UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

PC Code: 121301 

DP Barcodes: 387946 

Date: January 24, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of 

Cyromazine. 

TO: Kelly Ballard, Chemical Review Manager 

Thomas Moriarty, Team Leader 

Neil Anderson, BranchChief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch I 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

THROUGH: Dana Spatz, Branch C~~~ Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Proces Leade 

Melissa Panger, Ph.D., Senior. Biologist \ _ ~ 7-1V. ':.#-~__;...n 

James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Advise~ f.,(· 

Environmental Risk Branch III 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

FROM: Amy Blankinship, Chemist ~ ~(t.:..q- f - t-'1- I :3 

Tiffany Coleman, Environmental Engineer 

Environmental Risk Branch III 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

This memorandum transmits the preliminary ecological risk assessment for the registration 

review of cyromazine (PC Code 121301 ), an insect growth regulator. Based on currently 

registered uses and labeled rates, this preliminary assessment presents the conclusions of 

potential risks to non-target organisms, including federally-listed species. 

There is a potential for acute and chronic risk to non-listed and listed birds and mammals from 

consumption of cyromazine-treated onion seeds. As birds are surr~gates for terrestrial-phase 

amphibians and reptiles, risk to these taxa is also a possibility . 

• 
2 

Given cyromazine’s target pests and available data with terrestrial invertebrates, there is the 

potential for direct effects to non-listed and listed terrestrial invertebrates. Based on the best 

available data, risk to non-listed terrestrial plants (monocots and dicots) and listed monocots is 

not anticipated. However, risk to listed dicots from exposure to aerial applications of 

cyromazine (due to drift), based on application rates for potatoes is uncertain. 

As there were no acute or chronic level of concern (LOC) exceedances for aquatic animals, nonvascular aquatic plants, and there is evidence to suggest that the difference between toxicity 

relative endpoints and estimated environmental concentrations is large, the likelihood of risk to 

non-target aquatic organisms is low. The exception is for certain aquatic invertebrates such as 

midges as the estimated environmental concentrations did exceed the reported toxicity value for 

midges. The RQs using data from the other available aquatic invertebrate toxicity data (from two 

crustaceans) did not exceed the LOC. A species in the Coleoptera order (Colorado potato beetle) 

is another targeted pest and while potential direct effects to aquatic invertebrates in the 

Coleoptera order is unknown, larval effects were reported for terrestrial beetles in the Coleoptera 

order; effects to aquatic invertebrates in other Orders not listed is also unknown. Therefore, 

during the larval stage, as cyromazine targets invertebrates in the Diptera order, in which midges 

belong to, as well as to beetles (Coleoptera order), the potential for risk may be limited to certain 

aquatic species such as midges and aquatic beetles, but there is uncertainty for other species due 

to lack of data. Based on the available data, the potential for risk to aquatic vascular plants is 

considered to be low. 

The table below summarizes the uses assessed and the direct risk conclusions to listed species. 
Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots 

UncertainPhytotoxicity reported (nature of plant injury unknown). Runoff EECs to semi-aquatic areas, but not to d

reported toxicity levels, so potential effects may be spatially limited. For spray drift exposure, potential dir

(via ground and aerial application) and for ground application to dicots the likelihood of effects is anticipat

be potential direct effects to dicots from aerial application in a spatially limited area from aerial applicatio

toxicity values for ≤72 feet off-field) 

Aquatic plants No effect 

Listed Animal Taxon 

Potential Direct Effects 

Acute Notes Chronic No

Terrestrial invertebrates Yes

1

 Potential direct effects from onion seed 

use. 

 Uncertain for foliar application to all 

crops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits, potatoes) and ornamentals, as screeninglevel RQ values would not exceed the acute LOC for birds (also surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians) and mammals if the application scenario were modified by generally reducing the single maximum rate by up to 30%, and/or increasing the minimum retreatment interval from 7 to 13 days, and/or reducing the total number of applications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3 to 2 for potatoes). 

 For foliar applications to crops and 

ornamentals, for reptiles and amphibians, RQs did not exceed LOC (except for animals consuming herbivorous mammals) using model default diet 

Yes 

2

 Potential direct 

use. 

 Uncertain for fo

crops (i.e., beanpotatoes) and orscreening-level exceed the chronsurrogate for repamphibians) and application scengenerally reducmaximum rate increasing the minterval from 7 reducing the toapplications froto 2 or 1 for po

 Chronic exposu

soil amendment 

3 Based on the estimat

Mammals See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Birds See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Reptiles See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Amphibians See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Freshwater fish No effect No effect Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect3 Molluscs No effect ND Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect
Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect 

assumptions; however reptiles and amphibian diets expected to vary between species and this conclusion may not apply across all species. If apply modified application scenarios above, then screening-level RQ values would not exceed the acute LOC. 

 No effect for amending soil with 

cyromazine-treated manure use. 

No effect3 

and toxicity values for potentially be direct efdwelling organisms in as midges especially dThe RQs for the other invertebrate crustacean the LOC, so effects main the Coleoptera ordetargeted pest, and whileffects to aquatic inverColeoptera order and omentioned is unknownreported for larvae in tbeetles. At this time, taquatic invertebrates in there are other listed aincluding Coleoptera bBased on the reported cyromazine use, the poeffects to other listed a(beetles and dragonflylimited, but this is unc
5 

Based on this preliminary assessment, there are potential risks to listed and non-listed birds 

(surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles) and mammals from exposure to 

cyromazine-treated onion seeds. Terrestrial invertebrates (are potentially at risk from all foliar 

uses). The risk to listed terrestrial dicot plants from aerial application to potatoes is uncertain. 

Potential risk from chronic exposure (from foliar uses) may occur to certain aquatic 

invertebrates. Listed species of non-dicot terrestrial plants and freshwater animals may also be 

affected through indirect effects because of the potential direct effects on listed and non-listed 

species. Potential direct effects on birds (surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and 

reptiles), mammals, terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial plants (dicots) and non-listed birds 

(surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles), mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates 

from the use of cyromazine may be associated with modification of primary constituent elements 

of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. However, at this 

current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations 

for listed species until further refinements are conducted. In order to make effects 

determinations for individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more 

detailed, species-specific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate 

information on cyromazine use patterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data for the 

co-occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. 

Examples of such refinements are described below. 

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are 

designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other 

reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. The 

information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration Information 

SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will consist of an 

information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual 

species (e.g., habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) 

and a document repository that contains supporting documents (e.g., USFWS recovery plans) 

and electronic information (e.g., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa, the biological information 

relevant to risk quotient (RQ) calculations (e.g., diet and body weight) will be used to 

parameterize exposure estimates to derive species-specific RQs using a method consistent with 

currently used methods in the T-REX and T-HERPS models. 

Refinements may also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and their use patterns 

that result in LOC exceedances for federally listed species in the screening-level assessment. 

The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how cyromazine is used on 

how cyromazine is used on crops including: beans, celery, onions, root crops, leafy vegetables, 

cucurbits, and field grown ornamentals, such as chrysanthemums. Actual usage data (when 

available) and national land-cover datasets that indicate potential use sites (e.g., national land 

cover dataset (NLCD), crop data layer (CDL)) may be used to support a more refined analysis of 

where cyromazine is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements for the timing of 

applications and how cyromazine is used may be based on the analysis of additional usage data, 

beyond what were available at the time of the screening-level assessment, and a more in-depth 

exploration of agronomic practices. 
6 

In addition, a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) has been tasked with 

providing advice on ecological risk assessment tools and scientific approaches under ESA and 

FIFRA (Project Identification Number DELS-BEST-11-01). The committee has been asked to 

review the use of “best available data;” methods for evaluating sublethal, indirect, and 

cumulative effects; the state of the science regarding assessment of mixtures and pesticide inert 

ingredients; the development, application, and interpretation of results from predictive models; 

uncertainty factors; and what constitutes authoritative geospatial and temporal information for 

the assessment of individual species and habitat effects. The Agency anticipates that this NRC 

report, tentatively expected in Spring 2013, will provide recommendations to ensure the 

scientific soundness and maximize the utility of risk assessment refinements for listed species. 

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when 

available; and further recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more 

accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat 

determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats. For example, if 

cyromazine is used when a particular species of concern is not present (e.g., it is migratory) or is 

not co-located in space, then risk of potential direct effects to the species may often be precluded. 

If LOCs are still exceeded for birds (surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles), 

mammals, terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial dicot plants after conducting the refined 

analyses, further analyses of the potential spatial and temporal co-occurrence of listed species of 

concern (and any designated critical habitat) may be conducted. The extent of possible 

refinement in the analyses of spatial/temporal co-occurrence will largely depend on the scale and 

quality of the available sub-county level use site (e.g., National Land Cover Dataset, Cropland 

Data Layer) and species location data. 

. 
7 

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of 

Cyromazine 

N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine 

CAS No.: 66215-27-8 

PC Code: 121301 

Prepared by: 

Amy Blankinship, Chemist 

Tiffany Coleman, Environmental Engineer 

Reviewed by: 

James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Advisor 

Melissa Panger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist 

Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leader 

Approved by: 

Dana Spatz, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch III 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

January 2013 
8 

Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 9

A. Purpose of Assessment ........................................................................................... 9

B. Nature of the Stressor .............................................................................................. 9

C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions ............................................................ 9

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 13

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action .......................................................... 13

B. Stressor Source and Distribution .......................................................................... 13

1. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage ...................................................... 14

C. Receptors and Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ..................................................... 18

1. Assessment Endpoints .............................................................................. 18

D. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models ................................................................. 21

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses .................................................... 21

2. Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 21

3. Risk Hypothesis ........................................................................................ 22

III. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 25

A. Use and Exposure Characterization ...................................................................... 25

B. Environmental Fate Characterization and Modeling Input Parameters ................ 26

1. Aquatic Exposure ...................................................................................... 29

2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure ............................................................. 30

C. Ecological Effects Characterization ...................................................................... 35

IV. RISK ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 43

1. Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants ................................................... 43

2. Non-target Terrestrial Animals ................................................................. 45

3. Non-target Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Plants ........................................ 52

4. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values .. 52

V. RISK DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 54

1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms...................................................................... 54

2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms.................................................................. 58

3. Review of Incident Data ........................................................................... 70

4. Re-evaluation of the Risk Hypothesis....................................................... 70

5. Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................... 70

APPENDIX A. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX B. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 79

APPENDIX C. Example of Aquatic Modeling Results ............................................................... 88

APPENDIX D. Sample T-REX, T-HERPS, TIM, TerrPlant Inputs and Outputs for Cyromazine

........................................................................................................................................... 90

APPENDIX E: Additional Information on Uses ......................................................................... 98

APPENDIX F. BEAD Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses and CRD Usage Maps

......................................................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX G. Summary of Toxicity Endpoints and Study Classifications ............................. 104

APPENDIX H. STIR Inputs and Outputs .................................................................................. 108

APPENDIX I. ECOTOX Open Literature That Passed Initial Screen ...................................... 138 
9 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A. Purpose of Assessment 

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of cyromazine’s registered uses 

on non-target organisms, including federally listed endangered and threatened (listed) species. 

This risk assessment incorporates the available exposure and effects data, and most current 

modeling and risk methodologies, some of which may not have been available at the time 

previous cyromazine risk assessments were conducted. 

B. Nature of the Stressor 

Cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine) (PC code 121301) is a systemic 

insecticide used on a variety of crops including beans, celery, onions, root crops, leafy 

vegetables, cucurbits, and field grown ornamentals, such as chrysanthemums. Cyromazine is 

registered for the control of various insects including Colorado potato beetle, leafminers, and 

various diptera species. Cyromazine is also used to control various fly species, which can 

develop in cattle, poultry, hogs, and horse manure. Although cyromazine is in the triazine family 

of pesticides and most of the triazines have herbicidal qualities, cyromazine is an insect growth 

regulator, and controls pest insects by disrupting the molting process of larvae. EPA’s 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) analysis of national-level usage 

information indicates than less than 15,000 pounds of cyromazine are used annually on 

agricultural crops with the highest usage, in terms of percent crop treated, on celery (45%) and 

spinach (20%), with the highest use rates reported in California with use in the Southern portions 

of Florida, Texas and New York. It should be noted that the feed-through and manure uses of 

cyromazine are not included in these estimates. 

Cyromazine is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis, and is persistent in aerobic soil (t1/2 > 100 

days). Data suggest that cyromazine in manure is also quite persistent. Cyromazine is highly 

soluble (1.36 x 105 mg/L at 25oC) and is categorized as ‘mobile.’ These characteristics would 

suggest that cyromazine has the potential to leach through soils, especially sand, fine sands, and 

loamy sands, or to be transported in solution in runoff water. Melamine is identified as the 

primary cyromazine degradate. However, based on the available toxicity data for melamine and 

the percent formation observed in the fate studies, it is anticipated that evaluation of parent 

cyromazine will be protective from potential melamine exposure. 

C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions 

Cyromazine is practically non-toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates; slightly toxic to birds 

on an acute oral basis, and practically non-toxic to birds (acute dietary basis), mammals, and 

terrestrial invertebrates (contact) on an acute exposure basis. Cyromazine is practically non-toxic 

to estuarine-marine mollusks on an acute basis. Chronic exposure resulted in reduced growth in 

aquatic animals: freshwater fish (fathead minnows) (NOAEC = 73 mg a.i./L); estuarine-marine 

invertebrates (mysid shrimp) (effects at the lowest concentration tested; therefore, the NOAEC is 
10 

< 0.131 mg a.i./L); and freshwater invertebrates (Daphnia magna) (NOAEC = 0.31 mg a.i./L). 

Acute and chronic toxicity data are not available for estuarine/marine fish. Chronic exposure in 

birds resulted in a reduction in the number of normal hatchling at 75 mg a.i./kg-diet and chronic 

exposure in mammals resulted in decreased pup and parental weight (NOAEL = 50 mg a.i./kgbw). 

The potential for acute and chronic direct effects to birds and mammals may exist from 

consumption of cyromazine-treated onion seeds. As birds are surrogates for terrestrial-phase 

amphibians and reptiles, adverse effects to these taxa may also occur. 

Given cyromazine’s target pests and available data with terrestrial invertebrates, there is the 

potential for direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates. Based on the best available data, direct 

effects to non-listed terrestrial plants and listed monocots are not anticipated. However, it is 

uncertain if direct effects would occur for listed dicots from cyromazine exposure from aerial 

application to potatoes. 

As there were no acute or chronic level of concern (LOC) exceedances for aquatic animals, nonvascular aquatic plants, and there is evidence to suggest that the difference between toxicity 

relative endpoints and estimated environmental concentrations is large, the likelihood of risk to 

non-target aquatic organisms is low. The exception is for certain aquatic invertebrates such as 

midges as the estimated environmental concentrations did exceed the reported toxicity value for 

midges. The RQs using data from the other available aquatic invertebrate toxicity data (from two 

crustaceans) did not exceed the LOC. A species in the Coleoptera order (Colorado potato beetle) 

is another targeted pest and while potential direct effects to aquatic invertebrates in the 

Coleoptera order is unknown, there were reported larval effects to terrestrial invertebrates in the 

Coleoptera order; effects to aquatic invertebrates in other Orders not listed is also unknown. 

Therefore, during the larval stage, as cyromazine targets invertebrates in the Diptera order, in 

which midges belong to, as well as to beetles (Coleoptera order), the potential for risk may be 

limited to certain aquatic species such as midges and aquatic beetles, but there is uncertainty for 

other species due to lack of data. Based on the available data, the potential for risk to aquatic 

vascular plants is considered to be low. 

These risk conclusions are based on the taxa evaluated in this assessment using the data 

available. A summary of the risk conclusions to Federally listed species is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Listed Species Risks Associated with Potential Direct Effects Due to the Applications of Cyromaz

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots 

UncertainPhytotoxicity reported (nature of plant injury unknown). Runoff EECs to semi-aquatic areas, but not to d

reported toxicity levels, so potential effects may be spatially limited. For spray drift exposure, potential dir

(via ground and aerial application) and for ground application to dicots the likelihood of effects is anticipat

be potential direct effects to dicots from aerial application in a spatially limited area from aerial applicatio

toxicity values for ≤72 feet off-field) 

Aquatic plants No effect 

Listed Animal Taxon 

Potential Direct Effects 

Acute Notes Chronic No

Terrestrial invertebrates Yes

1

 Potential direct effects from onion seed 

use. 

 Uncertain for foliar application to all 

crops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits, potatoes) and ornamentals, as screeninglevel RQ values would not exceed the acute LOC for birds (also surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians) and mammals if the application scenario were modified by generally reducing the single maximum rate by up to 30%, and/or increasing the minimum retreatment interval from 7 to 13 days, and/or reducing the total number of applications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3 to 2 for potatoes). 

