J.; MOWA, N. R.; TIZARD, R.; CRAMERI, R.; DAVIES, J. E.; LAUWEREYS, M., and
BOTTERMAN, J. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE HERBICIDE-RESISTANCE GENE BAR
FROM STREPTOMYCES-HYGROSCOPICUS. (EURMOL BIOL ORGAN) J; 6 (9). 1987. 2519-
2524..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Thompson, D. G.; Chartrand, D. T., and Kreutzweiser, D. P. Fate and effects of azadirachtin in aquatic
AI-100
-------
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
mesocosms -1: fate in water and bottom sediments. 2004; 59, (2): 186-193.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Timmons, A. M.; Charters, Y. M.; Crawford, J. W.; Burn, D.; Scott, S. E.; Dubbels, S. J.; Wilson, N. J.;
Robertson, A.; O'brien, E. T.; Squire, G. R., and Wilkinson, M. J. Risks From Transgenic Crops.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TING, K. C. and KHO, P. GC/AED method for pesticide residue determination in fruits and vegetables. 74
(6). 1991. 991-998..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TING, K. C. and KHO, P. K. Determination of trace 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in fresh produce by gas
chromatography with boron trichloride/2-chloroethanol derivatization. 81 (1). 1998. 93-98..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TING, K. C. and TAMASHIRO, G. S. Off-line high-performance liquid chromatography and solid-phase
extraction clean-up for confirmation of pesticide residues in fresh produce by gas chromatography -
mass spectrometry. 754 (1-2). 1996.455-462..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tingay, S.; McElroy, D.; Kalla, R.; Fieg, S.; Wang, M. B.; Thornton, S., and Brettell, R. Agrobacterium
Tumefaciens-Mediated Barley Transformation. 11 (6), 1369-1376.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tingle, C. H.; Chandler, J. M.; Prostko, E. P., and Bradshaw, L. D. Herbicide Combinations for Residual
Weed Control in Roundup Ready Corn. 51, 21-22.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TIPPLE, J. RJ and LEONARD, D. RP. The residence time of stocked hatchery-reared brown trout, Salmo
trutta L., and rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), in Lake Trawsfynydd, and their
accumulation of radioactive caesium. 2 (1). 1995. 1-10..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tissier, A. F.; Marillonnet, S.; Klimyuk, V.; Patel, K.; Torres, M. A.; Murphy, G., and Jones, J. D. G.
Multiple Independent Defective Suppressor-Mutator Transposon Insertions in Arabidopsis: a Tool
for Functional Genomics. 1999.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TOLDI, O.; TOTH, S.; OREIFIG, A. S.; GONZALES, A. S.; KISS, E., and JENES, B. Phosphinothricin: A
herbicide or a synthetic cytokinin? 1999 Mar 22-1999 Mar 26; 50 (SUPPL.). 1999. 56..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Traver, M. L. Interlaboratory Crosscheck of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometers. (GRA&I), Issue
24, 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Trefry, J. H.; Rember, R. D.; Trocine, R. P., and Brown, J. S. ANIMIDA Task 7. Partitioning of Potential
Anthropogenic Chemicals between Dissolved and Particulate Phases in Arctic Rivers and the
Coastal Beaufort Sea. (GRA&I), Issue 09, 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Trieu, A. T. and Harrison, M. J. Rapid Transformation of Medicago Truncatula: Regeneration Via Shoot
Organogenesis. 1996; 16, (1/2): 6-11.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-101
-------
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
Tsaftaris, A. S.; Sapountzakis, G., and Nianiou-Obeidat, I. Foreign Detoxification Genes Expressed in Plants
for Developing Herbicide Tolerant Genotypes: Development of Glufosinate-Tolerant Vegetables.
SOIL; 1997: 325-336.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BMN,GFS
Tsai, Y. C. ; Chien, T. C.; Yi, T. H., and Ching, H. K. The Toxicity Induced by Phosphinothricin and
Methionine Sulfoximine in Rice Leaves Is Mediated Through Ethylene but Not Abscisic Acid. 2002.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tsai, Y. C. ; Hsu, Y. T., and Kao, C. H. Proline Accumulation Induced by Phosphinothricin in Rice Leaves.
2003.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Tseng, S. H.; Lo, Y. W.; Chang, P. C.; Chou, S. S., and Chang, H. M. Simultaneous Quantification of
Glyphosate, Glufosinate, and Their Major Metabolites in Rice and Soybean Sprouts by Gas
Chromatography With Pulsed Flame Photometric Detector.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TSUNODA, N. Simultaneous determination of the herbicides glyphosate, glufosinate and bialaphos and their
metabolites by capillary gas chromatography-ion-trap mass spectrometry. 637 (2). 1993. 167-173..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TUBEROSA, R.; FORLANI, G.; LUCCHESE, C., and NIELSEN, E. SELECTION AND PARTIAL
CHARACTERIZATION OF MAIZE CALLUS LINES TOLERANT TO THE NON-SELECTIVE
HERBICIDE BASTA. 1926 Oct 28-1988 Oct 28; 42 (4). 1988. 489-490..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
TYAGLOV, B. V.; BULENKOVA, M. T.; VAIBURG, A. F., and DEGTYAR', V. G. HPLC and TLC used
for the quantitative determination of bialaphos in culture broth. 0 (1). 1992. 80-82..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Unno, H.; Uchida, T.; Sugawara, H.; Kurisu, G.; Sugiyama, T.; Yamaya, T.; Sakakibara, H.; Hase, T., and
Kusunoki, M. Atomic Structure of Plant Glutamine Synthetase: a Key Enzyme for Plant
Productivity. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Upadhyay, B. M.; Smith, E. G.; Clayton, G. W.; Harker, K. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. Economics of
Integrated Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Canola. SOIL; 2006; 54, (1): 138-147.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMY,CBF,DM,GFS,HCCH,IMC,IZT,LCYT,PPCP,SXD,THM
Uze, M.; Potrykus, I., and Sautter, C. Single-Stranded Dna in the Genetic Transformation of Wheat (Triticum
Aestivum L.): Transformation Frequency and Integration Pattern. 99 (3/4), 487-495.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Van Boxtel, J.; Eskes, A., and Berthouly, M. Glufosinate as an Efficient Inhibitor of Callus Proliferation in
Coffee Tissue. 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
VAN, D. E. N. BERG R and VAN, D. E. R. LINDEN T MA. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES AND
GROUNDWATER. 1911; BASEL, SWITZERLAND. ISBN 0-8247-8991-1.; 11 (0). 1994. 293-
313..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Van Der Biezen, E. A.; Brandwagt, B. F.; Van Leeuwen, W.; Nijkamp, H. J., and Hille, J. Identification and
Isolation of the Feebly Gene From Tomato by Transposon Tagging. 1996; 251, (3): 267-280.
AI-102
-------
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
van der Hoeven, C.; Dietz, A., and Landsmann, J. Expression of Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase From the
Root Specific Par Promoter in Transgenic Tobacco Plants Is Sufficient for Herbicide Tolerance.
1994.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Van Schaik, C. E.; Van der Toorn, C.; De Jeu, M. J.; Raemakers CJJM, and Visser, R. G. F. Towards Genetic
Transformation in the Monocot Alstroemeria L. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vasil, I. K. Phosphinothricin-Resistant Crops. SOIL; 1996; 5, 85-92.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH
Vasil, V.; Castillo, A. M.; Fromm, M. E., and Vasil, I. K. Herbicide Resistant Fertile Transgenic Wheat
Plants Obtained by Microprojectile Bombardment of Regenerable Embryogenic Callus. 10 (6),
662-674.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vasil, V.; Srivastava, V.; Castillo, A. M.; Fromm, M. E., and Vasil, I. K. Rapid Production of Transgenic
Wheat Plants by Direct Bombardment of Cultured Immature Embryos. 11 (13), 1553-1558.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vaughan, L. K.; Ottis, B. V.; Prazak-Havey, A. M.; Bormans, C. A.; Sneller, C.; Chandler, J. M., and Park,
W. D. Is all red rice found in commercial rice really Oryza sativa? 2001; 49, (4): 468-476.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vaughn, K. C. and Duke, S. O. Biochemical Basis of Herbicide Resistance. 7, 141-169.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vega, J. M. ; Yu, W. C.; Kennon, A. R.; Chen, X. L., and Zhang, Z. Y. J. Improvement of Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation in Hi-II maize (Zea mays) using standard binary vectors. 2008; 27, (2):
297-305.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Velini, E. D.; Trindade, M. L. B.; Alves, E.; Cata(circumflex)neo, A. C.; Marino, C. L.; de Godoy Maia, I.;
Mori, E. S.; Furtado, E. L.; Guerrini, I. A., and Wilcken, C. F. Eucalyptus Ests Corresponding to the
Enzyme Glutamine Synthetase and the Protein Dl, Sites of Action of Herbicides That Cause
Oxidative Stress. 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vencill, W. K.; MacDonald, G. E., and Eastin, E. F. Comparison of Weed Management Systems in Roundup
Ready, Liberty Link, Sr, and Non-Transgenic Corn. 52, 26.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vendruscolo, Eliane Cristina Gruszka; Schuster, Ivan; Pileggi, Marcos; Scapim, Carlos Alberto; Molinari,
Hugo Bruno Correa; Marur, Celso Jamil, and Vieira, Luiz Gonzaga Esteves. Stress-induced
synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat. 2007 Oct 19-; 164, (10):
1367-1376.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Vengadesan, G.; Amutha, S.; Muruganantham, M.; Anand, R. P., and Ganapathi, A. Transgenic Acacia
Sinuata From Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Transformation of Hypocotyls. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-103
-------
846. Vengadesan, G.; Prem Anand, R.; Selvaraj, N.; Perl-Treves, R., and Ganapathi, A. Transfer and Expression of
Npt Ii and Bar Genes in Cucumber (Cucumis Sativus L.). 2005.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
847. VERMEULEN, A. C. Elaborating chironomid deformities as bioindicators of toxic sediment stress: The
potential application of mixture toxicity concepts. 32 (3). 1995. 265-285..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
848. Vermij, P. Liberty Link rice raises specter of tightened regulations. 2006; 24, (11): 1301-1302.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
849. Vianna, G. R.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; Silva, L. de; Rech, E. L., and Aragao, F. J. L. Fragment Dna
as Vector for Genetic Transformation of Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). 99, (3-4): 371-378.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
850. VIAUX, P. and BODET, J. M. SET-ASIDE IN FRANCE HOW TO USE FRENCH REGULATION? 1950;
SYMPOSIUM, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, UK, SEPTEMBER 15-18, 1992. XI+283P. BRITISH
CROP PROTECTION COUNCIL: FARNHAM, ENGLAND, UK. ILLUS. MAPS. PAPER. ISBN
0-948404-61-2.; 0 (0). 1992. 243-248..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
851. Vinnemeier, J.; Droge-Laser, W.; Pistorius, E. K., and Broer, I. Purification and Partial Characterization of
the Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Tu494 Phosphinothricin-N-Acetyltransferase Mediating
Resistance to the Herbicide Phosphinothricin in Transgenic Plants. 1995.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
852. Visarada KBRS and Sarma, N. P. Transformation of Indica Rice Through Particle Bombardment: Factors
Influencing Transient Expression and Selection. 2004; 48, (1): 25-31.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
853. VREEKEN, R. J.; SPEKSNIJDER, P.; BOBELDIJK-PASTOROVA, I., and NOIJ, T. HM. Selective analysis
of the herbicides glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water by on-line solid-phase
extraction-high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. 794
(1-2). 1998. 187-199..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
854. WALTER, C.; BROER, I.; HILLEMANN, D., and PUEHLER, A. High frequency, heat-treatment-induced
inactivation of the phosphinothricin resistance gene in transgenic single cell suspension cultures of
Medicago sativa. 235 (2-3). 1992. 189-196..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
855. WALTER, C.; SMITH, D. R., and GRACE, L. J. MAKING A HERBICIDE SELECTIVE BY GENETIC
ENGINEERING OF PINUS RADIATA. ROTORUA, NEW ZEALAND, MARCH 20-24, 1995.
VTI+197P. NEW ZEALAND FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE: ROTORUA, NEW ZEALAND.;
0 (0). 1995. 167-169..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
856. Wang, C. J. and Liu, Z. Q. Foliar uptake of pesticides-Present status and future challenge. 2007 Jan; 87, (1):
1-8.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
857. Wang, K. C.; Chen, S. M.; Hsu, J. F.; Cheng, S. G., and Lee, C. K. Simultaneous detection and quantitation
of highly water-soluble herbicides in serum using ion-pair liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry. 2008; 876, (2): 211-218.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-104
-------
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
Wang, M. B. and Waterhouse, P. M. A Rapid and Simple Method of Assaying Plants Transformed With
Hygromycin or Ppt Resistance Genes. 15 (3), 209-215.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wang, Y. L. ; Xu, M. X.; Yin, G. X.; Tao, L. L.; Wang, D. W., and Ye, X. G. Transgenic Wheat Plants
Derived from Agrobacterium-mediated Transformation of Mature Embryo Tissues. 2009; 37, (1): 1-
12.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wang, Z. Y. ; Takamizo, T.; Iglesias, V. A.; Osusky, M.; Nagel, J.; Potrykus, I., and Spangenberg, G.
Transgenic Plants of Tall Fescue (Festuca Arundinacea Schreb.) Obtained by Direct Gene Transfer
to Protoplasts. 10 (6), 691-696.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wang, Zinan ; Xiao, Ying; Chen, Wansheng; Tang, Kexuan, and Zhang, Lei. Functional expression of
Vitreoscilla hemoglobin (VHb) in Arabidopsis relieves submergence, nitrosative, photo-oxidative
stress and enhances antioxidants metabolism. 2009 Jan; 176, (1): 66-77.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Watanabe, M.; Sumida, N.; Murakami, S.; Anzai, H.; Thompson, C. J.; Tateno, Y., and Murakami, T. A
Phosphonate-Induced Gene Which Promotes Penicillium-Mediated Bioconversion of Cis-
Propenylphosphonic Acid to Fosfomycin.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Watanabe, S. [Rapid Analysis of Glufosinate by Improving the Bulletin Method and Its Application to
Soybean and Corn],
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. [Simultaneous Analysis of Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Vegetables and Fruits by Gc-Fpd].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WATANABE, T. DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON MAMMALIAN
EMBRYOS IN VITRO. 1927 Jul 29-1995 Jul 29; 35 (3). 1995. 371..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON MAMMALIAN EMBRYOS
IN VITRO (NOT DUPLICATE). 1995 Jul 27-1995 Jul 29; 52 (4). 1995. 25B-26B..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WATANABE, T.; SAKURADA, K.; ISHIKAWA, H., and IWASE, T. INDUCTION OF APOPTOSIS BY
GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN DEVELOPING RAT EMBRYOS IN CULTURE. 1914 Jul 16-
1997 Jul 16; 37 (3). 1997. 295..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Watanabe, T. and Sano, T. Neurological Effects of Glufosinate Poisoning With a Brief Review . 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wauchope, R. D.; Estes, T. L.; Allen, R.; Baker, J. L.; Hornsby, A. G.; Jones, R. L.; Richards, R. P., and
Gustafson, D. I. Predicted Impact of Transgenic, Herbicidetolerant Corn on Drinking Water Quality
in Vulnerable Watersheds of the Mid-Western Usa.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wehrkamp-Richter, Sophie; Degroote, Fabienne; Laffaire, Jean-Baptiste; Paul, Wyatt; Perez, Pascual, and
Picard, Georges. Characterisation of a new reporter system allowing high throughput in planta
screening for recombination events before and after controlled DNA double strand break induction.
AI-105
-------
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
2009 Apr; 47, (4): 248-255.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Weigel, D.; Ji Hoon Ahn; Blazquez, M. A.; Borevitz, J. O.; CMstensen, S. K.; Fankhauser, C.; Ferrandiz,
C.; Kardailsky, I.; Malancharuvil, E. J.; Neff, M. M.; Nguyen, J. T.; Sato, S.; Wang, Z. Y.; Xia, Y.;
Dixon, R. A.; Harrison, M. J.; Lamb, C. J.; Yanofsky, M. F., and Chory, J. Activation Tagging in
Arabidopsis. 2000.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wendler, C.; Barniske, M., and Wild, A. Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis and
Photorespiration of C3 and C4 Plants. SOIL; 1990; 24, (1): 55-61.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wendler, C. and Wild, A. Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis and Photorespiration.
INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON HERBICIDES ACTIVE IN THE CHLOROPLAST,
MONHEIM, WEST GERMANY, AUGUST 13-15, 1989.//: SOIL; 1990; 45, (5): 535-537.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
West, &Nbsp and T. Incorporating multiresolution analysis with multiclassifiers and decision fusion for
hyperspectral remote sensing. 2009.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WESTON, L. A. and SCOTT, J. E. COVER CROP AND HERBICIDE EFFECT ON SEEDLING
ESTABLISHMENT IN NO-TILL SYSTEMS. 0 (SUPPL.). 1989. 94..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wheeler, C. C.; Baldwin, F. L.; Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A., and Rutledge, J. S. Potential for Broad-
Spectrum Control of Weeds in Glufosinate-Tolerant Rice. 52, 14.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wheeler, C. C.; Baldwin, F. L.; Talbert, R. E., and Webster, E. P. Weed Control in Glufosinate-Tolerant Rice.