 For foliar applications to crops and 

ornamentals, for reptiles and amphibians, RQs did not exceed LOC (except for 

Yes 

2

 Potential direct 

use. 

 Uncertain for fo

crops (i.e., beanpotatoes) and orscreening-level exceed the chronsurrogate for repamphibians) and application scengenerally reducmaximum rate increasing the minterval from 7 reducing the toapplications froto 2 or 1 for po

 Chronic exposu

soil amendment 

Mammals See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Birds See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Reptiles See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Amphibians See footnote 1 See footnote 2 Freshwater fish No effect No effect Freshwater invertebrates No effect No effect3 Molluscs No effect ND 
Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Estuarine/marine fish No effect animals consuming herbivorous mammals) using model default diet 

assumptions; however, reptiles and amphibian diets expected to vary between species, and this conclusion may not apply across all species. If apply modified application scenarios above, then screening-level RQ values would not exceed the acute LOC. 

 No effect for amending soil with 

cyromazine-treated manure use. 

No effect 3 Based on the estimate

and toxicity values for potentially be direct efdwelling organisms in as midges especially dThe RQs for the other invertebrate crustacean the LOC, so effects main the Coleoptera ordetargeted pest, and whileffects to aquatic inverColeoptera order and omentioned is unknownreported for larvae in tbeetles. At this time, taquatic invertebrates in there are other listed aincluding Coleoptera bBased on the reported cyromazine use, the poeffects to other listed a(beetles and dragonflylimited, but this is unc

Estuarine/marine invertebrates No effect No effect3 
13 

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION 

The problem formulation for this assessment, which discusses the stressor, the conceptual 

models used to estimate exposures to nontarget organisms, and the tools and methods with which 

EPA will assess potential risk, was provided in the U.S. EPA Registration Review - Cyromazine 

Registration Review: Ecological Risk Assessment Problem Formulation March 28, 2007 

document, which is part of the Cyromazine Registration Review Summary Document1

. All 

submitted data and other information for cyromazine are listed in the bibliography in Appendix 

A. 

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action 

Cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine) (PC code 121301) (Figure 1) is in the 

triazine family of pesticides. While most of the triazines have herbicidal qualities, cyromazine is 

an insect growth regulator, and controls pest insects by disrupting the molting process of larvae. 

Triazines, such as cyromazine, appear to alter the deposition of chitin into the cuticle rather than 

its synthesis.2

Figure 1. Chemical Structure of Cyromazine 

B. Stressor Source and Distribution 

Cyromazine (e.g., Armor®(EPA Reg. No. 100-656); Citation®,(EPA Reg. No. 100-667); and 

Trigard® (EPA Reg. No. 100-654) formulations) is a systemic insecticide used on a variety of 

crops including beans, celery, onions, root crops, leafy vegetables, cucurbits, and field grown 

ornamentals, such as chrysanthemums. Cyromazine is a molting disruptor, as it inhibits larval 

growth and development and it prevents the adult emergence from the pupae (EFSA, 2008). 

Cyromazine is registered for the control of various insects including Colorado potato beetle, 

leafminers, and various diptera species. Cyromazine is formulated as a wettable powder, soluble 

concentrate, and in a granular formulation. Multiple applications can be made to crop foliage, 

using either aerial or ground equipment, with rates ranging between 0.125 and 0.25 lb a.i./A per 

application, and up to six times per crop season. 

Cyromazine (FlyzineTM (EPA Reg. No. 75066-1); Larvadex® (EPA Reg. No. 70585-1 and 2); 

and SolitudeTM IGR (EPA Reg. No. 1007-93) formulations) is also used to control various fly 

species, which can develop in cattle, poultry, hogs, and horse manure. In poultry operations, 

cyromazine may be applied directly to the poultry feed as a feed-through application, or by 

 

1 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0108

2 http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/191903.htm (accessed September 25, 2012). 
14 

directly treating the manure surface by spraying and dry scatter in animal facilities (up to 4.36 lb 

a.i./acre). Manure treated with cyromazine may be used as a soil amendment, with up to 4 tons 

of manure per acre3

. Cyromazine appears to be systemic in plants as evidenced by the fact that 

there are crop rotation restrictions for some crops. In addition, cyromazine and its degradate 

melamine were measured in plants, e.g., spring wheat, that had been grown in soil containing 

cyromazine, or soil that was amended with cyromazine-treated chicken manure (MRID 

00103185; 43694401). 

1. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage 

EPA’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) provided an analysis of nationallevel usage information using state-level usage data obtained from various public and proprietary 

sources; refer to Appendix F for additional details on these analyses. 

Less than 15,000 pounds of cyromazine are used annually on agricultural crops with the highest 

usage, in terms of percent crop treated, on celery (45%) and spinach (20%) (Table 2). It should 

be noted that the feed-through and manure uses of cyromazine are not included in these 

estimates. While information on the magnitude and extent of cyromazine use for manure 

treatment is not available, lines of evidence suggest that cyromazine exposure to nontarget 

organisms through this treatment is expected to be minimal. 

 

3

 According to the Larvadex 2SL [70585-2] label dated November 3, 2004. 
15 

Table 2. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Cyromazine (121301)

(February 16, 2011)

Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Ttd. 

Avg. Max. 

Beans, Green <500 <1 <2.5 

Cantaloupes <500 <1 <2.5 

Celery 3,000 45 60 

Chicory* <500 N/C N/C 

Lettuce 5,000 10 25 

Onions <500 <2.5 <2.5 

Peppers <500 <2.5 5 

Spinach 2,000 20 35 

Tomatoes 2,000 5 25 

Watermelons <500 <1 <2.5 

All numbers rounded. 

<500 Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient 

<2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated 

<1 Less than 1 percent of crop treated 

N/C Only Lbs. A.I. available 

* Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 95% or more of U.S. acres grown are in 

California) 

SLUA data sources include: 

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) 

Private Pesticide Market Research 

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

Figure 2 is a Crop Reporting District (CRD) level map of the agricultural use intensity of 

cyromazine, showing that agricultural uses occur primarily in California, Florida, and Southern 

New York. This map does not include the animal manure uses of cyromazine. The application 

rates for each of the registered uses are provided Table 3. For additional label information, 

please see Appendix F. 
16 

This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (CRD) level. CRDs are 

boundaries created by USDA NASS which are aggregates of counties (USDA, 2010). Pesticide usage is 

displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006-2010) per 1,000 acres of farmland in a CRD to normalize 

for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007). 

Usage is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2006-2010). The 

survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-90% of acreage for the individual crops, 

therefore, use may be occurring in regions outside the scope of the survey. CRDs showing no usage of 

pesticides may be due to either the lack of pesticide use in the region or non-participation in the agricultural 

surveys. In addition, across the years, there may be variations in the specific crops included in the CRD 

survey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD. 

Sources: 

*Proprietary Data. 2006-2010 

* USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts. Online: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass. 

*USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture. Online: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp. 

Figure 2. Cyromazine Usage by Crop Reporting District (2006-2010). 

 
17 

Table 3. Summary of Registered Cyromazine Application Rates 

Label 

(Registrant) Use Pattern 

Single App. Rate 

pound of active 

ingredient per acre 

Number of 

Applications 

per year 

App. 

Interval 

days 

Type of 

Application 

100-654, 

Trigard 

(Syngenta) 

Lima beans dried beans, 

hanover salad, bulb 

vegetables, cucurbit, 

brassica leafy, celery, 

head lettuce, peppers, 

abyssinian seakale 

cabbage, turnip greens, 

tomatoes, succulent 

beans 

0.125 lb a.i./A 6 /crop season 7 ground/aerial 

(foliar) 

Leafy vegetables 

(minus brassica leafy), 

celery, head lettuce) 

0.125 lb a.i./A 5 /crop season 7 ground/aerial 

(foliar) 

Potatoes 0.249 lb a.i./A 3/crop season 

[calc] 7 ground/aerial (foliar) 

100-790, 

Trigard OMC 

(Syngenta) 

Bulb onions 

4.95 lb ai/100 lb seed 

0.24 – 3.71 lb a.i./A1

1 NA ground 

100-656, 

Armor, 

(Syngenta) 

Mushroom compost 

5 mg/kg (Direct 

application) 

0.05 lb a.i./A2 (soil 

amended with compost) 

as needed as needed drenching - 

chemigation 

100-667, 

Citation 

(Syngenta) 

Ornamentalscontainers; 

greenhouses, lath & 

shade house grown 

bedding, ornamental 

crops, interior-scapes 

0.125 lb a.i./A 

3 consecutive 

applications, 6 

applications total 

per crop ( (2)-3 

consecutive 

applications) 

7 

tank mixture, 

spraying, 

thermal fogger, 

LV sprayer 

70585-1, 

Larvadex 1% 

(Novartis) 

and 75066-1, 

Flyzine 1%, 

(Novil) 

Chicken feed 

5 mg a.i./kg (feed); 

0.03 lb a.i./A2 (soil 

amended with manure)

min daily use of 4-

6 weeks; repeat as 

necessary (when 

maggots return), 

discontinue use in 

low fly pressure 

periods for at least 

4 consecutive 

months per year 

1 

1007-93, 

Solitude IGR 

(Pfizer 

Animal 

Health) 

Horse feed 

0.5 oz product (0.0106 oz 

a.i)/ horse/ day ; 

0.1 or 0.64 lb a.i./A (soil 

amended with manure)2

1 NA 

70585-2, 

Larvadex 2SL 

(Novartis) 

Chicken manure 

3.76 lbs a.i./A (Direct 

application) 

0.32 lb a.i./A3 (soil 

amended with manure) 

17 21 sprinkled on 

dry or wet 

70585-7, 

Neporex 2SG 

(Novartis) 

Chicken, cattle, hog 

manure, use around 

horse barns 

4.36 lbs a.i./A (Direct 

application) 

Hogs: 0.27 - 2.7 lb a.i./A 

(soil amended with 

manure)4 

Cattle: 0.28-2.3 lb a.i./A 

Chicken: 0.52-2.1 lb a.i./A 

Horse (anticipated to be 

less than other animals) 

17 21 sprinkled on 

dry or wet 
18 

1 Maximum application rate in lb a.i./A based on seeding rate in TREX 1.5; however other seeding rates for bulb onion 

specifically are referenced in OPP/BEAD memo, 

2

 Based on assumption of applying 4 tons of manure unaltered ‘as excreted’ per acre or after removing water content (based on 

ASAE, 2005) and applying 4 tons of manure/A as dry manure. Although the label does not specifically state that manure can be 

used as a soil amendment (in an email correspondence, the registrant indicated that it could be used as fertilizer and so the 4

tons/A that was detailed in the other labels was used to calculate the rate). 

Memo from H. Nelson, EFGB/EFED (October 1, 1990, no DP barcode #), whereas the reported calculated concentration in soil 

amended with manure from chickens fed Larvadex 1% is 0.05 lb a.i./A using 5 tons of manure; however current labels have 

restrictions of 3 tons of manure. Additionally a memo in 1990 (no DP barcode #) referring to mushroom compost has an 

equivalent rate to chicken feed which is 0.05 lb a.i./A in 5 tons of manure. 3

 Based on residue data, calculated as 40 mg/kg, where Larvadex 2SL% was topically applied to chicken manure at the label rate 

(MRID 44759202) and soil amended with 4 tons manure. 

4

 Based on EFED’s revised risk assessment: D338467, May 16, 2007. U.S.EPA. EFED's review of the Novartis Response to 1) 

EFED's Ecological Risk Assessment (D317886, July 14, 2006), and 2) Submission of Updated Labeling (MRIDs 470841-00,-

01), and 3) ASAE 2005 manure rates and percent moisture content. The first rate generally reflects that the manure was applied

‘as excreted’ with no further manipulation prior to soil amendment and the second rate reflects using dried manure for amending. 

The rates vary due to differences in livestock management and manure practices. 

For route of exposure to manure use as a soil amendment, the resulting concentration of 

cyromazine in the amended soil can vary, due to the varying application rates depending on the 

desired concentration in manure/compost, as well as livestock management practices and manure 

waste practices. The rates chosen for modeling exposure (0.27 and 2.7 lb a.i./A) were based on 

the rate calculated in the 2006 assessment on cyromazine use on manure in livestock facilities 

(D338467). The rate of 0.27 lb a.i./A was determined to be a high use rate, based on the expected 

concentration of cyromazine in hog manure ‘as excreted,’ and considering information on 

available livestock handling practices (the calculated cyromazine concentrations in manure for 

hogs and cattle use are very similar). The calculation used to derive the lb a.i./A rate that was 

modeled is based on amending 4.5 tons/A of this ‘as excreted’ manure was; this is consistent 

with the 2006 assessment, and was expected to represent a high use rate of manure per acre. As 

this calculation was based on ‘as excreted’ manure, this value was adjusted to account for water 

content (using ASAE, 2005 in which for hogs, the reported moisture content is 90%) and is 2.7 

lb a.i./A. This range of use rates is meant to represent a high and low end use rate for soil 

amendment. Field application for amending soil with cyromazine-treated manure is expected to 

vary depending on the type of manure, the current field conditions, and the manure application 

method used. Therefore, there is uncertainty in the application rates chosen for modeling the 

soil-amendment use. 

C. Receptors and Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

Both terrestrial and aquatic non-target organisms are ecological receptors that may be at risk 

from potential exposure to cyromazine. Aquatic ecosystems that may be exposed include ponds, 

streams, and other water bodies receiving runoff and drift from direct applications to growing 

crops or fields where treated manure is spread as a soil amendment. Terrestrial ecosystems 

include those that receive direct applications to growing crops or drift from those areas, and 

livestock lots and holding areas where treated manure is distributed for fertilizer or for disposal. 

1. Assessment Endpoints 

Generally, assessment endpoints include survival, growth, and reproductive success of the 

surrogate ecological receptors. Toxicity values used to assess survival from short-term (acute) 
19 

exposures are cyromazine levels associated with statistically estimated 50% survival rates. 

Toxicity values used to assess potential reproductive effects are the highest levels tested that did 

not induce reproductive or growth effects (No Observable Adverse Effect Concentration: 

NOAEC; Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Concentration: LOAEC). Table 4 summarizes the 

assessment endpoints used to assess risk to the organisms within the ecosystems, and the 

surrogate species and toxicity values used to assess risk. Data were obtained from registrant 

submitted studies or from literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ECOTOXicology 

database (ECOTOX) was searched in order to provide more ecological effects data and in an 

attempt to bridge existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity 

data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by 

the USEPA, Office of Research and Development, and the National Health and Environmental 

Effects Research Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecology Division. ECOTOX search results were 

obtained in September 2007 and July 2011. For additional details on studies used in this 

assessment, refer to Appendix G. For the results of the ECOTOX search, refer to Appendix I. 

Based on the submitted data, cyromazine is practically non-toxic to freshwater fish and 

invertebrates; slightly toxic to birds on an acute oral basis, and practically non-toxic to birds 

(acute dietary basis), mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates (contact) on an acute exposure basis. 

Cyromazine is practically non-toxic to estuarine-marine mollusks on an acute basis; however, 

acute toxicity data for estuarine-marine shrimp are not available. Chronic exposure resulted in 

reduced growth in freshwater fish (fathead minnows) at 127 mg a.i./L (NOAEC = 73 mg a.i./L). 

Chronic exposure resulted in reduced growth in estuarine-marine invertebrates (mysid shrimp) at 

0.131 mg a.i./L (the lowest concentration tested, therefore, the NOAEC is < 0.131 mg a.i./L). 

Chronic exposure in freshwater invertebrates resulted in reduced growth (NOAEC = 0.31 mg 

a.i./L). Acute and chronic toxicity data are not available for estuarine/marine fish. Chronic 

exposure in birds resulted in a reduction in the number of normal hatchling at 75 mg a.i./kg-diet. 

Chronic exposure in mammals resulted in decreased pup and parental weight (NOAEL = 50 mg 

a.i./kg-bw). 

Table 4. Summary of Cyromazine Toxicity Data and Endpoints for Animals and Plants 

Considered in this Assessment 

TAXA MEASURE OF EFFECT 

Survival, growth, 

and/ or 

reproduction of: 

Species Toxicity Endpoint Reference / Study 

Classification 

Freshwater Fish 

Acute 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 96-hr LC50 >84 mg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 47.8 mg a.i./L. 

Sublethal effects observed 

were surfacing, rapid, 

irregular respiration, 

irritated behavior at 84 mg 

a.i./L 

MRID 00070912 / 

Acceptable 

Chronic 

Pimephales promelas 

Fathead minnow NOAEC = 73 mg a.i./L 

LOAEC = 127 mg a.i./L 

based on % of eggs 

producing live, normal 

larvae at test termination 

MRID 00073085 / 

Acceptable 
20 

TAXA MEASURE OF EFFECT 

Survival, growth, 

and/ or 

reproduction of: 

Species Toxicity Endpoint Reference / Study 

Classification 

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

Acute 

Daphnia magna

Water flea 48-hr EC50 >88.7 mg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 8.7 mg a.i./L 

(based on immobility); no 

other sublethal effects 

noted 

MRID 00070912 / 

Acceptable 

Chronic 

Daphnia magna 

Water flea 

21-d NOAEC = 0.31 mg 

a.i./L 

LOAEC (0.64 mg a.i./L) 

based on reduced length 

and reproduction 

MRID 00073085 / 

Acceptable 

Estuarine/Marine 

Fish

Acute 

No data available 

Chronic 

No data available 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates

Acute 

Crassostrea virginica 

Eastern oyster 96-hr EC50 > 104 mg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 104 mg a.i./L 

(based on inhibition of 

shell growth). 

MRID 47940803 / 

Acceptable 

Chronic 

Americamysis bahia 

Mysid shrimp NOAEC = <0.131 mg a.i./L LOAEC = 0.131 mg a.i./L based on male length 

MRID 48691501 / 

Supplemental 

Aquatic Plants 

Vascular Plants 

No data available 

Non-vascular Plants 

 Scenedesmus subspicatus 

Algae 

96-hr IC50 = 124 mg a.i./L Based on reduced mean 

cell density 

MRID 48608301 / 

Supplemental 

96-hr NOAEC < 100 mg 

a.i./L 

Based on reduced cell 

density (44% inhibition 

compared to control) 

(visually determined) 

Birds 

Acute 

Colinus virginianus 

Northern bobwhite quail 14-d LD50 = 1706 mg 

a.i./kg-bw 

Slope = 5.76 ; NOAEL = 

380 mg a.i./kg-bw 

MRID 00070912 / 

Acceptable 

Sub-acute 

Colinus virginianus 

Northern bobwhite quail & 

Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck

5-d LC50 >5,373 mg a.i./kgdiet 

NOAEC <537 mg a.i./kgdiet based on reduced body 

weight; one mortality in 3 

out of 4 top test conc. 

MRID 00070912 / 

Acceptable 

Chronic 

Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 

22-wk NOAEC = 75 mg 

a.i./kg-diet 

LOAEC = 300 based on 

reduced number of normal 

hatchlings 

MRID 44743802 / 

Acceptable 

Mammals 

Acute 

Mouse LD50 = 2029 mg a.i./kg-bw 

NOAEL <600 mg a.i./kg 

based on sedation, 

dyspnoea, curved position 

and ruffled fur. 

MRID 00082837 / 

Acceptable 
21 

TAXA MEASURE OF EFFECT 

Survival, growth, 

and/ or 

reproduction of: 

Species Toxicity Endpoint Reference / Study 

Classification 

Chronic 

Rattus Norvegicus

Rat 

2-gen = 50 mg/kg-bw (1000 

mg/kg-diet) 

LOAEL (150 mg/kg-bw; 

3000 mg/kg-diet) based on 

decreased body weights in 

pups and parental group 

MRID 00103197 / 

Acceptable 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates 

Acute Contact 

Apis mellifera

Honey Bee 48-hr LD50 > 25 μg a.i./bee No effects at the highest dose 

MRID 43152601 / 

Acceptable 

Terrestrial Plants Seedling Emergence 

Monocots and dicots No quantitative data available 

D. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models 

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses 

In order to estimate risk of cyromazine exposures in aquatic and terrestrial environments in this 

preliminary assessment, all exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusions were made based 

on maximum application rates. Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models 

that estimate environmental concentrations of cyromazine using maximum labeled application 

rates and application methods that have the greatest potential for off-site transport of the 

chemical. The models used to generate Tier I and Tier II aquatic estimated environmental 

concentrations (EEC) are the GENeric Estimated Environmental Concentration model 

(GENEEC) and the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2, May 12, 2005) coupled with the 

Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, April 25, 2005), respectively. The 

model used to produce terrestrial EECs on food items is T-REX. These models are parameterized 

using relevant reviewed registrant-submitted environmental fate data. For more information on 

EPA’s models, visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm. 

The maximum label application rates were selected for modeling environmental concentrations 

for this screening-level assessment. The most sensitive toxicity endpoints from surrogate test 

species are used to estimate treatment-related effects on growth, reproduction and/or survival. 

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of studies conducted with a limited number of 

surrogate species. The test species are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive 

species but rather are selected based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. 

2. Conceptual Model 

Cyromazine is applied as a foliar treatment to various food and non-food crops, and as an onion 

seed treatment. Also, mushroom compost and animal manure that was treated with cyromazine 

may be used as a soil amendment. Ecological receptors that may potentially be exposed to 

cyromazine include terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, amphibians, 

terrestrial invertebrates, and reptiles) and plants. In addition, aquatic receptors (e.g., freshwater 
22 

and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, amphibians, and plants) may also be exposed as a 

result of potential movement of cyromazine. The conceptual model used to depict the potential 

ecological risk associated with cyromazine is fairly generic and assumes that as an insecticide, 

cyromazine is capable of affecting terrestrial and aquatic organisms (animals and plants) 

provided environmental concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result of label uses. As 

cyromazine can be used as a foliar application potential exposure is considered as a result of 

direct contact through spray drift, direct application, and runoff. Other exposure routes 

considered are exposure from soil amendment with manure containing cyromazine and as an 

onion seed treatment. See Figures 3 and 4 for exposure diagrams. 

3. Risk Hypothesis 

For this assessment, the risk to non-target organisms is based on potential effects from the 

application of cyromazine to the environment. EPA presumes the following risk hypothesis for 

this preliminary assessment: 

Based on the use patterns only, the uses of cyromazine have the potential to reduce 

survival, reproduction, and/or growth in terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and plants 

through direct application, spray drift and/or runoff. Additionally, based on the known 

mode of action and the sensitivity of non-target aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate 

species, the uses of cyromazine also have the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, 

and/or growth in terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species through direct application, 

spray drift and/or runoff. 

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach non-target organisms at 

concentrations found to cause adverse effects. The assessment of ecological exposure pathways 

in this assessment includes an examination of the source and potential migration pathways to 

cyromazine exposure, and the determination of potential adverse effects on non-target species 

Figures 3 and 4). 
Figure 3. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential Effects to Aquatic OrUses of Cyromazine (Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to 

Stressor

Source

Receptors

AttributeChange

Pesticide applied to use site

Spray drift

Aquatic animalsInvertebrates Vertebrates

Individual organismsReduced survivalReduced growthReduced reproduction

Food chainReduction in algae and 

vascular plants

Reduction in preyModification of PCEs 

related to prey availability

Habitat integrityReduction in primary productivityReduced coverCommunity changeModification of PCEs related to 

habitat

Surface water/

Sediment

Runoff

Aquatic AnimalsInvertebratesVertebrates

ExposureMedia

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion

Atmospheric 

transport

Wet/dry deposition

Soil Leaching to Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic PlantsNon-vascularVascular

Uptake/cell, 

roots, leaves Riparian plants terrestrial 

exposure 

pathways see 

Figure 4
Figure 4. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential Effects to Terrestrial Organi

Cyromazine (Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological ris
25 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Use and Exposure Characterization 

Cyromazine is applied as a foliar application to a variety of crops such as beans, leafy 

vegetables, cucurbits, potatoes, peppers as well as to ornamentals. Cyromazine is also applied to 

onion seeds. These exposure routes are evaluated in this assessment for potential adverse risk to 

non-target organisms. 

Cyromazine may be applied to mushroom compost and as a feed-through for horses and 

chickens. As commercial mushroom productions are primarily conducted indoors, exposure to 

non-target organisms due to direct applications made to mushrooms are expected to be minimal. 

Likewise, cyromazine applications made via a feed-through system to manage target insects that 

may develop in horse and chicken manure is also expected to be mostly contained. However, the 

spent mushroom compost and the manure produced from these feed-through uses can be used as 

a soil amendment and non-target organism exposure to cyromazine can occur from soil 

amendments. 

Onion seeds may be treated with cyromazine prior to planting. Based on available information 

concerning onion planting, it appears that enough seeds may be easily gleaned by non-target 

animals as information suggests that seeds are planted about one-half inch deep4

. Cyromazine 

exposure to non-target organisms from this use may occur from terrestrial animals consuming 

onion seeds shortly after planting. Additionally, if the cyromazine is removed from the seed 

coating after planting (e.g., desorbs or washes off), then it may be available for runoff into 

adjacent areas and expose non-target terrestrial and aquatic animals. These two scenarios 

represent two different routes of exposure with the cyromazine either being available on the seed 

(i.e., direct consumption) or being removed from the seed and available via off-site transport. 

The rate of desorption of cyromazine from onion seeds is not known, though it is anticipated that 

the actual amount of cyromazine available will be somewhere between the entire amount applied 

and the entire amount being removed from the seed. It is known that cyromazine is systemic and 

has been measured throughout plant material, which may be another route of exposure. 

However, this route of exposure is anticipated to be captured through evaluating the direct foliar 

application scenarios. In the preliminary assessment, two conservative, yet opposite, exposure 

routes were modeled. For direct consumption of the seeds, it was assumed that all of the 

cyromazine applied was available on the seed for consumption. In the runoff exposure scenario, 

it was conservatively assumed that all of the applied cyromazine to the seed was available for 

runoff. It is recognized that for a planted field with cyromazine-treated onion seeds, these two 

scenarios would not occur simultaneously. However, to evaluate the worst case scenario for 

each potential exposure route, the most reasonably conservative exposure scenario was modeled. 

If needed, the route of exposure was further evaluated and discussed in the Risk Description 

Section (V). 

 

4

 http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/coonions.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012); 

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/gardening/node/471 (accessed September 10, 2012); 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/txonions.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012) 
26 

Cyromazine may also be applied directly to manure generated by hogs, chickens, horses, and 

cattle. Therefore, the potential for exposure to non-target organisms from the manure at these 

facilities is also further evaluated. Based on several lines of evidence, exposure to manure at 

these facilities (manure within the facilities perimeters) for non-target organisms (terrestrial and 

aquatic) is anticipated to be low and evaluation of exposure via soil amended with cyromazine 

treated manure is anticipated to be inclusive of any exposure a non-target organism may 

encounter in the livestock facility. 

Based on available information for manure handling and management practices, efforts are taken 

to contain the manure to help prevent runoff (US EPA 2006 Risk Assessment for use on manure 

(D 317886, June 14, 2006); NPDES Permit Writers’ Guidance Manual and Example NPDES 

Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Appendix B: Animal sector descriptions, 

hhtp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/info.cfm). Therefore, if the manure is managed to help prevent 

runoff, then the likelihood of exposure to non-target organisms is low. For terrestrial animals, 

exposure may occur if there are dietary items on or around the manure piles that are of interest to 

terrestrial animals. There may be some spilled feed near or on a manure pile treated with 

cyromazine in which terrestrial birds and mammals may be attracted to. Therefore, these 

animals may ingest cyromazine through incidental ingestion when eating the spilled feed. The 

areas near these feed stations are assumed to be highly disturbed areas with constant movement 

of production animals, and this may limit the accessibility of non-target animals. In addition, 

this assessment evaluates cyromazine residues that can remain in treated manure, and 

subsequently used as a soil amendment, with a calculated concentration-equivalent application 

rate range of 0.27 to 2.7 lb a.i./A based on an application of up to approximately 4 tons of 

cyromazine treated manure that can be amended into each acre of soil. While there is evidence 

that cyromazine may be taken up in plants if runoff from manure piles occur, exposure via feed 

to terrestrial animals is anticipated to be captured from evaluating soil amendment and exposure 

from foliar application. In addition, exposure to aquatic organisms was assessed from the soil 

amendment use, where any mismanaged manure that moves offsite in runoff would need to be 

greater than the approximately 4 tons per acre to exceed concentrations from soil amendment. 

Additionally, there is information available that suggests that while most of the labels state a 

maximum amount of manure (containing cyromazine residues) that can be amended into soil (4 

tons), as soil amendment with manure is typically based on the nutrient requirements of the soil, 

more than 4 tons per acre may be applied to optimize nutrients in the soil (Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency, 2012). However, in this assessment, a maximum of approximately 4 tons (4.5 

tons/acre/year) was used. Therefore, in addition to evaluating exposure from the foliar 

application uses and treated onion seeds, this assessment will focus on evaluating exposure to 

non-target organisms from soil amended with manure treated with cyromazine and it is 

anticipated that these exposure routes will be inclusive of the potential exposure and risk from 

exposure via treated manure at the livestock facility site. 

B. Environmental Fate Characterization and Modeling Input Parameters 

Cyromazine is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis, and is persistent in aerobic soil (t1/2 > 100 

days). This was confirmed in the field studies, where dissipation half-lives ranged from 93 to 

240 days. The aerobic soil metabolism half-life (t1⁄2) was 142 days for a sandy loam and 107 days 

for a muck soil (EFGWB #90679, 1990). Data suggest that cyromazine in manure is also quite 
27 

persistent. Cyromazine in beef manure was found to degrade slowly and in chicken manure, 

cyromazine had a half-life of 439 days. 

Cyromazine is highly water soluble (1.36 x 105

 mg/L at 25oC). The Freundlich adsorption 

coefficients (Kads) for the mineral soils are less than 5 mL/g, and for the organic soil the Kads

value was 17 mL/g. The logarithms (1.6 to 2.3) of the Koc values are generally less than 2, 

which falls into the “Mobile” category as described by the Food and Agricultural Organization 

(FAO) Standardized Soil Mobility Classification Guidance5. These characteristics would 

suggest that cyromazine has the potential to leach through soils, especially sand, fine sands, and 

loamy sands, or to be transported in solution in runoff water. 

Volatilization is not expected to be a major route of dissipation for cyromazine due to the 

relatively low vapor pressure. 

Based on the above environmental fate information, cyromazine is both mobile and persistent, 

and has potential to move in soil or be transported off site in runoff water under certain 

conditions (e.g., sandy soils). The physical/chemical and environmental fate properties for 

cyromazine used as the input parameters in modeling to estimate potential environmental 

concentrations are summarized in Table 5. 

 

 

5

 http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X2570E/X2570E06.htm 
28 

Table 5. Input Parameters Used in GENEEC and PE5 Modeling to Estimate Cyromazine 

Concentrations Resulting From the Uses on Crops, Ornamentals, and Soil Amendment 

(Manure and Feed-throughs, Mushroom Compost)

Input Parameter (Symbol; Unit) Value for Cyromazine Reference 

Molecular Weight 166.19 

SRC Database 

(http://www.srcinc.com/what-wedo/databaseforms.aspx?id=386) 

Henry’s constant (25 oC) 5.65 x 10-14 atm-m3

 / mole @ 

25oC

SRC Database 

(http://www.srcinc.com/what-wedo/databaseforms.aspx?id=386) 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.36 x 10-9 torr @ 25oC

SRC Database 

(http://www.srcinc.com/what-wedo/databaseforms.aspx?id=386) 

Solubility in Water (mg/L at 25 oC) 1.36 x 105

 mg/L MRID 43061200 

Hydrolysis Half-life (t1/2 at pH 7) Stable at pH 5, 7, and 9 MRID 103148 

Aquatic Photolysis Half-life (days; t1/2 at 

pH 7) Stable in water at pH 7 MRID 103149 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism [upper 90th

percentile confidence bound on the mean 

half-life value (t1/2; days)] 

~1501

 days 

150 x 3 = 450 days (EFED 

Guidance) 

MRIDs 157458, 470168-02 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life 

[water column; upper 90th percentile 

confidence bound on the mean half-life 

value (t1/2; days)] 

No Data 

1502

 days x 2 = 300 days EFED Input Parameter Guidance 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life 

(t1/2; days) *PE5 only Stable EFED Input Parameter Guidance 

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (t1/2; 

days) *PE5 only No Data No Data 

Average Adsorption Rate Coefficient 

(Kads; mL/g) lowest non sand = 3.9 MRIDs 103139, 103150, 103165 

Average Organic Carbon-Water 

Partitioning Coefficient (Koc; mL/g) 

Lowest non sand = 40 Mean 

= 99.6 mL/g MRIDs 103139, 103150, 103165 

Gray shading indicates data that are not considered in GENEEC; however, are provided for completeness. 

1

 The 90th percent upper bound of mean of 107, 142 days is 178.3 days. However, value recommended for this 

assessment is ~150 days. Muck soil has a half-life of 107 days, and sandy loam has a half-life of 142 days. 

However, it may not be appropriate to combine these two half-lives given the differences in soil types. Therefore, a 

single value is being used. 

2

 Aerobic Soil Metabolism half-life times 2, per EFED guidance (USEPA. 2002). 3

 Kads 0.52 (sand), 2.37 (sandy clay loam), 3.87 (silt loam), 17 (clay loam) 

*The cells shaded above were not used as inputs for GENEEC2, but are physical/chemical properties of the 

chemical and provided for a better understanding of the chemical and completeness. 