51, 34-35.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Whitham, S. A.; Yamamoto, M. L., and Carington, J. C. Selectable Viruses and Altered Susceptibility
Mutants in Arabidopsis Thaliana. 96 (2), 772-777.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WIEN, H. C. COLLOQUIUM ON SUSTAINABLE COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTION WITH
MINIMAL USE OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES HELD AT THE 85TH
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE ANNUAL MEETING EAST
LANSING MICHIGAN USA AUGUST 9 1988. 25 (2). 1990. 154-171..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wiesbrook, M. L.; Johnson, W. G.; Hart, S. E.; Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. Comparison of Weed
Management Systems in Narrow-Row, Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine
max). SOIL; 2001; 15, (1): 122-128.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FSF,GFS,GYP,IZT,PDM
Wild, A. and Wendler, C. Effect of Glucosinate (Phosphinothricin) on Amino Acid Content, Photorespiration
and Photosynthesis. SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF PESTICIDE CHEMISTRY,
HAMBURG, GERMANY, AUGUST 1990.//: SOIL; 1990; 30, (4): 422-424.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Williams, B. J. and Linscombe, S. D. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa Crus-Galli) Control in Dry-Seeded
AI-106
-------
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
Glufosinate Tolerant Rice. 52, 12.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WILLMS, L. GLUFOSINATE A NEW AMINO ACID WITH UNEXPECTED PROPERTIES. 27 (2).
1989. 219-221..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WILLOUGHBY, I. and CLAY, D. FORESTRY COMMISSION FIELD BOOK 14. HERBICIDES FOR
FARM WOODLANDS AND SHORT ROTATION COPPICE. 0 (14). 1996. III+60P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WILLOU GHB Y, I. and DEWAR, J. FORESTRY COMMISSION FIELD BOOK NO. 8. THE USE OF
HERBICIDES IN THE FOREST 1995. 1971 Mar 30; 0 (8). 1995. VIII+318P..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Willoughby, I. and Palmer, C. Forestry Commission Field Book 15. Weed Control in Christmas Tree
Plantations. SOIL; 1997: 41 p.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,PZM
WILSON, R. D.; GERONIMO, J., and ARMBRUSTER, J. A. 2,4-D Dissipation in field soils after
applications of 2,4-D dimethylamine salt and 2,4-D 2-ethylhexyl ester. 16 (6). 1997. 1239-1246..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Winterhagen, Patrick; Dubois, Cornelia; Sinn, Melanie; Wetzel, Thierry, and Reustle, G+ tz M. Gene
silencing and virus resistance based on defective interfering constructs in transgenic Nicotiana
benthamiana is not linked to accumulation of siRNA. 2009 Aug; 47, (8): 739-742.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Witrzens, B.; Brettell, R. I. S.; Murray, F. R.; McElroy, D.; Li, Z., and Dennis, E. S. Comparison of Three
Selectable Marker Genes for Transformation of Wheat by Microprojectile Bombardment. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wohlleben, W.; Arnold, W.; Broer, I.; Hillemann, D.; Strauch, E.; PÜ, and Hler, A. Nucleotide
Sequence of the Phosphinothricin N-Acetyltransferase Gene From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes
TÜ494 and Its Expression in Nicotiana Tabacum.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WOHLLENBEN, W.; ARNOLD, W.; BROER, I.; HILLEMANN, D.; STRAUCH, E., and PUEHLER, A.
NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE OF THE PHOSPHINOTHRICIN N-ACETYLTRANSFERASE
GENE FROM STREPTOMYCES-VIRIDOCHROMOGENES TU494 AND ITS EXPRESSION IN
NICOTIANA-TABACUM. (AMST); 70 (1). 1988. 25-38..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wright, M. S.; Launis, K.; Bowman, C.; Hill, M.; DiMaio, J.; Kramer, C., and Shillito, R. D. A Rapid Visual
Method to Identify Transformed Plants. 32 (1), 11-13.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
WRIGHT, M. S.; SHILLITO, R. D.; LAUNIS, K.; BOWMAN, C.; HILL, M., and DIMAIO, J. SCREENING
OF ZEA MAYS PLANTS FOR PHOSPHINOTHRICIN RESISTANCE USING THE
CHLOROPHENOL RED TEST. 1994 Jun 4-1994 Jun 4; 30A (3 PART 2). 1994. 59..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Wu, A. Z.; Tang, K. X.; Pan, J. S.; Cai, R.; Shen, D. L., and Pan, C. G. [Production of Herbicide-Resistant
Rice With Transforming Heterogene].
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-107
-------
895. Wu, H.; McCormac, A. C.; Elliott, M. C., and Chen, D. F. Agrobacterium-Mediated Stable Transformation of
Cell Suspension Cultures of Barley (Hordeum Vulgare). 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
896. Wuilloud, R. G.; Shah, M.; Kannamkumarath, S. S., and Altamirano, J. C. The potential of inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometric detection for capillary electrophoretic analysis of pesticides.
2005; 26, (7-8): 1598-1605.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
897. YAMANO, T. and MORITA, S. Effects of pesticides on isoLAted rat hepatocytes, mitochondria, and
microsomes II. 1995 Jan 28.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
898. YAMAZAKI, M.; SAITO, K.; MURAKOSHI, I.; ANZAI, H.; YONEYAMA, K., and YAMAGUCHI, I.
INTRODUCTION OF BAR GENE INTO ATROPA-BELLADONNA USING RI-BINARY
VECTOR SYSTEM AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS. 1991 Jul 28-
1991 Aug 1; 96 (1 SUPPL.). 1991. 161..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
899. Yamazaki, M.; Son, L.; Hayashi, T.; Morita, N.; Asamizu, T.; Mourakoshi, I., and Saito, K. Transgenic
Fertile Scoparia Dulcis L., A Folk Medicinal Plant, Conferred With a Herbicide-Resistant Trait
Using an Ri Binary Vector. 15(5), 317-321.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
900. YAMAZAKI, M.; SON, L.; SAITO, K.; MURAKOSHI, I.; HAYASHI, T.; MORITA, N., and ASAMIZU, T.
TRANSGENIC HERBICIDE-RESISTANT PLANTS OF SCOPARIA-DULCIS L. A FOLK
MEDICINAL PLANT BY USING AN RI BINARY VECTOR. 1993 Jul 31-1993 Aug 4; 102 (1
SUPPL.). 1993. 176..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
901. Yan, N.; Zhou, L.; Zhu, Z. F.; Zhang, H. G.; Zhou, X. M., and Chen, X. G. Constant pressure-assisted head-
column field-amplified sample injection in combination with in-capillary derivatization for
enhancing the sensitivity of capillary electrophoresis. 2009; 1216, (20): 4517-4523.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
902. Yang, L. T. ; Pan, A. H.; Zhang, H. B.; Guo, J. C.; Yin, C. S., and Zhang, D. B. Event-specific qualitative and
quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis for genetically modified canola T45. 2006; 54, (26):
9735-9740.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
903. Yang, R. C. ; Thiagarajah, M. R.; Bansal, V. K; Stringam, G. R., and Rahman, M. H. Detecting and
Estimating Segregation Distortion and Linkage Between Glufosinate Tolerance and Blackleg
Resistance in Brassica Napus L. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
904. YANG, S. L. ; ZENG, J. Z.; WU, Y. Q.; ZHU, X. P.; WANG, D. J., and ZHANG, J. Stability expression of
herbicide resistant gene and luciferase gene in calli derived from wheat protoplasts. 35 (11). 1993.
825-830..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
905. Yang, Tao; Zhou, Na; Zhang, Yongchun; Zhang, Wei; Jiao, Kui, and Li, Guicun. Synergistically improved
sensitivity for the detection of specific DNA sequences using polyaniline nanofibers and multi-
walled carbon nanotubes composites. 2009 Mar 15-; 24, (7): 2165-2170.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-108
-------
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
Yao, Q. A.; Simion, E.; William, M.; Krochko, J., and Kasha, K. J. Biolistic Transformation of Haploid
Isolated Microspores of Barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.). 1997.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ye, G. N.; Colburn, S. M.; Xu, C. W.; Hajdukiewicz, P. T. J., and Staub, J. M. Persistence of Unselected
Transgenic Dna During a Plastid Transformation and Segregation Approach to Herbicide Resistance.
133, (1): 402-410.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
YE, J.; LETCHER, S. V., and RAND, A. G. Piezoelectric biosensor for detection of Salmonella
typhimurium. 62 (5). 1997. 1067-1071, 1086..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Ye, X. G. and Qin, H. [Obtaining Marker-Free Transgenic Soybean Plants With Optimal Frequency by
Constructing Three T-Dnas Binary Vector],
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Yeiser, J. L. Krenite or Finale Mixed With Arsenal Ac for Site Preparation—a Demonstration. 49, 119-121.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
YOO, W. and RAND, A. R. Antibacterial effect of glucose oxidase on growth of Pseudomonas fragi as
related to pH. 60 (4). 1995. 868-871, 879..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. Weed Management in Liberty Link Corn. 52, 24-25.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Yoshimura, Y.; Beckie, H. J., and Matsuo, K. Transgenic Oilseed Rape Along Transportation Routes and Port
of Vancouver in Western Canada. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Yoshioka, N.; Asano, M.; Kuse, A.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Nagasaki, Y., and Ueno, Y. Rapid Determination of
Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Bialaphos, and Their Major Metabolites in Serum by Liquid
Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Using Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
YOU, W. and BARKER, A. V. EFFECT OF ROOT-APPLIED GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM ON FREE
AMMONIUM ACCUMULATION IN TOMATO PLANTS. 33 (2). 1998. 209..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Yun, C. S.; Hasegawa, H.; Nanamiya, H.; Terakawa, T., and Tozawa, Y. Novel Bacterial N-Acetyltransferase
Gene for Herbicide Detoxification in Land Plants and Selection Maker in Plant Transformation.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ZAKHARENKO, V. A. and MEL'NIKOV, N. N. PESTICIDES IN PRESENT-DAY WORLD. 0 (1). 1996.