 
29 

1. Aquatic Exposure 

a) Model Estimations 

Tier I cyromazine EECs for the uses on crops are listed in Table 6. The model output files are 

provided in APPENDIX C. EECs for cyromazine residues resulting from its foliar use on 

potatoes provide the highest Tier I surface water EECs for crops. 

Table 6. Tier I Surface Water EECs for Cyromazine Residues for Registered Crop Uses 

and Soil Amended with Manure Uses 

Crop/Site Peak 

μg/L (ppb) 21-day μg/L (ppb)

60-day 

μg/L (ppb)

GENEEC 

Food Crops

Lima beans, dried beans, hanover salad, bulb 

vegetables, cucurbit, brassica leafy, celery, head 

lettuce, peppers, abyssinian seakale cabbage, turnip 

greens, tomatoes, 29.95 29.23 27.9 

Leafy vegetables (minus brassica leafy, celery, head 

lettuce) 25.09 24.49 23.37 

Potatoes (Colorado potato beetle and leafminer) 30.3 29.57 28.23 

Bulb onions 6.53 / 1311 6.37 / 128 6.08 / 122 

Non-Food Crops 

Ornamentals- containers; greenhouses, lath & shade 

house grown bedding, ornamental crops, interiorscapes 14.41 14.06 13.41 

Soil Amended with Manure 

Uses: Horse feed, chicken feed, mushroom compost, 

direct application to chicken, cattle, hog and horse 

manure2 

0.27 lb 

a.i./A 

2.7 lb 

a.i./A 

0.27 lb 

a.i./A 

2.7 lb 

a.i./A 

0.27 lb 

a.i./A 

2.7 lb 

a.i./A 

9.59 95.9 9.35 93.5 8.91 89.1 

PRZM-EXAMS (PE53)

Potatoes (Colorado potato 

beetle and leafminer) 

Scenario: MEpotatoSTD4 

Application Date: June 1st 

Water Column (ppb) 25.00 24.75 24.40 

Pore Water (ppb) 23.11 23.11 23.09 

Sediment (mg/kg) 0.10 0.10 0.10 

* Values in BOLD are the highest peak, 21 day, and 60 day values for foliar uses. 1 The two values presented represent potential seeding rates in the field as presented in the OPP/BEAD memo. The first value is 

for a seeding rate of 4 lb seed/A (bulb onions) and the second is for a seeding rate of 75 lb seeds/A (all onions, default value in 

TREX 1.5). The conservative assumption in these two values is that all of the available cyromazine on the seed was available for 

runoff. 
30 

2 See discussions in previous use section (Section II.B.1) for explanation of use rate. The 0.27 lb a.i/A is meant to represent 

manure applied to field ‘as excreted’ with no further manipulation of the manure, and the 2.7 lb a.i./A is meant to represent 

manure that is dried and applied dry to a field. 

3

 PE5 was run for the maximum non-manure use as a refinement and for comparison with toxicity data for sediment dwelling 

organisms. See Section XVII.A.1 for further information. 4

 IDNpotato_WirrigSTD scenario was also run, but since EECs were lower than MEpotatoSTD, only the MEpotatoSTD values 

were used for analyzing risk to sediment dwelling organisms. 

b) Monitoring Data 

The registrant conducted a small-scale prospective ground-water monitoring study on tomatoes 

in Florida (D178192, D199290). This study was conducted where leaching was unlikely due to a 

high water table and high evapotranspiration. Low levels of melamine were found in ground 

water, after irrigation was discontinued. Irrigation water was applied at this study site to mimic 

potential water that may move off-site by running off the treated field. The runoff (surface) 

water from the treated field was not assessed for cyromazine residues. There were no 

cyromazine residues detected in ground water during this study. The cyromazine degradate 

melamine was detected at levels ranging from 0.10 to 0.21 μg/L in shallow ground water. The 

overall study results and conclusions were limited, due to the fact that the study was conducted at 

one site and reflects only the conditions of the one site. 

There were no reported detections of cyromazine residues in ground water at the time that the 

Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base was published, in 1992 (USEPA, 1992). This may be 

because very few ground-water samples have been analyzed for cyromazine residues in the 

United States and because it has limited usage areas and crops. Cyromazine was not included in 

the suite of analyses conducted in the USEPA's National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water 

Wells (USEPA, 1990, 1992). Cyromazine also was not included in the USGS NAQWA 

program. No surface water monitoring was located. 

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) surface water database 

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm, USGS NAWQA surface and ground 

water database (http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=136:1:0::NO:::), Pesticide Data Program 

(http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateG&navID=

&rightNav1=&topNav=&leftNav=ScienceandLaboratories&page=PDPDownloadData/Reports&

resultType=&acct=pestcddataprg), and the USGS/EPA Reservoir Data Program were evaluated 

for available monitoring data, however cyromazine does not appear to be an analyte in these 

monitoring programs. 

2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

a) Terrestrial Exposure Modeling- dietary 

Terrestrial exposure estimates for avian and mammalian risk assessments were derived using the 

T-REX model (version 1.5., 03/22/2012). In this model, the assumption is that the bird or 

mammal receives 100% of their diet for one day from on-field items. 

 
31 

Crop Uses 

For cyromazine application to crops, a foliar application in T-REX was used. The input 

parameters and EECs for birds and mammals are presented in Table 7 through Table 11. For the 

preliminary assessment, terrestrial EECs for cyromazine were derived using the maximum 

application rates. An evaluation into a potential foliar dissipation half-life rate was conducted. 

Based on the available information, it appears that cyromazine may dissipate on some types of 

foliage (i.e., leafy vegetables which may be similar to the broadleaf plant category in T-REX) 

with calculated half-lives generally less than 14 days with 7 days in some cases (based on 

magnitude of residue studies; MRID 41976301, 00150744). But the data also seem to suggest 

that for some types of plants, cyromazine did not readily dissipate during the course of the study 

(i.e., ca. 14 or 21 days for tomatoes, cucurbits; MRID 42255101, 42116001). Additionally, in a 

study by Lim et al. (1990), where three Brassica sp. (bok choy, Napa cabbage and Chinese 

mustard) were exposed to a single application of Trigard at 0.50 lb a.i./A, the study authors 

stated that dissipation half-life of cyromazine was 7 days. An evaluation of potential dissipation 

for other dietary item categories in T-REX (i.e., the grasses) was not conducted as data were not 

available. Therefore, there is uncertainty in the potential dissipation rate for these other dietary 

groups, of which short grass results in the highest EECs. Sometimes, information on the 

dislodgeable residues can provide insight into foliar dissipation. However, in regard to the 

dislodgeable residues, this dissipation rate does not necessarily consider residues that are not 

dislodgeable (bound to surface of plant) or those that were transported inside the plant material. 

Cyromazine is systemic and has been shown to be taken up by foliage grown in soil containing 

cyromazine including grasses. Therefore, determining a foliar dissipation rate for dietary items 

based on only a dislodgeable foliar rate may underestimate that exposure. Additionally, 

cyromazine has been shown to be persistent in other media such as soil and manure. Therefore, 

as there is uncertainty in an appropriate rate for all dietary groups, in an effort to be reasonably 

conservative for the grass dietary group, the default foliar dissipation rate of 35 days was used. 

The use of this value is discussed in the Uncertainty section (V.5). 

Table 7. Input Parameters for T-REX Modeling for the Scenarios 

INPUT PARAMETERS CROP SOURCE

Single Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

succulent beans; lima 

beans; dried beans; 

hanover salad; bulb veg; 

cucurbits; brassica leafy; 

celery, head lettuce; leafy 

veg; peppers; sea kale 

cabbage, turnip greens 

0.125 

EPA Reg. No. 100-654 

Potatoes 0.249 

Ornamentals (leafminer 

control) 0.125 EPA Reg. No. 100-667 

Foliar Half-life 35 day Default 
32 

INPUT PARAMETERS CROP SOURCE

Number of Applications 

(Interval between 

Applications, days) 

succulent beans; lima 

beans; dried beans; 

hanover salad; bulb veg; 

cucurbits; brassica leafy; 

celery, head lettuce; leafy 

veg; peppers; sea kale 

cabbage, turnip greens 

6 (7) EPA Reg. No. 100-654 

Potatoes 3 (7) 

Ornamentals (leafminer 

control) 

3 consecutive 

applications, 6 

applications total 

per crop (7 for 3 

apps; wait 21-

day then 7 for 3 

more apps)

EPA Reg. No. 100-667 

Avian LD50 1706 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite quail) MRID 00070912 

Avian NOAEC 75 mg/kg-diet (mallard) MRID 44743802 

Mammal LD50 2029 mg/kg-bw (mouse) MRID 00082836 

Mammal NOAEC 1000 mg/kg diet (rat); 50 mg/kg-bw /day MRID 00103197 

Table 8. Avian Dose-Based Cyromazine Upper Bound EEC Values for Various Crops 

1 Adjusted LD50 values (mg/kg-bw): 20 g – 1229; 100 g – 1565; 1000 g– 2210 

 

Application Rate 

(crop) 

Size 

Class 

(g)1

Avian Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) 

Dietary Item 

Short 

Grass 

Tall 

Grass 

Broadleaf 

plants 

Fruits/ 

pods Arthropods

Seeds 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/7-d 

interval 

(succulent beans; lima beans; 

dried beans; hanover salad; bulb 

veg; cucurbits; brassica leafy; 

celery, head lettuce; leafy veg; 

peppers; sea kale cabbage, turnip 

greens 

20 149.05 68.32 83.84 9.32 

58.38 2.07 

100 85.00 38.96 47.81 5.31 

33.29 1.18 

1000 38.05 17.44 21.41 2.38 14.90 0.53 

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 apps/7-d 

interval 

(potatoes) 

20 178.89 81.99 100.63 11.18 70.07 2.48 

100 102.01 46.76 57.38 6.38 

39.95 1.42 

1000 45.67 20.93 25.69 2.85 17.89 0.63 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps /7-d 

interval (repeat 3 apps @ 7-d 

interval 21-d after last of first 3 

apps) 

(ornamentals) 

20 134.71 61.74 75.77 8.42 52.76 

1.87 

100 76.82 35.21 43.21 4.80 

30.09 1.07 

1000 34.39 15.76 19.35 2.15 13.47 0.48 
33 

Table 9. Mammalian Dose-Based Cyromazine Upper Bound EEC Values for Various 

Crops

1 Adjusted LD50 values (mg/kg-bw): 15 g – 2305; 35 g – 1865; 1000 g – 806.8; LD50 values calculated using initial 

body weight – study reported range from 20-30 g (individual values not reported), so used 25 grams in TREX.

2

 Adjusted NOAEL values (mg/kg-bw): 15 g – 109.9; 35 g – 88.9; 1000 g –38.5 

Table 10. Dietary-Based Cyromazine EEC Values for Various Crops 

Application Rate (crop) 

Dietary-Based EECs (mg/kg-diet) 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/pods/seeds Arthropods

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/7-d 

interval 

(succulent beans; lima beans; 

dried beans; hanover salad; bulb 

veg; cucurbits; brassica leafy; 

celery, head lettuce; leafy veg; 

peppers; sea kale cabbage, 

turnip greens 

130.88 59.98 73.62 8.18 51.26 

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 apps/7-d 

interval 

(potatoes) 

157.07 71.99 88.35 9.82 61.52 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps /7-d 

interval (repeat 3 apps @ 7-d 

interval 21-d after last of first 3 

apps) 

(ornamentals) 

78.85 36.14 44.35 4.93 46.33 

Application Rate 

(crop) 

Size 

Class 

(g)1

Mammalian Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) 

Dietary Item 

Short 

Grass 

Tall 

Grass 

Broadleaf 

plants 

Fruits/ 

pods Arthropods

Seeds 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/7-d interval 

(succulent beans; lima beans; dried 

beans; hanover salad; bulb veg; 

cucurbits; brassica leafy; celery, 

head lettuce; leafy veg; peppers; sea 

kale cabbage, turnip greens 

15 124.78 57.19 70.19 7.80 

48.87 1.73 

35 86.24 39.53 48.51 5.39 

33.78 1.20 

1000 19.99 9.16 11.25 1.25 7.83 0.28 

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes) 15 149.76 68.64 84.24 9.36 58.66 

2.08 

35 103.50 47.44 58.22 6.47 

40.54 1.44 

1000 24.00 11.00 13.50 1.50 9.40 0.33 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps /7-d 

interval ( repeat 3 apps @ 7-d 

interval 21-d after last of first 3 

apps) 

(ornamentals) 

15 112.77 51.69 63.43 7.05 44.17 

1.57 

35 77.94 35.72 43.84 4.87 

30.53 1.08 

1000 18.07 8.28 10.16 1.13 7.08 0.25 
34 

Soil Amended with Manure containing Cyromazine 

Based on the application rate discussed in the revised risk assessments for manure (DP317886), 

the range of application rates equivalent of cyromazine residues remaining in manure modeled 

was 0.27 and 2.7 lb a.i./A, if used as a soil amendment. This rate was modeled using the 

LD50/ft2 concept as a broadcast spray with no incorporation. In this model, it is assumed that the 

animal is consuming everything in its foraging path, which would include treated plant material 

and soil. Conceptually, an LD50/ft2

 is the amount of a pesticide estimated to kill 50% of exposed 

animals in each square foot of applied area. Although a square foot does not have defined 

ecological relevance, and any unit area could be used, risk presumably increases as the number 

of LD50s/ft2

 increases. The LD50/ft2 is calculated using a toxicity value (adjusted LD50) and the 

EEC (mg a.i. ft-2), which was calculated to be 2.81 mg a.i./ft2 for the soil amendment rate of 0.27 

lb a.i./A, and was 28.1 mg a.i./ft2 for the amendment rate of 2.7 lb a.i/A. These RQs are directly 

compared with EPA’s levels of concern (LOCs) (T-REX v1.5). 

Onion Seed Application 

The assumption is that exposure to mammals and birds occur via consumption of treated seeds 

on or immediately adjacent to the site of application. As stated in the Use and Exposure 

Characterization section (Section III.A), for the preliminary assessment, it was assumed that all 

of the applied cyromazine to the seed was available for consumption. The seed treatment 

worksheet in T-REX calculates the avian and mammalian dose (mg a.i. bw-1 day-1) and available 

pesticide (mg a.i. ft-2). Risk quotients (RQs) are calculated using the adjusted LD50 for the 

smallest weight class of animal (20 g for birds and 15 g for mammals). Acute RQs are 

calculated using two methods: 

Method 1 (EEC/LD50 method): Acute RQ = (mg a.i./kg-1 day-1)/adjusted LD50 

Method 2 (analogous to the LD50 ft-2 method): Acute RQ = (mg/kg-1 a.i. ft-2)/ (adjusted 

LD50 x body weight (kg)) 

Chronic RQs are calculated using the following equation: 

Avian Chronic RQ = mg a.i. kg-1 seed / NOAEC (mg/kg-diet). 

Mammalian Chronic RQ = mg a.i./kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 

Based on the label, the application rate is 4.95 lb a.i./100 lb seed. The seeding rate for onions 

was assumed to be 75 lbs seed/A (T-REX v1.5; U.S EPA, 2011). Risk quotients are based on the 

most sensitive LD50, LC50 and NOAEC for birds (bobwhite quail and mallard duck) and LD50

and NOAEC for mammals (based on laboratory mammalian studies). A complete description of 

the input parameters and output is contained in APPENDIX D. Table 11 is a summary of the 

potential EECs from the onion seed application. 

 
35 

Table 11. EECs for Cyromazine application to Onion Seeds1 

Animal Size Crop 

Maximum 

Application 

Rate 

Maximum 

Seed 

Application 

Rate Avian Nagy Dose 

Mammalian Nagy 

Dose Available AI 

 (lbs ai/A) 

(mg ai/kg 

seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2) 

Small 

onion 3.71 49500 

12528 10488 

Medium 7144 7248 38.74 

Large 3198 1681 1 Based on an application rate of 4.95 lb a.i./100 lb seed and a 75 lb/A seeding rate 

Terrestrial Plants 

Quantitative toxicity data were not available for terrestrial plants; therefore, EECs were not 

derived. 

b) Terrestrial Exposure Modeling - Inhalation 

Inhalation from foliar application of cyromazine to birds and mammals is a potential route of 

exposure. STIR (v. 1.0) was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of exposure using 

cyromazine’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 [rat (R. 

Norvegicus) LD50 (oral) and LD50 (inhalation; 4-hr exposure) of 3,387 mg a.i./kg-bw (MRID 

00082836) and >0.744 mg a.i./L (MRID 43799901), [bobwhite quail (C. virginianus) LD50 of 

>1,706 mg a.i./kg-bw (MRID 00070912)]. Based on the results of the STIR model, inhalation 

exposure alone was determined not to be a potential pathway of concern for avian or mammalian 

species on an acute basis. Refer to Appendix H for additional details on the inhalation modeling 

for cyromazine. 