100-108..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ZEISS, H. J. AN EFFICIENT ASYMMETRIC SYNTHESIS OF BOTH ENANTIOMERS OF
PHOSPHINOTHRICIN. 28 (12). 1987. 1255-1258..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
—. Enantioselective synthesis of both enantiomers of phosphinothricin via asymmetric hydrogenation of
alpha-acylamido acrylates. 56 (5). 1991. 1783-1788..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-109
-------
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
ZEISS, H. J. Enantioselective synthesis of L-phosphinothricin from L-methionine and L-glutamic acid via L-
vinylglycine. 48 (38). 1992. 8263-8270..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ZEISS, H. J. Recent advances in the stereoselective synthesis of L-phosphinothricin. 41 (3). 1994. 269-277..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ZELDIN, E. L.; SERRES, R. A., and MCCOWN, B. H. HERBICIDE TOLERANCE OF TRANSGENIC
'STEVENS' CRANBERRY PLANTS DEPENDS ON THE TEST ENVIRONMENT. 1998 Jul 12-
1998 Jul 15; 33 (3). 1998.516..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhang, C. and Ghabrial, S. A. Development of Bean Pod Mottle Virus-Based Vectors for Stable Protein
Expression and Sequence-Specific Virus-Induced Gene Silencing in Soybean. 2006.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhang, S.; Warkentin, D.; Sun, B.; Zhong, H., and Sticklen, M. Variation in the Inheritance of Expression
Among Subclones for Unselected (Uida) and Selected (Bar) Transgenes in Maize (Zea Mays L.).
1996.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhang, W.; Webster, E. P.; Lanclos, D. Y., and Griffin, J. L. Hybridization Potential From Glufosinate-
Resistant Rice Lines to Red Rice (Oryza Sativa). 52, 232-233.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhao, Y.; Qian, Q.; Wang, H., and Huang, D. Hereditary Behavior of Bar Gene Cassette Is Complex in Rice
Mediated by Particle Bombardment. 2007.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhong, Heng ; Zhang, Shibo; Warkentin, Donal; Sun, Baolin; Wu, Tiyun; Wu, Ray, and Sticklen, Mariam B.
Analysis of the functional activity of the 1.4-kb 5'-region of the rice actin 1 gene in stable transgenic
plants of maize (Zea mays L.). 1996 Apr 19; 116, (1): 73-84.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhou, L.; Luo, Z.; Wang, S.; Hui, Y.; Hu, Z., and Chen, X. In-Capillary Derivatization and Laser-Induced
Fluorescence Detection for the Analysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides by Micellar Electrokinetic
Chromatography.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhou, X.; Chandrasekharan, M. B., and Hall, T. C. High Rooting Frequency and Functional Analysis of Gus
and Gfp Expression in Transgenic Medicago Truncatula All. 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhu, H.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Krishnaveni, S.; Wilde, G.; Jeoung, J. M., and Liang, G. H. Biolistic
Transformation of Sorghum Using a Rice Chitinase Gene. 1998.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
Zhu, T.; Peterson, D. J.; Tagliani, L.; St Clair, G.; Baszczynski, C. L., and Bowen, B. Targeted Manipulation
of Maize Genes in Vivo Using Chimeric Rna/Dna Oligonucleotides.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
ZIEGLER, C. and WILD, A. THE EFFECT OF BIALAPHOS ON AMMONIUM-ASSIMILATION AND
PHOTOSYNTHESIS II. EFFECT ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND PHOTORESPIRATION. 44 (1-
2). 1989. 103-108..
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
AI-110
-------
933. Zimmerman, L. R.; Thurman, E. M., and Ziegler, A. C. Method of Analysis and Quality Assurance Practices
by the U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Group-Determination of Geosmin
and Methylisoborneol in Water using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2004.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS
934. Zuver, K. A.; Bernards, M. L.; Kells, J. J.; Sprague, C. L.; Medlin, C. R., and Loux, M. M. Evaluation of
Postemergence Weed Control Strategies in Herbicide-Resistant Isolines of Corn (Zea mays). SOIL;
2006; 20, (1): 172-178.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTL,NSF,RIM
AI-111
-------
Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (sorted by effect)
The following table provides a complete list of glufosinate-ammonium studies accepted into the ECOTOX database since 2008, grouped by effect. Any studies accepted into
ECOTOX prior to that date were considered in the Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D345696, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190).
The complete code list for ECOTOX can be found at http://cfpub.epa.20v/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdf.
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
FLRS
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
H202
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
MLDH
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
114622
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
MLDH
LOAEL
1
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
NOCO
NOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
ENZ
CTLS
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
ENZ
PODA
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
ENZ
SODA
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
114622
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
BCM
ENZ
SODA
LOAEL
0.5
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
CEL
GEN
CLBM
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
CEL
GEN
PSBM
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
CEL
GEN
PSCM
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
CEL
GEN
RBCM
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
114622
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
CEL
GEN
RBCM
LOAEL
0.25
d
F
10
mg/L
100
114622
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
POP
POP
CHLA
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
POP
POP
CHLB
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
118900
aquatic
Chlorella
vulgaris
Green Algae
POP
POP
CHLO
LOAEL
2
d
F
10
mg/L
100
100972
aquatic
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquatic
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
AII-1
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.6
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.6
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.4
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.6
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.6
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.3
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
AII-2
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
0.4
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
1.1
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
AII-3
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
100972
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
d
A
2.2
Al kg/ha
100
95840
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
1
gs
A
1
Al kg/ha
100
95840
aquat
c
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
1
hv
A
1
Al kg/ha
100
150127
aquat
c
Scenedesmus
opoliensis
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
ASBT
NOAEL
10
d
F
10
uM
100
150127
aquat
c
Scenedesmus
opoliensis
Green Algae
BCM
BCM
TBAR
LOAEL
10
d
F
10
uM
100
150127
aquat
c
Scenedesmus
opoliensis
Green Algae
BCM
ENZ
CTLS
LOAEL
10
d
F
10
uM
100
150127
aquat
c
Scenedesmus
opoliensis
Green Algae
PHY
PHY
PSYN
LOAEL
10
d
F
10
uM
100
150127
aquat
c
Scenedesmus
opoliensis
Green Algae
POP
POP
DBMS
LOAEL
10
d
F
10
uM
100
155517
aquat
c
Spea
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LC01
2
d
A
1.41
ae mg/L
24.5
155517
aquat
c
Spea
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LC01
2
d
A
1.75
ae mg/L
24.5
155517
aquat
c
Spea
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LC50
2
d
A
3.55
ae mg/L
24.5
AII-4
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
1BBB17
aquatic
Spea
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LCBO
2
d
A
3.7
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spea
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
2
d
A
O.B
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
bombifrons
Plains Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
2
d
A
O.B
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LC01
2
d
A
4.2
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LC01
2
d
A
2.78
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LCBO
2
d
A
4.8B
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
LCBO
2
d
A
B.BB
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
2
d
A
O.B
ae mg/L
24.B
1BBB17
aquatic
Spec
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
2
d
A
O.B
ae mg/L
24.B
1BB44B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
3
d
F
0.1424
lb/acre
100
1BB44B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
3
d
F
0.1424
lb/acre
100
64483
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
BMAS
EDBO
14
d
A
0.17711
lb/acre
100
1B40BB
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
d
A
400
ae g/ha
100
1BB883
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
F
0.267
lb/acre
100
1BB883
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
F
0.267
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.089
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.2447B
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.133B
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.222B
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.3B6
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.222B
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.3B6
lb/acre
100
1BB89B
terrestrial
Abutilon
theophrasti
Butter Pr
nt
POP
POP
DBMS
ECBO
14
d
A
0.222B
lb/acre
100
AII-5
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
pseudoplatanus
Sycamore
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
0.669
pseudoplatanus
Sycamore
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
0.669
houstonianum
Ageratum
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
sp.
Whiteweed
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
cepa
Common Onion
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
cepa
Common Onion
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.3994142
cepa
Common Onion
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
91
0.594075
vineale
Field Garlic
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
3.1
sp-
Alyssum
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
35
0.73144
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
palmer
Palmer's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
powelli
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
powelli
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
powelli
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
powelli
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
powelli
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
powellii
Powell's Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
0.4183
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
14
0.4183
AII-6
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
LETH
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
0.4183
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.0445
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
400
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
DBMS
EC50
14
0.098612
retroflexus
Green Amaranth
POP
POP
DBMS
EC50
14
0.035155
rudis
Common Waterhemp
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
rudis
Common Waterhemp
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
rudis
Common Waterhemp
REP
REP
SEPD
LOAEL
hv
sp-
Amara nth
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.73144
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
GRO
GRO
BMAS
NOAEL
29
0.6675
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
29
0.6675
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
74
0.5352
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
44
0.5352
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
400
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
artemisiifolia
Common Ragweed
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
29
0.6675
trifida
Blood Ragweed
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
21
24
AII-7
-------
ty
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
majus
Snapd ragon
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
sp.
Snapd ragon
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
35
0.73144
thaliana
Mouse-Ear Cress
BCM
BCM
H202
LOAEL
99
thaliana
Mouse-Ear Cress
BCM
BCM
H202
NOAEL
99
thaliana
Mouse-Ear Cress
BCM
BCM
H202
NOAEL
99
thaliana
Mouse-Ear Cress
BCM
BCM
H202
NOAEL
99
thaliana
Mouse-Ear Cress
BCM
BCM
H202
NOAEL
99
syriaca
Common Milkweed
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
10
0.32112
sp-
Aster
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
gangetica
Philippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
10
25
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
42
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
10
25
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
42
0.446
gangetica
Phi
ippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
gangetica
Philippine Violet
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
fatua
Red Oats
GRO
GRO
BMAS
LOAEL
14
0.356
fatua
Red Oats
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
fatua
Red Oats
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
sativa
Common Oat
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.1929253
sativa
Common Oat
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
59
0.2231853
AII-8
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
sativa
Common Oat
REP
REP
SEPD
ICBO
59
0.1328859
sterilis
Animated Oats
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
21
0.139196
sterilis
Animated Oats
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
21
0.347545
bassiana
Fungus
POP
POP
PGRT
LOAEL
10
0.268492
bassiana
Fungus
POP
POP
PGRT
LOAEL
14
0.268492
bassiana
Fungus
REP
REP
SPRD
LOAEL
14
0.268492
sp.
Beet
BCM
BCM
SUGA
NOAEL
hv
0.534
sp-
Beet
BCM
BCM
SUGA
NOAEL
hv
0.534
sp-
Beet
BCM
BCM
SUGA
NOAEL
hv
0.356
sp-
Bougainvillea
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
sp-
Bougainvillea
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
gracilis
Blue Grama
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.1031955
gracilis
Blue Grama
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
78
0.1495556
gracilis
Blue Grama
REP
REP
VEGR
IC50
78
0.0899701
napus
Colza
BCM
BCM
DRYM
LOAEL
200
napus
Colza
BCM
BCM
DRYM
LOAEL
200
napus
Colza
BCM
BCM
DRYM
LOAEL
200
napus
Colza
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
1000
napus
Colza
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
1000
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.445
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.445
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.534
napus
napus
Colza
Colza
POP
POP
POP
POP
BMAS
BMAS
NOAEL
NOAEL
hv
0.534
0.445
AII-9
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
24.5
24.5
24.5
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.445
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
35
0.356
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
84
0.356
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
84
0.356
napus
Colza
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
84
0.356
napus
Colza
POP
POP
PGRT
IC50
0.0000054
oleracea ssp. italica
Broccoli
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
oleracea ssp. italica
Broccoli
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
141
0.594075
oleracea ssp. italica
Broccoli
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0404327
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.0267
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.05162
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.03916
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.05162
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.06408
rapa var. rapa
Turnip
GRO
GRO
WGHT
ED50
10
0.06942
catharticus
Rescuegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
catharticus
Rescuegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
tectorum
Downy Brome
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
3.1
cognatus
Great Plains Toad
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
138
cognatus
Great Plains Toad
MOR
MOR
SURV
NOAEL
138
cognatus
Great Plains Toad
MOR
MOR
SURV
NOAEL
138
chinensis
China Aster
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
14
0.73144
bursa-pastoris
Shepherd'S-Purse
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0296993
bursa-pastoris
Shepherd'S-Purse
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
38
0.0385904
All-10
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
bursa-pastoris
Shepherd'S-Purse
REP
REP
NPOD
ICBO
38
0.0369261
Bell Pepper
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
sp-
Pepper
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
Bright-Eyes
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
cristata
Crested Cock's Comb
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
56
0.73144
sp-
Cock's Comb
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
cyanus
Bachelor'S-Button
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0061143
asiatica
Asiatic Pennywort
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.5352
maculata
Spotted Spurge
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
0.74928
album
Lamb's-Quarters
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
21
24
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
10
0.12488
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.005162
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.06408
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.382789
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.033909
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.045746
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
14
0.20915
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
44
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
74
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
146
0.5352
All-11
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.5352
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
400
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
28
0.178
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
album
Lamb's-Quarters
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
158
0.9812
odorata
Jack In The Bush
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
0.446
odorata
intybus
Jack In The Bush
Chicory
POP
PHY
POP
INJ
ABND
GINJ
LOAEL
LOAEL
84
30.44
0.446
1.0704
All-12
-------
ty
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cichorium
intybus
Chicory
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
273.9
6
1.0704
Clerodendrum
splendens
Flaming Glorybower
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
Clerodendrum
splendens
Flaming Glorybower
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
Cochliobolus
miyabeanus
Brown Spot
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
Cochliobolus
miyabeanus
Brown Spot
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
Cochliobolus
miyabeanus
Brown Spot
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
Cochliobolus
miyabeanus
Brown Spot
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
99
Cochliobolus
miyabeanus
Brown Spot
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
99
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.41924
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.41924
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
74
0.5352
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
44
0.5352
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.41924
Conyza
canadensis
Butterweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.41924
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf Tickseed
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
14
0.73144
Cucumis
sativus
Cucumber
GRO
GRO
BMAS
NOAEL
0.05
Cucumis
sativus
Cucumber
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
76
0.0259613
Cucumis
sativus
Cucumber
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0209951
Cucurbita
pepo
Vegetable Marrow
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
0.125
All-13
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
LETH
reflexa
Giant Dodder
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
reflexa
Giant Dodder
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
90
0.5
dactylon
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.81172
dactylon
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.42816
dactylon
Bermudagrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.90984
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.77604
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.65116
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.33896
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.74928
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.78496
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.39248
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.51736
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.446
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
1.18636
sp.
Bermudagrass
GRO
GRO
VGOR
IC50
31
0.7136
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.32112
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.39248
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.39248
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.16948
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.33896
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.2676
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.29436
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.223
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
IC50
17
0.24976
All-14
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
sp-
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
ICBO
17
0.446
sp.
Bermudagrass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
ICBO
17
0.446
esculentus
Yellow Nutsedge
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.4
esculentus
Yellow Nutsedge
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
esculentus
Yellow Nutsedge
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
rotundus
Purple Nutsedge
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
rotundus
Purple Nutsedge
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
sp-
Dahlia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
56
0.73144
sp-
Dahlia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
stramonium
Jimsonweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
stramonium
Jimsonweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
barbatus
Sweet-William
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
14
0.73144
sp-
Pink
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
micrantha
Dichondra
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.5352
micrantha
Dichondra
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
4.9
0.5352
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.73144
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
All-15
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
sanguinalis
Purple Crabgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
146
0.5352
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
fs
0.299752
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.220987
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0519404
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
fs
0.050552
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.61321
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
fs
0.525723
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.025009
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
fs
0.055269
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0408866
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
14
0.16554
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
crus-galli
Barnyard Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
25
0.267
phyllopogon
Rice Barnyardgrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
0.16948
phyllopogon
Rice Barnyardgrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
0.12488
sp.
Oil Palm
GRO
GRO
NLEF
NOAEL
112
0.712
sp-
Oil Palm
REP
REP
FRUT
NOAEL
224
0.712
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.4183
All-16
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
1BBB23
terrestrial
Eleusine
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Eleusine
indica
Goosegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Elymus
canadensis
Canada Wild Rye
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
d
A
0.B9407B
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Elymus
canadensis
Canada Wild Rye
POP
POP
BMAS
ICBO
21
d
A
0.14688B6
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Elymus
canadensis
Canada Wild Rye
POP
POP
BMAS
ICBO
100
d
A
0.B6B862
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Elymus
canadensis
Canada Wild Rye
REP
REP
SEPD
ICBO
100
d
A
0.0383412
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Elymus
repens
Quackgrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDBO
28
d
A
0.1812B74
lb/acre
100
120B32
terrestrial
Epilobium
nummulariifolium
Creeping Willow Herb
POP
POP
INDX
LOAEL
49
d
A
0.B3B2
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Fagopyrum
esculentum
Buckwheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ICBO
21
d
A
0.0498B78
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Fagopyrum
esculentum
Buckwheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ICBO
106
d
A
0.12B9884
lb/acre
100
1BB486
terrestrial
Fagopyrum
esculentum
Buckwheat
REP
REP
SEPD
ICBO
106
d
A
0.101104
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Fraxinus
excelsior
European Ash
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Fraxinus
excelsior
European Ash
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.12638
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.1869
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.2B81
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.33286
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.3B422
lb/acre
100
1BB422
terrestrial
Galium
aparine
Catchweed Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
10
d
A
0.17978
lb/acre
100
1B4924
terrestrial
Galium
spurium
Marin County
Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
14
d
A
0.121B918
lb/acre
100
1B4924
terrestrial
Galium
spurium
Marin County
Bedstraw
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EDBO
14
d
A
0.1080816
lb/acre
100
1B4924
terrestrial
Galium
spurium
Marin County
Bedstraw
MOR
MOR
MORT
LDBO
14
d
A
0.2341768
lb/acre
100
1B4924
terrestrial
Galium
spurium
Marin County
MOR
MOR
MORT
LDBO
14
d
A
0.2161632
lb/acre
100
All-17
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Bedstraw
sp.