C. Ecological Effects Characterization 

a) Aquatic Animals 

Studies conducted with technical grade cyromazine were submitted for the following aquatic 

animals: four freshwater fish [rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), bluegill sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and fathead minnow (Pimephales 

promelas)]; one freshwater invertebrate (Daphnia magna); one estuarine/marine mollusk 

(Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica); and, one mysid shrimp (Americamysis bahia). 

Acute toxicity tests for freshwater fish and cyromazine resulted in non-definitive LC50 values 

(MRID 00070912) for rainbow trout LC50 >84 mg a.i./L; bluegill sunfish LC50 > 85.8 mg a.i./L 

(MRID 00070912); and channel catfish LC50 > 88.3 mg a.i./L (MRID 00070912). No mortality 
36 

or sublethal effects were observed in the bluegill and catfish studies; surfacing, rapid irregular 

respiration and irritated behavior were reported at the highest concentration tested (84 mg a.i./L) 

in the rainbow trout study. For these tests, the reviewer could not determine whether the 

reported measured concentration was over the duration of the test or at test initiation. In 

addition, the reviewer adjusted the reported values for purity of cyromazine. An acute toxicity 

test was conducted with fathead minnow in an effort to determine concentrations for the early 

life-stage study (MRID 00073085) and the resulting 96 hour LC50 value was 715 mg a.i./L. In 

this study, dissolved oxygen levels dropped below 60% at levels where mortality was reported; 

also, test solutions were not analyzed after the addition of aeration (measured on Day 0 only). 

Given the drop in dissolved oxygen, this LC50 value for the fathead minnow will only be used 

qualitatively. Acute toxicity data were not available for estuarine-marine fish. 

The only freshwater or estuarine/marine fish study available for assessing the effects of chronic 

exposure is an early life-stage study with the fathead minnow (MRID 00073085) (there are 

currently no estuarine/marine chronic fish data available for cyromazine). As part of the 

registration review process, this study was re-evaluated. Previously, the NOAEC was reported 

as 14 mg a.i./L based on growth; however, statistical analyses were completed using each 

individual fish as an independent replicate. Therefore, length and weight endpoints were reanalyzed using replicate means and the NOAEC was determined to be 127 mg a.i./L. The most 

sensitive endpoint in this study was the percent of eggs that produced live, normal larvae at the 

end of the test with NOAEC and LOAEC values of 73 mg a.i./L and 127 mg a.i./L, respectively. 

The overall NOAEC of 73 mg a.i./L will be used in this assessment. 

The acute toxicity studies for cyromazine and aquatic invertebrates resulted in the following: 

freshwater invertebrate (D. magna) EC50 value >88.7 mg a.i./L (MRID 00070912) and 

estuarine/marine invertebrate (mollusk) [Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)] EC50 (shell 

deposition) > 104 mg a.i./L (MRID 47940803). An acute toxicity study with another estuarinemarine invertebrate (usually a shrimp) was not available. In the water flea (D. magna) study the 

NOAEC (based on visual observation of the data) was 8.7 mg a.i./L, based on mortality (there 

were no sub-lethal effects noted in the study). The oyster study resulted in a NOAEC of 104 mg 

a.i./L as no adverse effects were observed. 

A chronic study was available for cyromazine and freshwater invertebrates (D. magna) that 

resulted in NOAEC and LOAEC values of 0.31 mg a.i./L and 0.64 mg a.i./L, respectively, based 

on reduced length and reproduction (MRID 00073085). A chronic study was also available for 

estuarine-marine invertebrates (mysid shrimp, A. bahia), which resulted in a slight (4-8%) but 

significant reduction (p<0.05) in male body length at all test concentrations resulting in a 

NOAEC value of <0.131mg a.i./L, respectively (MRID 48691501). 

While registrant submitted toxicity data for sediment-dwelling organisms were not available, 

both an acute and sub-chronic toxicity value for Chironomus riparius was reported in the 2008 

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) scientific report for cyromazine (EFSA, 2008). The 48 

hour LC/EC50 value, under semi-static conditions, was reported as >120 mg a.i./L. Also 

available was a 26-d water/sediment study in which the overlying water was spiked with 

cyromazine and was tested at concentrations of 6.3 to 100 μg/L. Measured concentrations in 

overlying water and bulk sediment were reported for Day 0, 7 and test termination; measured 
37 

pore water concentrations were less than the limit of detection (3 μg/L). Based on the reported 

results, there was no emergence observed at the highest concentration, 79 μg/L (overlying water, 

time-weighted average; nominal 100μg/L), and the overall NOAEC, based on emergence and 

development rate was 14.5 μg/L (overlying water, time-weighted average; nominal 25 μg/L). 

b) Aquatic Plants 

One study was submitted for an aquatic non-vascular plant, green algae (Scenedesmus 

pannonicus) (MRID 48608301). The 96 hour IC50 for this study was reported as 124 mg/L. The 

observed NOAEC (reviewer reported) was <100 mg/L as there was 44% inhibition of cells 

compared to the control. 

c) Terrestrial Animals 

Birds 

Based on the LD50 value for the northern bobwhite quail (C. virginianus) of 1,706 mg a.i./kg-bw 

cyromazine is characterized as slightly toxic to avian species on an acute oral-exposure basis 

(MRID 00070912). There was also an acute oral toxicity study with the mallard duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) which resulted in a non-definitive LD50 value of >956 mg a.i./kg-bw (MRID 

00108822). There was regurgitation noted at the two highest doses in the mallard study 

therefore, the reported value is the highest dose where no regurgitation was observed. The 

observed NOAEL for the bobwhite quail was 380 mg a.i./kg-bw based on lethargy observed at ≥

603 mg a.i./kg-bw. For the mallard duck study, there was one mortality out of 10 exposed birds 

at 956 mg a.i./kg-bw and a decrease in body weight gain was observed at all doses. Therefore the 

visually observed NOAEL for the mallard duck study was <380 mg a.i./kg-bw (only average 

body weight for a treatment group was presented which precluded the ability to conduct 

statistical analyses). As regurgitation was observed in the mallard duck study, this study is 

reclassified as Supplemental. These reported values were adjusted for purity by the reviewer. 

Cyromazine is also classified as practically non-toxic to avian species on a sub-acute dietaryexposure basis, with LC50 values of >5,373 mg a.i./kg-diet reported for northern bobwhite quail 

and mallard ducks (MRID 00070912). In the bobwhite study, there was one reported mortality 

at 5,373 mg a.i./kg-diet as well as a mortality in the 956 and 1702 mg a.i./kg-diet group; in 

addition, lethargy was observed in one bird at the lowest concentration tested and a reduction in 

body weight for the two highest test concentrations. In the mallard study, there was only one 

mortality at 956 mg a.i./kg-diet, however, a reduction in body weight of 15-23% compared to 

control was observed, except for at second to lowest concentration which had a 2% reduction 

(additionally, as body weight was presented as average weight for the treatment group (n=1), 

statistically analysis could not be conducted), and a reduction of feed consumption was observed 

at all test concentrations. Therefore, based on the observed effects, the visually observed 

NOAEC for both of these studies is <537 mg a.i./kg-bw. 

There are two avian reproduction studies available for cyromazine: a study using mallard duck 

(MRID 44743802) and one using bobwhite quail (MRID 44743801). The NOAEC for the 
38 

mallard duck study was 75 mg a.i./kg-diet based on a reduction of the number of normal 

hatchlings at 300 mg a.i./kg-diet. Effects on egg production and hatchability were observed at 

1,200 mg a.i./kg-diet. In the bobwhite quail study, the NOAEC is 300 mg a.i./kg-diet based on a 

slight regression of testes at 1,200 mg a.i./kg-diet. 

Mammals 

Acute oral toxicity tests were available for several mammal species: mouse LD50 = 2029 mg/kgbw; rat LD50 = 3,387 mg/kg-bw; and rabbit LD50 = 1,467 mg/kg-bw (MRID 00082837, 

00082836 and 00082838, respectively). Based on the acute oral LD50 values cyromazine is 

characterized as practically nontoxic to mammalian species on an acute oral-exposure basis. On 

a body weight basis, the results from the mouse study will provide the most conservative RQ 

estimates and as such, is used in the assessment. A 2-generation study was performed for 

cyromazine in rats (R. norvegicus). A decrease in body weights in pups and parents (10-20%) 

was observed at 3000 mg/kg-diet (150 mg/kg-bw); the next lower concentration was 1000 

mg/kg-diet (50 mg/kg-bw) were a slight decrease in parental body weight was reported (7.5%) 

(MRID 00103197). The decreases in body weight were correlated with decreased food 

consumption, and based on the study report, the decrease in body weight in the 1000 mg/kg-diet 

group started to appear after about 7 or 8 weeks of eating cyromazine treated feed. No effects on 

reproduction were reported. In this assessment, the value of 1000 mg/kg-diet was used to 

calculate RQs. A discussion of use of this chronic value in the assessment is provided in the 

Uncertainty Section (V.5). There was one acute oral toxicity study conducted with a 

formulation, reported as 5% SOD FL790350, for the rat with a LD50 value 3860 mg/kg (193 mg 

a.i./kg) (MRID 00135428). As the formulation is coded there is uncertainty in whether it 

represents a currently registered formulation. The only currently registered formulation with a 

label with 5% cyromazine is the mushroom compost label (Reg No. 100-656). As the mushroom 

compost is anticipated to be an indoor use, exposure to non-target animals from this direct use is 

not expected; while the spent compost is used as a soil amendment, the properties of the 

formulation are anticipated to be quite different than what the rats were exposed to in the acute 

oral study. Other acute oral toxicity tests were available with various formulations, but either the 

LD50 value was greater than the technical LD50 value or they resulted in a non-definitive toxicity 

value (MRIDs 00129611, 00151137, 46550824, 46550825). Therefore, the acute toxicity values 

with the technical cyromazine will be used in the risk estimation. 

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

The registrant submitted one guideline (acute honey bee-contact) terrestrial invertebrate toxicity 

study for cyromazine. The young adult honey bee (A. mellifera) acute contact study reported a 

LD50 of >25 μg a.i./bee (MRID 43152601); there were no mortalities or sublethal effects at this 

dose. Based on the acute contact honeybee study, cyromazine is classified as practically nontoxic. However, cyromazine is intended to target the larval stage of terrestrial invertebrates and 

therefore the acute contact test using adult honeybees may not be predictive of toxicity to other 

honeybee life-stages or other terrestrial invertebrates. Additional laboratory studies were 

conducted using various terrestrial invertebrates; larval mortality was observed (ca. 40% at 0.4 lb 

a.i./A), and approximately a 50% reduction in number of fertile eggs/female at 0.8 lb a.i./A for 
39 

the lady bird beetle (MRID 48608301). Acute toxicity studies using other adult terrestrial 

invertebrates (beetles) did not show adverse effects at 0.80 lb a.i./A (MRID 48608301). 

There are open literature papers that evaluate terrestrial invertebrate toxicity using cyromazine. 

Many of these papers examined the efficacy of cyromazine formulations on targeted pests, 

including leafminers, in which cyromazine was generally observed to reduce pest populations 

compared to an untreated control (e.g., Sirota and Grafius, 1994; Civelek and Weintraub, 2003; 

Darvas and Andersen, 1999; and Weintraub 1999). An open literature paper evaluated the 

effects of cyromazine on fruit fly survival and reproduction. The study reported effects on the 

number of eggs/female after adult females were fed food containing cyromazine at 

concentrations of 0.125% (1250 ppm) and higher and mortality was significantly higher in these 

treatment groups as well (Moreno et al., 1994). Another study evaluated the effects of 

cyromazine on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) survival, reproduction and larval growth 

(Mommaerts et al., 2006). Cyromazine was tested at 100 mg a.i./L using the Trigard 

formulation, based on the reported maximum field recommended concentration. Artificial nests 

were used and adult worker bees were exposed to cyromazine via a topical application or via 

ingestion from sugar/water or pollen. The nests were examined weekly for 11 weeks for acute 

worker toxicity, the amount of brood and brood care, egg hatching, the number of males in the 

nest and the number of dead larvae removed from the nest. After 11 weeks, acute toxicity of the 

worker bees was not significantly different from the control. However, the mean number of 

males produced per nest of 5 workers was significantly reduced (p<0.05) when worker bees 

ingested either sugar/water or pollen compared to the control. Also, the mean number of dead 1st

and 2nd instar larvae per nest was significantly greater when worker bees were exposed to pollen 

with cyromazine. Multi-concentration studies were conducted and LC50 values (based on the 

number of males produced) were reported for the three exposure routes. The reported LC50

values ranged from 1.3 (sugar/water) to 636 (contact, extrapolated value) mg a.i./L with a no 

effect concentration of 0.1 mg a.i./L reported from exposure to pollen. Summary information is 

presented in Table 12. 

 
40 

Table 12. Summary of Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Species Exposed 

life stage 

Test type / 

Test substance 

Test Design Endpoint MRID 

Apis 

mellifera 

(Honeybee) 

Adult Tech. 48-hr acute 

contact 

48-h LD50 > 25 μg a.i./bee 43152601 

Poecilus 

cupreus L. 

(ground 

dwelling 

predator, 

beetle) 

Adult (2-

10 wks 

old) 

(14-d) / 

Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test 

Material 

sprayed on 

sand 

substrate, 

beetles and 

food 

NOAEC = 900 g a.i./ha [0.80 lb 

a.i./A] (based on mortality and food 

consumption, highest concentration 

tested) 

48608301 

Coccinella 

septempunct

ata L. 

(lady bird 

beetle) 

Larvae (2 

days old) 

(22-d) / 

Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test 

Material 

sprayed onto 

glass plates; 

larvae 

exposed 

after 

material had 

dried 

Mortality: 40% at 450 g a.i./ha [0.4 

lb a.i./A]; 38% at 900 g a.i./ha [0.8 

lb a.i./A] 

Fecundity: No. of fertile 

eggs/female at 0.8 lb a.i./A ca. Half 

of control [23 vs 44.7] 

48608301 

Aleochara 

bilineata 

(Rove 

beetle) 

Adult 

(10-14 

days old) 

Acute 

Toxicity (4-d) 

/ Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test 

Material 

sprayed onto 

sand 

NOAEC = 900 g a.i./ha [0.80 lb 

a.i./A] (based on feeding activity, 

egg production and larvae hatching, 

highest concentration tested 

48608301 

Anastrepha 

ludens 

(Mexican 

fruit fly) 

Adult (2-

d old) 

48 h / tech. 

(%NS) 

Test 

Material 

incorporated 

into diet 

Mortality: LOAEC = 0.125%; 

NOAEC <0.125% 

Fecundity (based on # 

eggs/female): LOAEC = 0.125%; 

NOAEC <0.125% 

Moreno et 

al. 1994 

(e94812) 

Bombus 

terrestris 

(bumblebee) 

Adult 11 wks / 

Trigard EC 

(75%) 

Test 

Material 

topically 

applied or 

incorporated 

into 

sugar/water 

or pollen for 

adults 

Mortality: Adults: NOAEC = 100 

mg ai/L, highest concentration 

tested (all exposure routes); Larvae: 

NOAEC <100 mg ai/L, LOAEC = 

100 mg ai/L (based on pollen 

exposure routes) 

Fecundity (based on # males 

produced/nest):, LOAEC = 100 mg 

ai/L (based on sugar/water and 

pollen exposure), no effects 

reported at 0.1 mg a.i/L (pollen) 

Mommaerts 

et al., 2006 

(e94221) 

d) Terrestrial Plants 

Quantitative seedling emergence and vegetative vigor terrestrial plant toxicity data were not 

available for cyromazine. The registrant did submit phytotoxicity profiling data for the 

formulation CGA 72662 75 WP (75%) for six plant species (three monocots and three dicots) for 

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor: Beta vulgaris (sugarbeet), Zea mays (maize), Brassica 

napus (oilseed rape), Avena fatua (wild oat), Glycine max (soybean), Allium cepa (onion) (MRID 
41 

48740901). The reported results are qualitative with a rating scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being 

complete destruction to 9 having no visual damage; however, the specific details on the type of 

phytotoxicity observed was not reported. For the seedling emergence test, some phytotoxicity 

was observed for Glycine max (ratings of 7.5 and 8.5 at concentrations of 50-400 g CGA 72662 

75 WP/ha [0.033 – 0.27 lb a.i./A]) and for Zea mays (7.5 rating at 400 g CGA 75 WP/ha [0.27 lb 

a.i./A]). In the vegetative vigor study, phytotoxicity was reported for Zea mays (8.5 rating at 

200-400 g CGA 72662 75 WP/ha [0.13 – 0.27 lb a.i./A]). All other species were reported as 

having no visual damage. 

e) Degradate Toxicity Data 

Melamine is identified as a primary degradate as it was observed at 33% in the aerobic soil 

metabolism studies (Figure 5). Toxicity data are available for melamine and presented below in 

Table 13. Based on the available aquatic toxicity data, melamine does not appear to be more 

toxic than cyromazine, except for acute toxicity to Daphnia magna. The acute LD50 melamine 

value for the rat (mammals) is similar to the acute LD50 value reported for technical cyromazine, 

LD50 = 3,387 mg/kg (95% Confidence Interval 2,524-4,547) (MRID 00082836). As the 

confidence intervals overlap, there is a lesser likelihood that one chemical would pose greater 

toxicity than the other. Avian toxicity data for melamine are not available; however cyromazine 

is registered as a feed-through in poultry diet as a means to control fly populations. Based on the 

observed toxicity to mammals and aquatic organisms, it is assumed that birds are not more 

sensitive to melamine than these taxa. 