Geranium
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
declinata
Waxy Mannagrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
declinata
Waxy Mannagrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
max
Soybean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
NOAEL
gs
1.2488
Soybean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
NOAEL
gs
1.2488
Soybean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
NOAEL
gs
1.2488
Soybean
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
30
0.4
Soybean
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
14
dpe
0.7136
Soybean
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
14
dpe
0.7136
Soybean
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Soybean
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.52628
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.52628
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.49952
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.49952
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.49952
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
40
0.4
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
132
0.3568
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
84
0.3568
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
145
0.3568
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
116
0.3568
Soybean
Soybean
POP
POP
POP
POP
BMAS
BMAS
NOAEL
NOAEL
103
103
0.3568
0.3568
All-18
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.3738
Soybean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.7476
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
DVP
MATR
NOAEL
gs
0.09345
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
0.04183
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
0.04183
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
hirsutum
Cotton
Cotton
GRO
GRO
GRO
GRO
HGHT
HGHT
NOAEL
NOAEL
hv
hv
0.5352
0.5352
All-19
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
2.91684
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
54
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
LINT
NOAEL
hv
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
LINT
NOAEL
hv
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
30
0.09345
hirsutum
Cotton
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
30
0.046725
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
21
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
gs
0.41924
hirsutum
hirsutum
Cotton
Cotton
POP
POP
POP
POP
BMAS
BMAS
NOAEL
NOAEL
gs
hv
0.41924
0.4183
AII-20
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.04183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.004183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.04183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.02047
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.4183
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.41924
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
hirsutum
Cotton
Cotton
POP
POP
POP
POP
BMAS
BMAS
NOAEL
NOAEL
hv
hv
0.5352
0.5352
AII-21
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
2.91684
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.5352
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.09345
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.09345
hirsutum
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.09345
sp-
Cotton
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.89
sp-
Cotton
REP
REP
INFL
NOAEL
hv
0.89
Common Annual
Sunflower
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
101
0.1331351
Common Annual
Sunflower
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.104397
Common Annual
Sunflower
REP
REP
SEPD
IC50
101
0.1292725
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
11
588.1
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
EC10
20
3.6
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
EC10
20
3.31
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
EC50
20
4.43
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
EC50
20
4.53
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
NOEC
20
4.7
AII-22
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
HTCH
NOEC
20
2.96
aspersa
Brown Gardensnail
MOR
MOR
MORT
NOAEL
11
588.1
moscheutos
Crimsoneyed
Rosemallow
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
sp-
Hibiscus
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
vulgare
Barley
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
vulgare
Barley
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
heteromeria
Waxweed
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
42
0.892
heteromeria
Waxweed
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
70
0.892
heteromeria
Waxweed
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.5352
perforatum
St. Johnswort
GRO
MPH
HGHT
IC50
139
0.0364811
perforatum
St. Johnswort
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
perforatum
St. Johnswort
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0726952
perforatum
St. Johnswort
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
139
1.6149228
sp-
Touchmenot
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
walleriana
Busy Lizzy
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
14
0.73144
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
GRO
MPH
WGHT
LOAEL
21
0.1869
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
0.41924
AII-23
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
hederacea
Ivyleaf Morning-Glory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
B9336
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
GRO
MPH
WGHT
NOAEL
14
d
A
1.2488
lb/acre
100
1BBB12
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB12
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
63873
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
63873
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
63873
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
1BB461
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
A
0.41924
lb/acre
100
1BB461
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
gs
A
0.41924
lb/acre
100
1BB93B
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB29
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
3B
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
1BBB29
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
3B
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
1BBB29
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
63
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
1BBB29
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
63
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
B9336
terrestrial
Ipomoea
lacunosa
White Morninglory
REP
REP
SEPD
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.7136
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
nil
Whiteedge
Morningglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BBB23
terrestrial
Ipomoea
nil
Whiteedge
Morningglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
1BB470
terrestrial
Ipomoea
sp.
Morningglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.3738
lb/acre
100
1BB470
terrestrial
Ipomoea
sp.
Morningglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.3738
lb/acre
100
1BB470
terrestrial
Ipomoea
sp.
Morningglory
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.3738
lb/acre
100
AII-24
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
magnum
Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
84
0.892
dudleyi
Dudley's Rush
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
dudleyi
Dudley's Rush
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
72
0.1280532
dudleyi
Dudley's Rush
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
72
0.0437079
dudleyi
Dudley's Rush
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.1373359
scoparia
Kochia
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.223
sativa
Lettuce
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.1034358
sativa
Lettuce
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
61
0.1497336
serriola
Prickly Lettuce
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
kaempferi
Japanese Larch
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
0.669
kaempferi
Japanese Larch
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
0.669
sativum
Garden Cress
GRO
GRO
LGTH
NOAEL
0.15
maculans
Blackleg
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
56
3300
usitatissimum
Flax
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.1335
usitatissimum
Flax
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.1335
usitatissimum
Flax
REP
REP
VIAB
LOAEL
0.1335
maritima
Sweet Alyssum
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
1.20506
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
76
0.594075
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
135
1.99808
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
156
2.99712
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
perenne
Perennial Ryegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
AII-25
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
rigidum
Wimmera Ryegrass
MOR
MOR
MORT
LDBO
21
0.366324
rigidum
Wimmera Ryegrass
MOR
MOR
MORT
LDBO
21
0.B7B83
pedunculatus
5 Trefoil
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
49
0.7136
fluitans
Southern Watergrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
grisea
Rice Blast Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
grisea
Rice Blast Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
grisea
Rice Blast Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
99
grisea
Rice Blast Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
99
grisea
Rice Blast Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
99
sativa
Alfalfa
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
131
1.9624
sativa
Alfalfa
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
140
1.9624
sativa
Alfalfa
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
299
1.9624
sativa
Alfalfa
POP
POP
COVR
NOAEL
253
1.9624
officinalis
Yellow Sweetclover
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0321112
officinalis
Yellow Sweetclover
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
66
0.0433074
officinalis
Yellow Sweetclover
REP
REP
SEPD
IC50
66
0.0280261
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
CEL
NCEL
LOAEL
29
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
CEL
NCEL
LOAEL
2.833
3333
0.00001
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
CEL
NCEL
NOAEL
2.833
3333
0.15
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
CEL
NCEL
NOAEL
1.5
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
CEL
NCEL
NOAEL
0.00001
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
GEN
APOP
NOAEL
2.833
3333
150
AII-26
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
GEN
APOP
NOAEL
1
d
F
1500
ppm
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
GEN
APOP
NOAEL
7
d
F
575
ul/kg
bdwt
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
GEN
APOP
NOAEL
2.833
3333
d
F
0.01
%
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
GEN
APOP
NOAEL
1
d
F
0.01
%
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
HIS
NCRO
NOAEL
2.833
3333
d
F
150
ppm
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
HIS
NCRO
NOAEL
1
d
F
1500
ppm
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
HIS
NCRO
NOAEL
7
d
F
575
ul/kg
bdwt
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
HIS
NCRO
NOAEL
2.833
3333
d
F
0.01
%
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
CEL
HIS
NCRO
NOAEL
1
d
F
0.01
%
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
GRO
DVP
DVLP
NOAEL
2.833
3333
d
F
15
ppm
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
GRO
DVP
DVLP
NOAEL
7
d
F
29
ul/kg
bdwt
100
155484
terrestrial
Mus
musculus
House Mouse
GRO
DVP
DVLP
NOAEL
2.833
3333
d
F
0.00001
%
100
73149
terrestrial
Neoseiulus
fallacis
Predatory Mite
MOR
MOR
MORT
LOAEL
2
d
A
113.3
Al
m 1/100
L
100
100973
terrestrial
Neotyphodium
coenophialum
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
33
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
100973
terrestrial
Neotyphodium
coenophialum
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
547.9
2
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Nicotiana
alata
Jasmine Tobacco
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
155813
terrestrial
Nicotiana
sp.
Tobacco
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
35
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
AII-27
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
tabacum
Tobacco
BCM
BCM
GBDP
LOAEL
0.3115
tabacum
Tobacco
BCM
BCM
GBDP
LOAEL
0.3115
tabacum
Tobacco
BCM
BCM
GBDP
LOAEL
0.3115
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
GRO
BMAS
EDB0
0.01691
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
GRO
BMAS
EDB0
0.02225
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
GRO
BMAS
ED50
0.0534
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
GRO
BMAS
ED50
0.10324
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
GRO
BMAS
ED50
11.63052
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
MPH
LGTH
NOAEL
10
3.56
tabacum
Tobacco
GRO
MPH
LGTH
NOAEL
10
3.56
Liliopsida
Monocot Class
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0813905
Liliopsida
Monocot Class
POP
POP
COVR
NOAEL
0.45568
Liliopsida
Monocot Class
POP
POP
DVRS
NOAEL
0.45568
Magnoliophyta
Angiosperm Division
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
25
0.267
Magnoliopsida
Dicot Class
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
35
0.29
Magnoliopsida
Dicot Class
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0230688
Magnoliopsida
Dicot Class
POP
POP
COVR
NOAEL
0.45568
Magnoliopsida
Dicot Class
POP
POP
DVRS
NOAEL
0.45568
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
0.01424
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
0.02848
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
0.01424
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
882.7
6
0.2225
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
45
0.8028
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
90
0.8028
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0369261
AII-28
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155644
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
45
d
A
0.8028
lb/acre
100
155644
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
90
d
A
0.8028
lb/acre
100
155644
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
165
d
A
0.8028
lb/acre
100
155644
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
210
d
A
0.8028
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
91
d
A
0.45568
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
71
d
A
0.11392
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
BMAS
NOEC
28
d
A
0.06052
lb/acre
100
155423
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.178
lb/acre
100
155423
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.178
lb/acre
100
155423
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.178
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
LOAEL
d
A
0.45568
lb/acre
100
73993
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
LOAEL
56
d
F
0.49952
lb/acre
100
73993
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
LOAEL
84
d
F
0.49952
lb/acre
100
73993
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
LOAEL
84
d
F
0.49952
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
NOAEL
d
A
0.22784
lb/acre
100
73993
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
COVR
NOAEL
56
d
F
0.49952
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
DVRS
LOAEL
d
A
0.45568
lb/acre
100
155654
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
DVRS
NOAEL
d
A
0.22784
lb/acre
100
67103
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
PBMS
LOAEL
40
d
A
0.3568
lb/acre
100
67103
terrestrial
NR
Plantae
Plant Kingdom
POP
POP
PBMS
LOAEL
40
d
A
0.3568
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Oenothera
laciniata
Cutleaf Evening
Primrose
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
DVP
MATR
LOAEL
91.32
d
A
0.5352
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.5352
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
21
d
A
1.9624
lb/acre
100
100946
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
35
d
F
0.5
ppm
100
AII-29
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
LETH
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
21
d
A
1.9624
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
A
1.9624
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
1.9624
lb/acre
100
100966
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
21
d
A
0.5352
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
100970
terrestrial
Oryza
sativa
Rice
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.2676
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
LOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
LOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
LOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
LOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
AII-30
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
DVP
THED
NOAEL
gs
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
14
d
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.99904
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
101235
terrestrial
Oryza
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
1.99808
lb/acre
100
AII-31
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp.
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
0.99904
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
sp-
Rice
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.99808
dichotomiflorum
Fall Panicgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
146
0.5352
dichotomiflorum
Fall Panicgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
44
0.9812
dichotomiflorum
Fall Panicgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
74
0.9812
dichotomiflorum
Fall Panicgrass
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
71
0.9812
miliaceum
Proso Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0517624
miliaceum
Proso Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.178
miliaceum
Proso Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.178
miliaceum
Proso Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.0445
miliaceum
Proso Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.178
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
10
25
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
28
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
42
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
28
0.892
conjugatum
Sour Grass
GRO
GRO
WGHT
NOAEL
28
0.892
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
10
25
AII-32
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
42
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
conjugatum
Sour Grass
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
28
0.446
dilatatum
Dallisgrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
21
2.99712
dilatatum
Dallisgrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.49952
x hortorum
Zonal Geranium
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
clandestinum
Kikuyu Grass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
clandestinum
Kikuyu Grass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
clandestinum
Kikuyu Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
49
clandestinum
Kikuyu Grass
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
49
glaucum
Pearl Millet
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD100
100
glaucum
Pearl Millet
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD100
20000
glaucum
Pearl Millet
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
75
glaucum
Pearl Millet
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
2500
glaucum
Pearl Millet
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
30
0.4
glaucum
Pearl Millet
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
40
0.4
glaucum
Pearl Millet
REP
REP
GERM
ED 100
2000
glaucum
Pearl Millet
REP
REP
GERM
ED50
500
sp-
Petunia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
21
0.73144
sp-
Petunia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
x hybrida
Petunia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
14
0.73144
x hybrida
Petunia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
arundinacea
Reed Canarygrass
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0706215
arundinacea
Reed Canarygrass
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
77
0.12282
AII-33
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
LOAEL
10
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
LOAEL
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
LOAEL
10
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
LOAEL
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
NOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
BCM
BCM
WTCO
NOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
IB
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
19
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
19
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
19
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
19
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
19
0.3916
vulgaris
Bean
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
19
0.3916
australis
Grass
GRO
MPH
WGHT
LOAEL
42
0.99904
australis
Grass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
3B
0.99904
a urea
Golden Bamboo
GRO
GRO
WGHT
LOAEL
42
0.99904
Golden Bamboo
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
28
0.99904
americana
Common Pokeweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ICB0
21
0.0864813
americana
Common Pokeweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ICB0
101
0.0690106
americana
Common Pokeweed
REP
REP
SEPD
ICB0
101
0.0BB8386
abies
Norway Spruce
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
0.669
AII-34
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
111710
terrestrial
Picea
abies
Norway Spruce
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Picea
sitchensis
Yellow Spruce
GRO
GRO
DMTR
LOAEL
242
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Picea
sitchensis
Yellow Spruce
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Pinus
nigra ssp. laricio
Corsican Pine
GRO
GRO
DMTR
LOAEL
242
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Pinus
nigra ssp. laricio
Corsican Pine
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
64628
terrestrial
Pinus
pinea
Italian Stone Pine
GRO
DVP
FORM
LOAEL
30
d
F
0.2B
ppm
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
28
d
A
0.0B86B1
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
fs
A
0.096832
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
28
d
A
0.261749
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
fs
A
0.24B7379
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
28
d
A
0.619B29
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
fs
A
0.3612B1
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
28
d
A
0.188B02
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
fs
A
0.24B996
lb/acre
100
112387
terrestrial
Poa
annua
Annual Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDB0
28
d
A
0.0466716
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
87931
terrestrial
Poa
pratensis
Kentucky Bluegrass
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
28
d
A
0.99904
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Populus
sp.
Aspen, Cottonwood,
Poplar
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
111710
terrestrial
Populus
sp.
Aspen, Cottonwood,
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
d
A
0.669
lb/acre
100
AII-35
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Poplar
recta
Erect Cinquefoil
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
21
0.594075
recta
Erect Cinquefoil
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0973749
recta
Erect Cinquefoil
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
147
1.0256805
Mazzard Cherry
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
0.669
menziesn
Douglas Fir
GRO
GRO
DMTR
LOAEL
242
0.669
Douglas Fir
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
0.669
robur
English Oak
GRO
GRO
DMTR
NOAEL
242
0.669
robur
English Oak
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
12
0.669
repens
Creeping Buttercup
POP
POP
INDX
LOAEL
49
0.5352
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EC50
30
0.18601
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
GRO
GRO
WGHT
EC50
30
0.39249
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.95319
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
2.01585
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.13439
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.27412
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
1.09737
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.5874
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.60698
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.38448
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
1.17213
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
1.06266
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.14507
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.09167
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
30
0.99057
AII-36
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
30
0.534
raphanistrum
Jointed Charlock
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
30
1.068
sp-
Brambles
GRO
GRO
LGTH
NOAEL
190
0.99904
sp-
Brambles
REP
REP
FRUT
NOAEL
98
0.99904
tragus
Prickly Russian Thistle
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.223
tragus
Prickly Russian Thistle
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
farinacea
Mealycup Sage
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
sp-
Salvia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
49
0.73144
sp-
Salvia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
0.73144
splendens
Scarlet Sage
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
49
0.99904
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
191
0.99904
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
33
0.99904
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
38
0.9812
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
40
0.9812
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
60.8
0.49952
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
60.8
0.49952
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
91.32
0.9812
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
49
1.9624
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
48
1.9624
arundinaceus
Tall Fescue
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
91.32
0.9812
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
AII-37
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
homoeocarpa
Fungus
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
cereale
Common Rye
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
cereale
Common Rye
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
0.5352
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
GRO
MPH
WGHT
LOAEL
21
0.1869
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
GRO
MPH
WGHT
NOAEL
14
1.2488
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
GRO
MPH
WGHT
NOAEL
14
1.2488
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
0.4183
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
0.4183
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
0.74928
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
10
0.12488
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.7476
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.7476
AII-38
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155438
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
ma
F
0.7476
lb/acre
100
155523
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
155523
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
hv
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
155529
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
155529
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
155529
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
155529
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
63
d
A
0.3738
lb/acre
100
155438
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
ma
F
0.7476
lb/acre
100
155438
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
GERM
LOAEL
ma
F
0.7476
lb/acre
100
155438
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
ma
F
0.7476
lb/acre
100
155452
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
SEPD
LOAEL
hv
A
0.09366
lb/acre
100
155452