Figure 5. Chemical Structure of Melamine

Table 13. Toxicity Data for the Melamine Degradate 

SPECIES ENDPOINT (95% CI) SOURCE 

Laboratory Rat 14-d LD50 = 3,161 mg/kg (1,344-

4,722); single dose acute study NTP 19831

 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 96-hr LC50 >120 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 20082 

Guppy (Poecilia reticulata) 96-hr LC50 >3,000 mg/L OECD SIDS3 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Early life-stage NOAEC = 500 

mg/L OECD SIDS 

Flag fish (Jordanella floridae) Early life-stage NOAEC >1000 

mg/L OECD SIDS 
42 

SPECIES ENDPOINT (95% CI) SOURCE 

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 48-hr EC50 = 60 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008 

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 48-hr EC50 >2,000 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008 

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 21-d NOAEC(repro) >32 mg/L; 

21-d NOAEC(tox) = 18 mg/L OECD SIDS 

Green algae (Selenastrum 

capricornutum) 72-hr IC50 > 100 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008 

Green algae (Scenedesmus pannonicus) 4-d EC50 = 940 mg/L OECD SIDS 1

 NTP (1983). Carcinogenesis bioassay of melamine (CAS No. 108-78-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed 

study). Research Triangle Park, NC, and Bethesda, MD, United States Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program (NTP Technical 

Report Series No. 245; NTP-81-86; NIH Publication No. 83-2501; 

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr245.pdf). 

2

 European Food Safety Authority. 2008. EFSA Scientific Report. Conclusion on the peer review of cyromazine.

168, 1-94. 

3 OECD (1998). Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) for melamine. CAS No. 108-78-1. Paris, Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/108781.pdf).

For aquatic organisms, melamine does not appear to be more toxic than cyromazine, except for 

acute toxicity to Daphnia magna. One approach to evaluate potential risk from exposure to a 

degradate (melamine in this case) is to use a total toxic residue approach. Based on the 

calculated aquatic environmental concentrations using only parent cyromazine, the estimated 

peak water concentrations are significantly lower than the observed toxicity for either parent 

cyromazine or melamine. The reported 48 hour EC50 value of 60 mg/L for melamine is 

approximately 460 times greater than the highest aquatic EEC calculated for parent cyromazine. 

Therefore, while melamine was observed at concentrations up to 33%, and including it in a 

calculation of total toxic residue should increase the estimated environmental concentrations, it is 

not expected to influence the concentrations to such a degree that risk to aquatic invertebrates 

would be expected. While melamine is anticipated to also be persistent and mobile and may 

accumulate in soil with repeated uses (parent cyromazine is also persistent and may also have the 

potential to accumulate after repeated uses), since the acute toxicity value for mammals is similar 

to parent cyromazine, and the estimated residue concentrations will be less than for cyromazine, 

the analysis using parent cyromazine is anticipated to be protective for melamine exposure for 

terrestrial animals. Therefore, based on this evaluation of the data, melamine will not be 

considered further in this assessment. 

 
43 

IV. RISK ESTIMATION 

For this preliminary assessment of cyromazine, the deterministic risk quotient method is used to 

provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ is a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity 

endpoints. The resulting RQs are compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) which are 

the Agency’s interpretive policy such that when LOCs are exceeded, the need for regulatory 

action may be considered. These criteria are used to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as 

directed on the label, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms. 

1. Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants 

The RQ values for the use with highest EECs and using the most sensitive acute and chronic 

toxicity values are presented in Table 14. 

a) Aquatic Animals 

Cyromazine is classified as practically non-toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates and 

estuarine/marine mollusks on an acute exposure basis. Acute and chronic toxicity data are not 

available for estuarine-marine fish. 

As the acute toxicity values for the fish and invertebrates did not result in definitive LC/EC50

values, RQs are not calculated. Potential acute risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates is discussed 

in the Risk Description section. When comparing the 21 and 60-day EECs to the chronic 

NOAECs for freshwater invertebrate and freshwater fish, respectively, the resulting RQ values 

are ≤0.1. All of these RQ values are below the chronic risk LOC (RQ≤1.0) for aquatic animals 

(Table 14). As the resulting NOAEC for the chronic estuarine-marine invertebrate, mysid 

shrimp, was a non-definitive value (<0.131 mg a.i./L), RQ values were not calculated. Risk to 

freshwater midges and estuarine-marine invertebrates are also discussed in the Risk 

Characterization section. 

 
44 

Table 14. RQ Values for Aquatic Animals for Cyromazine from Foliar Application, 

Treated Onion Seeds and Soil Amendment 

Taxa Organism/Endpoint Used 21 or 60 day EEC 

(μg/L)1,2 Chronic RQ3

Chronic (μg/L) 

Foliar Applications

Freshwater Fish and 

Aquatic-Phase 

Amphibians 

Fathead minnow / 

NOAEC = 73,000 28.2 <0.01 

Freshwater Invertebrates Daphnia magna / NOAEC = 310 29.6 0.1 

Treated Onion Seeds 

Freshwater Fish and 

Aquatic-Phase 

Amphibians 

Fathead minnow / 

NOAEC = 73,000 6.08 / 122 <0.01 / <0.01 

Freshwater Invertebrates Daphnia magna / NOAEC = 310 6.37 / 128 <0.1 / 0.4 

Soil Amendment 

Freshwater Fish and 

Aquatic-Phase 

Amphibians 

Fathead minnow / 

NOAEC = 73,000 8.91 /89.14 <0.01 / <0.01

Freshwater Invertebrates Daphnia magna / NOAEC = 310 9.35 / 93.54 <0.1 / 0.3 1 EECs are from the highest EEC scenario [potato; 3 applications of 0.249 lb a.i./A with an interval of 7days]. 2

 EEC for invertebrates is a 21-day EEC; EEC for fish is a 60-day EEC 

3

 RQ = EEC / toxicity endpoint 

4

 First value is based on application rate of 0.27 lb a.i./A (‘as excreted’ manure) and the second value is based on 

application rate of 2.7 lb a.i./A (dry manure) 

b) Aquatic Plants 

Comparing the highest peak EEC (30.3 μg a.i./L) with the EC50 value (124,000 μg a.i./L) from 

the aquatic non-vascular plant, results in RQs <0.01. These RQs are all below EPA’s LOC for 

non-listed aquatic plants (≤1) (Table 15). The observed NOAEC for this study was <100 mg/L 

(44% inhibition of cells compared to the control), therefore an RQ value for listed aquatic plants 

was not derived. The potential for risk to listed aquatic plants is discussed in the Risk 

Description section. 

 
45 

Table 15. RQ Values for Aquatic Plants for Cyromazine from Foliar Application, Treated 

Onion Seeds and Soil Amendment 

Taxa Organism/Endpoint Used Peak EEC (μg/L)1 Non-listed RQ2

EC50(μg/L) 

Foliar Application 

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC50 = 124,000 30.3 <0.01 

Treated Onion Seeds 

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC50 = 124,000 6.53 / 131 <0.01 / <0.01 

Soil Amendment 

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC50 = 124,000 9.59 / 95.93 <0.01 / <0.01 1 EECs are from the highest EEC scenario [potato; 3 applications of 0.249 lb a.i./A with an interval of 7 days]. 2

 RQ = Peak EEC / EC50; to determine risk to non-listed plants 3

 First value is based on application rate of 0.27 lb a.i./A (‘as excreted’ manure) and the second value is based on 

application rate of 2.7 lb a.i./A (dry manure) 

2. Non-target Terrestrial Animals 

The acute and chronic RQ values for birds and mammals are presented in Table 16 through

Table 24. 

a) Birds 

Foliar Uses 

Cyromazine is classified as slightly toxic to birds on an acute oral basis and practically non-toxic 

on a sub-acute dietary exposure basis. The non-listed acute LOC is not exceeded for any foliar 

use of cyromazine for birds. The acute listed LOC is exceeded for small birds eating short grass 

for all crops and for ornamentals (RQs = 0.11-0.15). Further analysis of these LOC exceedances 

are discussed in the Risk Description section. Acute toxicity data for passerines are not available, 

and as such there is uncertainty about the effects to these species. This uncertainty will be 

discussed in the Risk Description section. Since the endpoints from the sub-acute avian toxicity 

studies are non-definitive (i.e., they are ‘greater than’ values), they will not be used to calculate 

RQs. Table 16 is a summary of the acute avian dose-based RQs based on foliar applications of 

cyromazine. 

 
46 

Table 16. Avian Acute Dose-Based RQ Values for Foliar Application of Cyromazine. 

Application rate 

(crop) 

Functional Feeding Group 

Dietary Item 

20 g bird 100 g bird 1000 g bird 

Acute1 Acute1 Acute1

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 

apps/7-d interval 

(succulent beans; 

lima beans; dried 

beans; hanover 

salad; bulb veg; 

cucurbits; brassica 

leafy; celery, head 

lettuce; leafy veg; 

peppers; sea kale 

cabbage, turnip 

greens 

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 0.12 0.05 0.02 

 Tall Grass 0.06 0.02 0.01 

 Broadleaf plants 0.07 0.03 0.01 

 Fruits/pods 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

 Arthropods 0.05 0.02 0.01 

 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 

apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes) 

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 0.15 0.07 0.02 

 Tall Grass 0.07 0.03 0.01 

 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.04 0.01 

 Fruits/pods 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

 Arthropods 0.06 0.03 0.01 

 Seed <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 

apps /7-d interval 

(repeat 3 apps @ 7-

d interval 21-d after 

last of first 3 apps) 

(ornamentals) 

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 0.11 0.05 0.02 

 Tall Grass 0.05 0.02 0.01 

 Broadleaf plants 0.06 0.03 0.01 

 Fruits/pods 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

 Arthropods 0.04 0.02 0.01 

 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Bolded RQ values exceed the acute listed LOC of 0.1; 

1 Acute RQ = (upper bound dose-based EEC, mg/kg-bw) / (LD50; mg/kg-bw). 

The RQs calculated for chronic exposure exceed the chronic LOC (1) for short grass for all foliar 

uses applied at 0.125 lb a.i./A. The avian chronic LOC is also exceeded for short grasses and 

broadleaf plants from use on potatoes; RQs range from 1.18 - 2.09 and refer to Table 17 for a 

summary of the chronic avian dietary RQs. 

 
47 

Table 17. Avian Chronic Dietary RQ values from Foliar Application of Cyromazine. 

Application Rate 

(Crop) Dietary Item Chronic RQ 1

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/7-d interval 

(succulent beans; lima beans; dried beans; 

hanover salad; bulb veg; cucurbits; brassica 

leafy; celery, head lettuce; leafy veg; peppers; 

sea kale cabbage, turnip greens

Short Grass 1.75 

Tall Grass 0.80 

Broadleaf plants 0.98 

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.11 

Arthropods 0.68 

 

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes)

Short Grass 2.09 

Tall Grass 0.96 

Broadleaf plants 1.18 

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.13 

Arthropods 0.82 

 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps /7-d interval (repeat 

3 apps @ 7-d interval 21-d after last of first 3 

apps) 

(ornamentals) 

Short Grass 1.58 

Tall Grass 0.72 

Broadleaf plants 0.89 

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.10 

 Arthropods 0.62 

Bold values exceed the chronic LOC of 1.0 1 Chronic RQ = (EEC, mg/kg-diet) / chronic NOAEC, mg/kg-diet; where the chronic NOAEC is 75 mg/kg-diet 

Onion Seed Use 

Acute risk to birds from consuming onion seeds coated with cyromazine is determined via two 

methods. As previously discussed, the assumption used in this preliminary analysis is that all the 

applied cyromazine to the onion seed is still present on the seed when it is consumed. This 

approach is meant to represent the maximum possible exposure to birds and mammals, which 

may be possible if the terrestrial animals consume the seed shortly after it is planted. For method 

#1 (Nagy Dose – an estimate of the amount of pesticide that birds are likely to ingest on a daily 

basis), the RQ value for all bird weight classes exceed the acute listed and non-listed LOC. For 

method #2 (similar to LD50/ft2

 method), the RQ value for small birds exceed the listed and nonlisted LOC; for medium birds the RQ value exceeded the acute listed LOC. The RQ for large 

birds did not exceed either LOC. The chronic RQ value also exceeded the chronic LOC. Table 

18 is a summary of the acute and chronic avian RQs estimated based on potential consumption of 

cyromazine-treated onion seeds. An evaluation of these LOC exceedances is provided in the Risk 

Description section. 

 
48 

Table 18. RQ values for Birds from Cyromazine Onion Seed Use*

Wt 

Acute 

Method #1 RQ 

Acute 

Method #2 RQ 

 20 g 10.19 1.58 

100 g 4.57 0.25 

1000 g 1.45 0.02 

NA Chronic RQ 

660 

Acute non-listed LOC is 0.5; acute listed LOC is 0.1; chronic LOC is 1 

NA =not applicable 

Acute- Bold RQs exceed the listed LOC; bold and italicized exceeds the non-listed 

LOC 

*Acute RQ #1 = 

Acute RQ #2 = 

Chronic RQ = 

(mg ai /kg-bw/day) / LD50

mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw) 

mg kg-1 seed / NOEC 

Soil Amending with Manure containing Cyromazine

Manure that is treated with cyromazine may be used as a soil amendment, and, therefore, there is 

the potential for exposure to birds. The assumption is that while the bird is foraging, it comes 

into contact with all different types of media (i.e., soil and plant material), that may contain 

cyromazine (i.e., soil amended with cyromazine-treated manure, and plant material that may 

have taken up cyromazine). Using the LD50/ft2 approach as a broadcast application with no 

incorporation (it is assumed that there is no to little incorporation of the manure, a surface 

application), the RQ values differ based on whether the assumption is that the manure is 

amended into soil ‘as excreted’ or if it is first completely dried and then incorporated into the 

soil. For the assumption that the manure is applied ‘as excreted’ the RQ value for small birds 

exceeds the listed acute LOC. For the dry manure scenario, RQ values exceed the listed acute 

LOC for small and medium birds and exceed the non-listed acute LOC for small birds. Chronic 

risk is not evaluated using the LD50/ft2 method. Table 19 summarizes the acute RQs for birds 

that may be exposed to cyromazine when treated manure is used as a soil amendment. 

Table 19. Acute RQ values for Birds from Soil Amendment with Cyromazine

LD50 ft-21 

 0.27 lb a.i./A 2.7 lb a.i./A 

wgt class 

(grams) RQ RQ

20 0.11 1.14 

Avian 100 0.02 0.18 

 1000 0.00 0.01 

1

 First RQ value is based on application rate of 0.27 lb a.i./A (‘as excreted’ 

manure) and the second value is based on application rate of 2.7 lb a.i./A (dry 

manure) 

Bolded values exceed the acute listed LOC of 0.1; bolded and italicized values 

exceed the non-listed LOC of 0.5 

 
49 

b) Mammals 

Foliar Uses 

Cyromazine is classified as practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis. All of 

the acute RQs for the use with the highest EECs were ≤0.06, therefore, none of the acute RQs for 

mammals exceed the Agency’s acute risk LOCs (RQ≥0.1) (Table 20). 

Table 20. Mammalian Acute RQ Values for Foliar Application to Potatoes of Cyromazine 

Application Rate 

(Crop) 

Functional Feeding Group 

Dietary Item 

15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals 

Acute1 Acute1 Acute1

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 

apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes)

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 0.06 0.06 0.03 

 Tall Grass 0.03 0.03 0.01 

 Broadleaf plants 0.04 0.03 0.02 

 Fruits/pods <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

 Arthropods 0.03 0.02 0.01 

 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

1 Acute RQ = (upper bound dose-based EEC, mg/kg-bw) / (LD50; mg/kg-bw). 

The dose-based chronic RQ for mammals exceeded the chronic LOC for all uses at an 

application rate of 0.125 lb a.i./A (crops and ornamentals) for small mammals ingesting short 

grasses. The LOC was also exceeded for small and medium mammals ingesting short grass for 

the potato use. On a chronic dietary basis, the RQ values for all uses did not exceed the chronic 

LOC. Table 21 and Table 22 summarize the mammalian chronic dose- and dietary-based RQs, 

respectively, based on foliar applications of cyromazine. The LOC exceedances are further 

discussed in the Risk Description section. 

 
50 

Table 21. Mammalian Chronic Dose-based RQ values for Foliar Application of 

Cyromazine 

Application Rate 

(Crop) 

Functional Feeding Group 

Dietary Item 

15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals 

Chronic1 Chronic1 Chronic1

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 6 

apps/7-d interval

(succulent beans; 

lima beans; dried 

beans; hanover 

salad; bulb veg; 

cucurbits; brassica 

leafy; celery, head 

lettuce; leafy veg; 

peppers; sea kale 

cabbage, turnip 

greens

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 1.14 0.97 0.52 

 Tall Grass 0.52 0.44 0.24 

 Broadleaf plants 0.64 0.55 0.29 

 Fruits/pods 0.07 0.06 0.03 

 Arthropods 0.02 0.02 0.01 

 Seeds 0.02 0.01 0.01 

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 

apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes) 

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 1.36 1.16 0.62 

 Tall Grass 0.62 0.53 0.29 

 Broadleaf plants 0.77 0.65 0.35 

 Fruits/pods 0.09 0.07 0.04 

 Arthropods 0.03 0.02 0.01 

 Seeds 0.02 0.02 0.01 

0.125 lb a.i./A @ 3 

apps /7-d interval 

(repeat 3 apps @ 7-

d interval 21-d after 

last of first 3 apps) 

(ornamentals) 

Herbivores/Insectivores 

 Short Grass 1.03 0.88 0.47 

 Tall Grass 0.47 0.40 0.22 

 Broadleaf plants 0.58 0.49 0.26 

 Fruits/pods 0.06 0.05 0.03 

 Arthropods 0.40 0.34 0.18 

 Seeds 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Bold values exceed the chronic LOC of 1 1 Chronic RQ = (upper bound dose-based EEC, mg/kg-bw) / (NOAEC; mg/kg-bw). 

 
51 

Table 22. Mammalian Chronic Dietary-based RQ values for Foliar Application to Potatoes 

for Cyromazine 

Application Rate 

(Crop) Dietary Item Chronic RQ 1

0.249 lb a.i./A @3 apps/7-d interval 

(potatoes)

Short Grass 0.16 

Tall Grass 0.07 

Broadleaf plants 0.09 

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 

Arthropods 0.06 

1 Chronic RQ = (EEC, mg/kg-diet) / chronic NOAEC, mg/kg-diet; where the chronic NOAEC is 1000 mg/kg-diet 

Onion Seed Use 

Similar to the birds, acute risk to mammals from consuming onion seeds coated with cyromazine 

is determined via two methods. For method #1 (Nagy Dose), the RQ value for small mammals 

exceed the acute listed and non-listed LOC. For method #2 (similar to LD50/ft2 method), the RQ 

value for small and medium mammals exceed the listed and non-listed LOC; the RQ value for 

large mammals did not exceed either the acute listed or non-listed LOC. The chronic RQ value 

also exceeded the chronic LOC. Table 23 summarizes the mammalian RQs based on 

consumption of cyromazine-treated onion seeds. These LOC exceedances are discussed in the 

Risk Description section. 

Table 23. RQ values for Mammals for Onion Seed Use with Cyromazine*

Wt Acute 

Method #1 

Acute 

Method #2

15g 4.55 1.12 

35g 3.89 0.59

1000 g 2.08 0.05 

NA Chronic RQ

49.5

Acute non-listed LOC is 0.5; acute listed LOC is 0.1; chronic LOC is 1 

NA = not applicable 

*Acute RQ #1 = 

Acute RQ #2 = 

Chronic RQ = 

(mg ai /kg-bw/day) / LD50

mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw) 

mg kg-1 seed / NOEC 

Soil Amending with Manure containing Cyromazine 

As with the birds, the RQ values range depending on the assumptions made about the technique 

used for soil incorporation of manure. For the lower rate, none of the RQ values for mammals 
52 

for soil amending exceed the acute listed or non-listed LOC. However, for the higher application 

rate, the RQ values exceed the listed acute LOC for small and medium mammals and the nonlisted acute LOC for small mammals (Table 24). Characterization of the LOC exceedances is 

discussed in the Risk Description section. Only acute risk is evaluated using the LD50/ft2

method. 

Table 24. Acute RQ values for Mammals from Soil Amendment with Cyromazine 

LD50 ft-21 wgt class 

(grams) 0.27 lb a.i./A 2.7 lb a.i./A 

RQ RQ

Mammal 15 0.08 0.81 

35 0.04 0.43 

1000 0.00 0.03 1

 First RQ value is based on application rate of 0.27 lb a.i./A (‘as excreted’ manure) and the second 

value is based on application rate of 2.7 lb a.i./A (dry manure) 

Bold values exceed the listed acute LOC and bold and italicized values exceed the non-listed LOC

c) Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Cyromazine is classified as ‘practically nontoxic’ to non-target terrestrial invertebrates on an 

acute contact exposure basis (LD50 >25 μg a.i./bee). Toxicity information for beneficial insects is 

used to develop precautionary label language where necessary in screening-level assessments. 

However, the acute contact toxicity study is based on toxicity to adult honeybees and cyromazine 

is used to target the larvae stage of terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., flies and Colorado potato 

beetle). Therefore, the potential for effects to other life stages of honeybees (i.e., bee 

larvae/pupae (brood)) and other terrestrial invertebrates is not determined based on the acute 

contact study. Therefore, based on the acute contact study, the potential effects to other life 

stages of the honeybee, surrogate for beneficial invertebrates, are unknown. Additional 

terrestrial invertebrate studies were available and risk to terrestrial invertebrates is discussed 

further in the Risk Description section. 

3. Non-target Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Plants 

Since quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available, RQ values were not 

determined. Risk to terrestrial plants is discussed in the Risk Description section. 

4. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values 

As part of the risk estimation, the odds of an individual effect (mortality) from exposure to 

cyromazine were estimated. The probability of mortality calculations are based on the probit 

slope dose-response relationship from acute studies. The probability of mortality for an exposed 

individual are calculated using an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance 

Model Version 1.1) developed by EFED of the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division (June 22, 2004). 
53 

The acute toxicity results consisted of limit dose type tests (e.g., freshwater acute results) which 

do not provide data which can be used to calculate a probit dose-response slope. In these cases 

the odds of mortality were only calculated for the listed acute LOC using the default slope of 4.5 

(95% CL 2, 9). A probit slope for the acute oral toxicity study with bobwhite quail was available 

(slope = 5.76; 95% CL of 2.55, 8.98). A probit slope for the acute oral toxicity study with the 

mouse was available (slope = 3.93; 95% CI of 2.35, 5.51). The odds of mortality for an 

individual at the RQ value or endangered species LOC for terrestrial and aquatic animals based 

on the slopes discussed in the previous paragraph are provided in Table 25. 

Table 25. Probit Slope and Odds of Mortality for an Individual at the RQ/LOC for Foliar Uses, 

Treated Onion Seeds, and Soil Amending with Manure 

Listed 

Species Birds Mammals Fish Aquatic Invertebrates 

RQ/LOC 

 RQ =0.15 

(foliar); 10.2 

(seed); 1.15 

(manure) 

RQ = 4.55 (seed); 

0.81 (manure) 0.05 (LOC) 0.05 (LOC) 

Slope 5.76 3.93 4.5* 4.5* 

Slope 

95% CL 2.55, 8.98 2.35, 5.51 2, 9* 2, 9* 

Odds of 

individual 

effect 

1 in 963,000 

(foliar); 1 in 1 

(seed); 1 in 1.6 

1 in 1 (seed); 1 in 

3 (manure) 1 in 4.18 x 108 1 in 4.18 x 108 

95% CL 

1 in 56, 1 in 1.5 x 

1013 (foliar); 1 in 

1, 1 in 1 (seed); 1 

in 2, 1 in 1.4 

1 in 1, 1 in 

1(seed); 1 in 2, 1 

in 3 (manure) 

1 in 216; 1 in 1.75 

x 1031 

1 in 216; 1 in 

1.75 x 1031

*As the study resulted in a non-definitive value (LC50 > highest concentration tested) the use of a probit model was not 

appropriate, therefore, default mean slope value (4.5) and 95% CL (2, 9) is used. 
54 

V. RISK DESCRIPTION

1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms 

a) Animals 

There were no chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates. As 

acceptable acute freshwater fish and invertebrate studies resulted in non-definitive values 

(greater than values), RQ values were not calculated. No mortalities or sublethal effects were 

observed in the bluegill study. Sublethal effects were observed in the rainbow trout study 

(MRID 00070912) at 84 mg a.i./L with an observed NOAEC of 47.8 mg a.i./L. A comparison to 

the highest peak EECs (30.3 μg/L for foliar uses; 9.59 and 95.9 μg/L for soil amendment; 6.53 

and 131μg/L for onion seed) indicates that these EECs are at least 365 times lower than this 

observed NOAEC. A definitive LC50 value of 715 mg a.i./L was determined for fathead 

minnow, and although was not used quantitatively due to decreased dissolved oxygen, this value 

is over 5400 times greater than the peak EECs. Therefore, the likelihood of risk from acute 

exposure to freshwater fish is anticipated to be low. 

The acute Daphnia study resulted in an EC50 value of >88.7 mg a.i./L, with an observed NOAEC 

of 8.7 mg a.i./L. This observed NOAEC is at least 66 times greater than the peak EECs. The 

Daphnia chronic study (MRID 00073085) reported a 48-hr EC50 value of 9.1 mg/L (authors 

stated that value were provided by the study sponsor and no additional details were available). 

This EC50 value is at least 69 times greater than the peak EECs. The acute estuarine-marine 

oyster study also resulted in a non-definitive acute EC50 value. The EC50 value was > 104 mg 

a.i./L, with no adverse effects observed at this concentration. This value is more than at least 

790 times greater than the peak EECs. Therefore, the likelihood of risk from acute exposure to 

freshwater invertebrates and estuarine-marine mollusks are expected to be low. 

Acute toxicity data were not available for estuarine-marine fish. Given that for freshwater fish a 

definitive acute LC50 value appears to be greater than 80 mg a.i./L based on the results of four 

species, the calculated EECs, as well as no information that estuarine-marine fish would be any 

more sensitive than freshwater fish, the likelihood of adverse effects from acute exposure to 

cyromazine for estuarine-marine fish is assumed to be low. Chronic toxicity data for estuarinemarine fish are also not available. While there is only one chronic freshwater fish study 

available, based on the NOAEC from that study and the predicted EECs, RQ values were <0.01. 

Therefore, estuarine-marine fish would need to be significantly more sensitive (ca. 100x) than 
55 

freshwater fish to have an LOC exceedance. Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects from 

chronic exposure of cyromazine to estuarine-marine fish is also predicted to be low. 

Acute toxicity data for estuarine-marine mollusks were available; however, data were not 

available for an additional estuarine-marine invertebrate (a crustacean, usually a shrimp). In the 

mysid chronic study (MRID 48691501), the 7-day LC50 was 1.94 mg a.i./L. A comparison of 

this sub-chronic LC50 to the peak EECs indicates that this sub-chronic value is 64 times greater 

than the peak EEC for foliar uses, 200 to 20 times greater for the soil amendment use, and 297 

and 14 times greater for the treated onion seed use. For the treated onion use, in deriving the 

EEC, it was assumed that all the available cyromazine on the treated seed was available for 

runoff and this is expected to be a highly conservative assumption and the actual amount of 

cyromazine available is expected to be lower. Additionally, the higher EEC was based on the 

highest onion seeding rate available for onions and may not be representative for all scenarios or 

all bulb onions. Typically, the acute exposure duration for estuarine-marine invertebrates is 96 

hours. Based on the toxicity value observed for the 7 day duration, an LC50 value for a 96 hour 

duration is anticipated to be greater than the 7 day LC50 or greater than 1.94 mg a.i./L. 

Therefore, acute risk to estuarine-marine crustaceans (mysid shrimp as surrogate) is predicted to 

be low. 

The chronic toxicity data for estuarine-marine invertebrates, a chronic toxicity test with the 

mysid shrimp, resulted in significant reductions at all test concentrations, compared to the 

control, in male body length at Day 14 of the study. Therefore, the study did not have a 

definitive NOAEC (NOAEC <0.131 mg a.i./L or 131 μg a.i./L) and RQ values were not 

calculated. The reductions in length observed were slight and ranged from 4-8%; no significant 

differences in length were observed at test termination with a reported reduction of 2.4% to an 

increase of 0.3% observed in the treatment groups compared to the control. Significant effects 

on survival were also observed at 2.27 mg a.i./L with a NOAEC of 1.14 mg a.i./L. The highest 

calculated 21 day EEC for foliar use is 29.6 μg a.i./L and a comparison of the NOAEC (131 μg 

a.i./L) to the EEC indicates that this chronic value is approximately 4.4 times greater than the 

EEC. For the soil amendment use, this comparison is approximately 14 times using the lower 

incorporation rate and the EEC for the higher incorporation rate is 1.3 times lower. While for the 

higher soil amendment rate the EEC is very similar to the reported effect concentration, this 

value is considered to represent a high use rate (manure is applied as a dry material with no water 

added) and may not be reflective of all scenarios. For treated onion seeds, the comparison using 

the low and high seeding rates indicates that the EEC is 20 times lower for the lower rate while 

the EEC for the higher rate is practically the same value as where significant effects were 

observed. As in the discussion above for the acute toxicity for the mysid shrimp, the treated 

onion seed EEC assumes that all the available cyromazine is available and the default seeding 

rate may not be reflective of all planting scenarios. Given that the observed effect, while 

statistically significant, was slight and the difference in the predicted EEC and the concentration 

where the effect was observed for most uses or the conservative assumptions in the other uses 

were the EEC is similar to the observed effect concentration, the likelihood of adverse effects 

from chronic exposure of cyromazine to estuarine-marine invertebrates is also predicted to be 

low. 
56 

While RQ values for freshwater and estuarine-marine invertebrates, using the crustaceans 

Daphnia magna and mysid shrimp as surrogates, are below the LOC, as cyromazine is a molting 

disruptor affecting organisms in the Diptera order as well as for the Colorado potato beetle 

(Coleopteran), the potential for adverse effects other aquatic invertebrates such as sedimentdwelling midges may exist. Both an acute and sub-chronic toxicity value for the midge, 

Chironomus riparius, was reported in the 2008 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 

scientific report for cyromazine (EFSA, 2008). The 48 hour LC/EC50 value, under semi-static 

conditions, was reported as >120 mg a.i./L, which is similar to the acute toxicity values reported 

for the Daphnia and oyster. Also available was a 26-d water/sediment study in which the 

overlying water was spiked with cyromazine and was tested at concentrations of 6.3 to 100 μg/L. 

Based on the reported results, there was no emergence observed at the highest concentration, 79 

μg/L (overlying water, time-weighed average), and the overall NOAEC, based on emergence and 

development rate was 14.5 μg/L (overlying water, time-weighted average). Sediment 

concentrations were reported for the nominal concentrations of 25 and 100 μg/L and were 226 

and 211 μg/kg (bulk sediment, 4520 and 4220 μg/kg when adjusted for 5% nominal organic 

carbon) on Day 7, respectively and were 74 and 203 μg/kg (1480 and 4060 μg/kg normalized for 

organic carbon) on Day 26, respectively. Based on the solubility and log Kow of cyromazine, it 

is not expected to partition to the sediment, but rather be available in the pore water in the 

sediment and overlying water which the organisms may be exposed. Overlying water EECs 

were calculated using the model PRZM-EXAMS for the registered use on potatoes (highest 

foliar application). It was observed that the overlying water concentrations for potatoes 

calculated using PRZM-EXAMS are similar to the water column EECs calculated using the Tier 

I model GENEEC and therefore, if the overlying water concentrations calculated for the other 

uses were done using PRZM-EXAMS they may also be similar to the GENEEC values. The 21-

d EEC, calculated using PRZM-EXAMs was 24 μg a.i./L, which is slightly greater than the 

reported NOEC of 14.5 μg a.i./L (calculated as time-weighted average). In the study, the pore 

water concentrations were reported to be below the limit of detection; the calculated 21-d pore 

water EEC was 23 μg/L, which would be anticipated given that cyromazine is not expected to 

bind to the sediment. Additionally, the calculated sediment EEC was 0.1 mg/kg (normalized for 

organic carbon), whereas the measured sediment concentration in the study ranged from below 

quantitation at test initiation to 226 μg/kg (4520 μg/kg normalized) on Day 7. Therefore, given 

that the calculated overlying water EEC is greater than the NOAEC, there is a potential for 

adverse chronic effects to sediment-dwelling organisms such as midges. 

As mentioned, while, cyromazine is also targeted for controlling on potatoes the Colorado potato 

beetle which belongs to the Coleopteran order. Toxicity data for Coleopteran aquatic 

invertebrates are not available, therefore, there is uncertainty in the effects of cyromazine. 