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
SEPD
NOAEL
hv
A
0.09366
lb/acre
100
155452
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
SEPD
NOAEL
hv
A
0.09366
lb/acre
100
59336
terrestrial
Senna
obtusifolia
Sicklepod
REP
REP
SEPD
NOAEL
14
d
A
1.2488
lb/acre
100
59336
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
GRO
MPH
WGHT
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.7136
lb/acre
100
155512
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
155512
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
155512
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
155512
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
d
A
0.4183
lb/acre
100
63873
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155470
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
d
F
0.3738
lb/acre
100
59336
terrestrial
Sesbania
herbacea
Colorado-River-Hemp
REP
REP
SEPD
NOAEL
14
d
A
1.2488
lb/acre
100
59606
terrestrial
Setaria
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
10
d
A
0.10704
lb/acre
100
AII-39
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
BMAS
EDBO
14
0.06141
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
84
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
98
0.3568
faberi
Mutton Bluegrass
POP
POP
CNTL
NOAEL
84
0.3568
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.223
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.223
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.0445
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.02676
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.0445
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.0445
viridis
Green Foxtail
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.0445
spinosa
Prickly Mallow
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
0.4183
spinosa
Prickly Mallow
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
LETH
14
0.4183
spinosa
Prickly Mallow
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
spinosa
Prickly Mallow
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
spinosa
Prickly Mallow
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.3738
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.1157
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
28
0.4005
AII-40
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
28
0.4005
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
28
0.4005
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
28
0.4005
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
28
0.4005
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
28
0.4005
loeselii
False London Rocket
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
28
0.801
carolinense
Carolina Nettle
POP
POP
BMAS
EC50
10
0.19624
dulcamara
Climbing Nightshade
GRO
MPH
HGHT
IC50
125
0.0839092
dulcamara
Climbing Nightshade
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0362052
dulcamara
Climbing Nightshade
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
125
0.1013176
lycopersicum
Garden Tomato
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
127
0.1604314
lycopersicum
Garden Tomato
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
0.0581793
lycopersicum
Garden Tomato
REP
REP
SEPD
IC50
127
0.1298421
nigrum
Black Nightshade
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0474904
physalifolium
Ground-Cherry
Nightshade
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
154
0.3738
tuberosum
Potato
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
77
3.56
tuberosum
Potato
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
77
3.56
tuberosum
Potato
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
77
3.56
bicolor
Broomcorn
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD100
100
bicolor
Broomcorn
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD100
5000
bicolor
Broomcorn
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
50
bicolor
Broomcorn
MOR
MOR
MORT
LD50
1000
bicolor
Broomcorn
PHY
INJ
DESI
LOAEL
0.49952
bicolor
Broomcorn
PHY
INJ
DESI
LOAEL
0.49952
bicolor
Broomcorn
PHY
INJ
DESI
LOAEL
0.49952
AII-41
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
24.5
24.5
24.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
PHY
INJ
DESI
LOAEL
0.49952
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
1.5164
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
REP
REP
GERM
ED 100
1000
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
REP
REP
GERM
ED50
300
Sorghum
bicolor
Broomcorn
REP
REP
GERM
NOAEL
27
1.9624
Sorghum
halepense
Johnson Grass
GRO
MPH
WGHT
LOAEL
21
0.1869
Sorghum
halepense
Johnson Grass
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
21
0.74928
Sorghum
sp.
Sorghum
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
30
0.4
Sorghum
sp.
Sorghum
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
40
0.4
Spea
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
MORT
NR-
ZERO
138
Spea
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
SURV
NOAEL
138
Spea
multiplicata
Mexican Spadefoot
MOR
MOR
SURV
NOAEL
138
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
GRO
DVP
EMRG
NOAEL
0.00534
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
GRO
DVP
EMRG
NOEL
0.534
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.0127715
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.161001
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.316929
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.020915
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.017622
Stellaria
media
Chickweed
REP
REP
SEPD
LOAEL
28
0.00534
Symphyotrichum
pilosum var.
pilosum
Hairy White Oldfield
Aster
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
Tagetes
patula
French Marigold
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
0.73144
AII-42
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
70759
terrestrial
Tagetes
patula
French Marigold
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
155813
terrestrial
Tagetes
sp.
Marigold
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
155813
terrestrial
Tagetes
sp.
Marigold
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
49
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
73745
terrestrial
Taraxacum
officinale
Common Dandelion
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155618
terrestrial
Taraxacum
officinale
Common Dandelion
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
d
F
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
2
d
A
0.593
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.45
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
3
d
A
0.593
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
gs
A
0.595
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
gs
A
0.595
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
24
d
A
0.595
Al kg/ha
100
155894
terrestrial
Tetranychus
urticae
Two-Spotted Spider
Mite
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
2
d
A
0.45
Al kg/ha
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
155697
terrestrial
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
7
d
F
0.5
%
100
AII-43
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
Thanatephorus
cucumeris
Fungi
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
0.5
Toxicodendron
radicans
Poison-Ivy
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
Toxicodendron
radicans
Poison-Ivy
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
35
0.74928
Trianthema
portulacastrum
Pigweed
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
25
0.267
Trifolium
incarnatum
Crimson Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Trifolium
incarnatum
Crimson Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Trifolium
subterraneum
Subterranean Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Trifolium
subterraneum
Subterranean Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Trifolium
subterraneum
Subterranean Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Trifolium
subterraneum
Subterranean Clover
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.107245
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.063457
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED85
28
0.289428
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED85
28
0.173639
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED90
28
0.350838
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
ED90
28
0.210752
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
0.223
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
0.089
Triticum
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
0.089
AII-44
-------
ty
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
0.089
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
hv
0.089
aestivum
Bread Wheat
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
0.223
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED50
hv
0.139908
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED50
hv
0.063457
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED85
hv
0.381543
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED85
hv
0.178623
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED90
hv
0.462889
aestivum
Bread Wheat
REP
REP
FCND
ED90
hv
0.217338
sp-
Wheat
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
filiformis
Whetzel Weed
POP
POP
INDX
LOAEL
49
0.9812
sativa
Garden Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.74928
villosa
Hairy Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
0.5352
villosa
Hairy Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
villosa
Hairy Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
villosa
Hairy Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
villosa
Hairy Vetch
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
14
0.7136
radiata
Mungbean
PHY
INJ
GINJ
NOAEL
30
0.4
radiata
Mungbean
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
40
0.4
sp.
Periwinkle
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
49
0.73144
European Field Pansy
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
35
0.445
European Field Pansy
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
35
0.445
European Field Pansy
POP
POP
BMAS
ED50
28
0.32396
arvensis
European Field Pansy
POP
POP
BMAS
ED85
28
0.55091
labrusca
American Grape
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
14
0.99904
labrusca
American Grape
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
28
0.74928
AII-45
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
73745
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155618
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
127
d
F
0.74928
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
57
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
57
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155813
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Vitis
labrusca
American Grape
POP
POP
COVR
LOAEL
14
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
63873
terrestrial
Xanthium
strumarium
Common Cocklebur
PHY
PHY
WLSS
LOAEL
7
d
A
0.74928
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
126
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
93
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
80
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
GRO
GRO
HGHT
NOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
28
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
d
F
0.712
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
AII-46
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
28
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
28
d
F
0.178
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
d
F
0.712
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
d
F
0.712
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
AII-47
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
1
gs
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
28
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155495
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
PHY
INJ
GINJ
LOAEL
30
d
0.4
ppm
15
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
132
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
117
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
147
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
142
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
108
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
147
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
147
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
121
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
142
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
142
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
LOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.178
lb/acre
100
AII-48
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
ABND
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155486
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
21
d
A
0.1485232
lb/acre
100
155486
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
IC50
69
d
A
0.3134402
lb/acre
100
155495
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
40
d
A
0.4
ppm
15
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
93
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
LOAEL
113
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
31424
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.5352
lb/acre
100
154055
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
400
ae g/ha
100
66932
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
119
d
F
0.3568
lb/acre
100
66932
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
116
d
F
0.3568
lb/acre
100
66932
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
108
d
F
0.3568
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155609
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
113
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
113
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
80
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
AII-49
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
93
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
80
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
112
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
126
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
112
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
113
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155490
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
lb/acre
100
155490
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
hv
A
lb/acre
100
67103
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
109
d
A
0.3568
lb/acre
100
67103
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
BMAS
NOAEL
109
d
A
0.3568
lb/acre
100
31424
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
CNTL
LOAEL
8
d
F
0.5352
lb/acre
100
78497
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
POP
POP
PGRT
IC50
8
d
F
0.000013
M
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
132
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
117
d
F
0.712
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
147
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
153
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
142
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
108
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
AII-50
-------
Ref #
Habitat
Genus
Species
Common Name
Effect
Group
Effect
Meas
Endptl
Dur
Pref
Mean
Dur
Unit
Pref
Cone
Type
Cone #1
Purity Adj
in Pref Unit
Mean
Cone
Units
Pref
% Purity
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
158
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
147
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
147
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
153
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
121
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
142
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
142
d
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
158
d
F
1.424
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155481
terrestrial
Zea
mays
Corn
REP
REP
SEED
NOAEL
hv
F
0.356
lb/acre
100
155813
terrestrial
Zinnia
sp.
Zinnia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
LOAEL
49
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
70759
terrestrial
Zinnia
violacea
Zinnia
PHY
INJ
DAMG
NOAEL
56
d
A
0.73144
lb/acre
100
All-51
------- |