However, larval effects were reported for terrestrial invertebrates in the Coleoptera order. 

Additionally, it was reported that the lady beetle (Coleoptera) was not susceptible to cyromazine 

after 6 days (Lucas et al. 2004), however there was reduced adult emergence of the cowpea 

weevil (Callosobruchus maculates; Coleoptera) when exposed to cyromazine-treated seeds (AlMekhlafi et al. 2011, 2012). Additionally, toxicity information on other Orders of aquatic 

invertebrates is not available and therefore, there is uncertainty to these species as well. 

Based on the estimated water concentrations and toxicity values for midges, there may 

potentially be direct effects to sediment-dwelling organisms in the Diptera order such as midges 
57 

especially during the larval stages. At this time, there are no Federally listed endangered or 

threatened aquatic invertebrates in the Diptera order, but there are other listed aquatic 

invertebrates including Coleoptera beetles and a dragonfly (exists in aquatic ecosystems during 

egg/larval portion of life-cycle). Toxicity data for aquatic Coleoptera species or Odonata 

(dragonfly) are not available. However, there is toxicity data for terrestrial beetles in the 

Coleoptera order, in which effects to larvae were observed. The two listed aquatic beetles are the 

Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalenis) and The Comal Springs riffle beetle 

(Heterelmis comalensis), both belong to the Coleoptera order. These two aquatic beetles reside in 

the Comal Springs in Southern Texas; a portion of the springs appears to reside in a municipal 

park. Based on Figure 2 showing a summary of the geographic location of agricultural uses of 

cyromazine, the location of these springs may be just above areas with reported cyromazine use, 

however, it is still relatively near and the map may not capture all cyromazine use and so 

exposure is uncertain. Another beetle, the Hungerford’s crawling water beetle (Brychius 

hungerfordi) is located in Northern Michigan. Based on the usage map, cyromazine use appears 

to be limited and therefore, exposure may also be limited. The other listed species that spends its 

early development in aquatic ecosystems is the Hine’s Emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana), which is reported to reside in IL, MI, MO, and WI all of which, based on the usage 

map in Figure 2, report minimal cyromazine usage. This species belongs to the Odonata order 

which cyromazine is not targeted towards. As the usage information may be incomplete, there is 

uncertainty in whether these listed aquatic invertebrates will be exposed as well as the effects of 

cyromazine exposure. 

Based on the reported geographic areas of cyromazine use, the potential for direct effects to other 

listed aquatic invertebrates (beetles and dragonfly), exposure may be limited, but this is 

uncertain. 

Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to fish (acute or chronic exposure), are considered 

low from the cyromazine uses based on the available toxicity data. For aquatic invertebrates, the 

acute and chronic LOCs were not exceeded using data from two crustaceans. As cyromazine is 

targeted towards certain orders of invertebrates, direct effects may occur to species in the Diptera 

(midges) and Coleoptera (beetles) order. Effects to other orders of aquatic invertebrates not 

mentioned are uncertain. 

b) Plants 

One toxicity study with green algae was available for cyromazine. Using the available data, the 

RQ value for non-listed plants did not exceed the LOC. The observed NOAEC was less than the 

lowest concentration tested as there was 44% inhibition in cell counts at 100 mg/L. Additionally, 

toxicity testing is typically required for four species of non-vascular aquatic plants (e.g., 

freshwater and marine diatoms, cyanobacteria and green algae). Based on the peak EEC (30.3 

μg a.i./L for foliar, 9.59 and 95.9 μg/L for soil amendment, and 6.53 and 131 μg/L for treated 

onion seeds), and this observed effect at 100 mg/L, the actual NOAEC for green algae would 

have to be more than 3,000 times lower for foliar, 1000 times for soil amendment, and 763 for 

treated onion seeds to exceed the listed LOC for plants. Given the large difference between the 

observed toxicity with the green algae and the EECs, the remaining species would need to be 

substantially more sensitive to exceed the plant LOC. 
58 

Additionally, toxicity data for aquatic vascular plants are not available. However, based on the 

calculated EECs, aquatic vascular toxicity values would need to be in the low ppb range (peak 

EEC is 30.3 μg a.i./L) to exceed the LOCs. While cyromazine is a triazine (of which many have 

herbicidal activity), it is an insect growth regulator, and controls pest insects by altering the 

deposition of chitin during the molting process of larva. Furthermore, while there may be a 

difference in sensitivity between the non-vascular green algae and an aquatic vascular plant, an 

increase in toxicity of at least 763 times is needed for non-vascular plants to exceed the LOC; 

therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to non-listed aquatic vascular plants is considered 

low. However, as there are no available data, but based on level of sensitivity required to exceed 

the LOC, there is a possibility of adverse effects to listed aquatic vascular plants, but this is 

considered unlikely. 

2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms 

a) Animals 

Birds (surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) and Mammals 

Foliar Uses

For the foliar application uses, there were no acute LOC exceedances for non-listed birds and 

mammals on an acute exposure basis (dose-based). There were no acute listed LOC exceedances 

for foliar uses for mammals. 

The acute listed LOC was exceeded for small birds consuming short grass for foliar applications 

for all crops (e.g., beans, bulb vegetables, cucurbits, brassica, leafy vegetables, peppers, 

tomatoes, and potatoes), and ornamentals (RQs 0.11-0.15). 

There were no avian mortalities observed in the sub-acute dietary toxicity studies at the highest 

treatment levels tested (i.e., LC50 endpoints are ‘greater than’ values); therefore, these endpoints 

were not used to calculate RQ values. There was mortality observed in the bobwhite quail study, 

with one occurring at 956 mg a.i./kg-diet, the second to lowest test concentration. In addition, 

there was also one bird reported as lethargic on Day 6 of 8 at the lowest concentration tested, 537 

mg a.i./kg-diet. In the mallard study, there were no mortalities at the highest concentration tested 

(5,373 mg a.i./kg-diet); however, a reduction in body weight gain was visually observed at all 

tested concentrations (537 - 5,373 mg a.i./kg-diet), except for at the second to lowest test 

concentration. The observed reduction ranged from 16-24% and was fairly consistent among 

affected treatment groups; however, the reviewer was unable to confirm the reduction 

statistically due to data set. A comparison of the foliar EECs (9.82-157 mg/kg for potatoes, and 

8.18-131 mg/kg for all other crops) is less than one-tenth (to account for the risk to endangered 

species LOC of 0.1) of the highest concentrations tested (potatoes: 157 < (0.1)(5373); other 

crops: 131 < (0.1)(5373)). Additionally, when the same technique is applied for non-listed birds, 

a comparison of the EECs to one-half the lowest concentration where adverse effects were 

observed (to account for the non-listed LOC of 0.5), the EECs are not greater than the adjusted 
59 

adverse effect concentrations (potatoes: 157 < (0.5)(5373); other crops: 131 < (0.5)(5373)). 

Nevertheless, a reduction in body weight gain of 16-24% compared to the control was visually 

observed at all test concentrations, with the highest EECs approximately 4 times lower than the 

lowest dose tested in which reductions in weight gain were observed. This response was 

relatively monotonic among the treatment groups with a 10-fold difference between the highest 

and lowest concentration tested, but the observed reduction in body weight gain was 19 and 

17%, respectively. Therefore, it is difficult to determine where a possible no-adverse effect 

concentration may occur. So while the comparison suggests that the likelihood of potential risk 

to non-listed birds from acute exposure on a dietary basis may be low, there is some uncertainty 

due to the observed reduction in body weight. 

The chronic LOC was also exceeded for birds consuming short grass for all crop uses and 

ornamentals as well as for birds consuming broadleaf plants from use on potatoes (RQs 1.18-

2.09). A reduction in the number of normal hatchlings was observed at 300 mg/kg-diet in the 

mallard duck study, which may impact avian populations. For mammals, the chronic LOC 

(dose-based) was exceeded for small mammals consuming short grasses for all crop uses and for 

medium-sized mammals consuming short grass from use on potatoes (RQs 1.03-1.36). Dietarybased RQs did not exceed the chronic LOC for all foliar uses. 

The NOAEC for birds is 75 mg a.i./kg based on a reduction of the number of normal hatchlings 

at 300 mg a.i./kg-diet (17% reduction). Effects on egg production (26% reduction in eggs laid) 

and hatchability (16% reduction) were observed at 1,200 mg a.i./kg-diet. In the mallard 

reproduction study, the effect on eggs laid suggests effects to the parental group, whereas, the 

reduction in hatchability suggests effects to the offspring; thereby, cyromazine may potentially 

impact two different generations of birds. However, in the bobwhite quail study, no effects on 

growth or reproduction parameters were noted at concentrations up to 1200 mg a.i./kg-diet; 

however, a slight regressing of the male testes was observed at 1200 mg a.i./kg. The 

concentration where no-adverse effect may occur is not known as the current study designs do 

not accurately allow for extrapolation of effect magnitude; additionally, for the birds, the same 

magnitude of effect (on hatchability) was observed at both 300 and 1200 mg/kg. Cyromazine is 

used as a feed-through for poultry at a rate of 5 ppm (mg/kg) daily to control flies, however, this 

rate is substantially lower than where the effects were observed in the mallard study, 300 mg/kg. 

Additional studies examining effects on poultry reproduction and growth were also available. In 

egg-laying hens, at dietary concentration up to 50 mg/kg for 28 days, no effect on egg production 

or body weights were observed; cyromazine residues in the eggs from these hens were measured 

after 3 days on treated feed and appeared to stay at a consistent concentration until test 

termination (MRID 00103210). Effects on egg production, hatchability for several different 

poultry species were also reported at concentrations of 1000 mg/kg and higher (Wilson et al.

1983 (E39406); Brake and Ort 1989 (E97534); Brake et al. 1984 (E35937)); effects on parental 

growth were reported at concentrations of 500 mg/kg and higher (Brake et al. 1985 (E96667). 

For the 2-generation rat study, changes in body weight were observed in the parental and 

offspring groups (ca. 10-20%) at 3000 mg/kg-diet (150 mg/kg/day); a decrease in food 

consumption was also observed in this treatment. In other mammals, decreases on parental body 

weight were reported at doses of 30 and 300 mg/kg/day, with developmental NOAELs reported 

at doses of 60 mg/kg/day (the highest concentration tested) and greater (MRID 00150471; 

00027488); a discussion about the chronic mammalian toxicity value used in the RQ calculation 
60 

is presented in the Uncertainty section (5). In one study (Brake et al. 1984 (E35937)), the effects 

on reproduction were observed in the initial 2 weeks of the experiment. 

When modeling the maximum exposure scenario on the label for all foliar uses, the EECs (short 

grass) are greater than the avian and mammalian NOAEC for several weeks. The EECs are not 

greater than the reported LOAEC of 300 mg/kg for birds or 3000 mg/kg (150 mg/kg-bw) for 

mammals. Currently, the avian study that was used in this assessment to calculate RQs is not 

designed to evaluate how long the parental birds must be consuming dietary-items containing the 

chemical before effects on reproduction are observed. These studies are designed to allow the 

birds to consume treated feed for many weeks to allow time for equilibrium of the chemical 

within the bird and for the potential maternal transfer of the chemical to the eggs. For chronic 

reproduction testing in mammals, these studies are also not designed to determine how long an 

animal needs to consume contaminated feed. Cyromazine is highly water soluble, and the log 

octanol-water co-efficient (Kow) for cyromazine is reported as 0.06 (Hazardous Substance Data 

Bank)6

. This information suggests that cyromazine should equilibrate relatively quickly within 

an animal. Based on a metabolism study in poultry in which the birds were fed cyromazinetreated feed daily (at the label recommended rate), cyromazine is excreted primary as parent at 

concentration concentrations essentially equivalent to or greater than the concentration in the 

feed; once. Once cyromazine was removed from the feed, the cyromazine concentrations in the 

excreta were below detection limits by Day 3 depuration (MRID 44759202). A study by Brake 

and Axtell (1991) suggested that fresh manure from poultry fed Larvadex, during their first 20 

weeks of life (at concentrations 5 to 200 times greater than the recommended rate), had residual 

activity against fly larvae for several months after Larvadex was removed from the feed. 

However, cyromazine concentrations were not measured in the fresh manure, but rather 

monitoring fly mortality was used as an indicator of residual activity. 

In the preliminary assessment, birds are used as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians. 

The T-HERPS model (v1.1, 2010) calculates RQs for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles from 

dietary exposure to plant and animals that were exposed to a chemical. This model requires 

specific information about the amphibian’s or reptile’s diet, including prey size and water 

content in diet. Using the default diet assumptions and amphibian and reptile size classes, the 

acute RQs are below the LOCs for all dietary classes, except for amphibians and reptiles 

consuming herbivorous mammals for all foliar uses. The chronic RQs do exceed the LOC for 

two dietary classes, short grass and herbivorous mammals, as well as for broadleaf plants and 

small insects for the potato use. As the model inputs are specific, the conclusions using this 

model may not be applicable across all species, but it provides a useful tool for those species 

with similar diets to the chosen inputs. Using this model, on an acute basis, if a species has a 

diet similar to the assumed diet and if it does not consume herbivorous mammals, then the 

potential for direct effects may be low. 

The EECs used in the acute and chronic RQ calculations for birds and mammals were based on 

the single maximum application rate using the minimum application interval between successive 

applications. As the RQ values are slightly above the LOC in most scenarios, an exercise is 

conducted to determine if reducing the single maximum application rate or number of 

applications and/or increasing the application interval would reduce the RQs to below the LOC. 

 

6 http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~x6W9fh:1 (assessed January 8, 2013) 
61 

The table below is a summary of the findings (Table 26). For the foliar uses, except potato, it 

appears that reducing the single maximum rate by about 30% or increasing the minimum 

application interval would result in RQs < LOC. For potatoes, it appears that reducing the 

number of applications would reduce the RQs < LOC. Also, some combination of lowering the 

single maximum application rate, along with increasing the minimum retreatment interval or 

reducing the number of applications, may also result in RQs < LOC. If the single maximum 

application rate is to be as high as possible, then to be below the LOC, an increase in the 

minimum retreatment interval and or a decrease in the total number of applications would need 

to occur. It also appears that greater reductions in application rate or number of applications or 

increases in application interval are required when evaluating chronic risk. 

These EECs were calculated using the default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days. Using the 

available data, an evaluation of potential foliar dissipation rates was conducted and is discussed 

in the section on terrestrial modeling (Section III.B.2.a). Review of the data suggests that 

cyromazine may dissipate on certain foliage types (i.e., broadleaf, leafy plants), but may be more 

persistent on others (tomato and melon fruits). Additionally, information on dissipation rates for 

grasses was not available, which is the foliage that results in the highest EECs and eventual LOC 

exceedances. Using the maximum application scenarios, for all the foliar uses, except potato, the 

use of a foliar dissipation half-life of 18 days or less results in RQs < LOC. For potatoes, a foliar 

dissipation half-life rate of less than 7 days would be necessary on an acute basis and less than 3 

day on a chronic-basis, which the available data do not generally support. Therefore, if 

additional data on foliar dissipation are available, especially for grasses, then this may help to 

refine the RQs for the assessed uses. 

Table 26. Various Potential Cyromazine Application Scenarios and Their Implications on the 

Resulting RQs 

Use / Taxa Scenario Comments 

Beans, veg. 0.125 lb ai/A w/6 applications @ 7-day interval Scenario used in generating RQs in risk 

estimation (maximum allowable use rate); 

acute RQs >LOC; chronic RQs>LOC 

Birds Acute 

0.09 lb ai/A w/6 apps. @ 7-d interval RQs<LOC; a 28% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.125 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 13-d interval RQs<LOC 

0.125 lb ai/A w/4 apps @ 7-d interval RQs<LOC 

Chronic 

0.07 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 7-d interval RQs<LOC; a 44% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.09 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 13-d interval RQs<LOC; a 28% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.11 lb ai/A w/4 apps @ 13-d interval RQs <LOC; a 12% reduction in single app 

rate 

Mammals Chronic 

0.11 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 7-d interval RQs≤0.999; 12% reduction in single app rate 

0.125 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 13-d interval RQs <LOC 

0.125 lb ai/A w/5 apps @ 7-d interval RQs ≤1.01 

 

Ornamentals 0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval Scenario used in generating RQs in risk 
62 

Use / Taxa Scenario Comments 

then another 3 apps @ 7-d 21-d after first 3 apps estimation (maximum allowable use rate); 

acute RQs >LOC; chronic RQs>LOC 

Birds Acute 

0.11 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval then 

another 3 apps @ 7-d interval 21-d after first 3 

apps 

RQs<LOC; a 12% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 13-day interval 

then another 3 apps @ 13-d interval 21-d after first 

3 apps 

RQs<LOC 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval 

then another 2 apps @ 7-d interval 21-d after first 

3 apps 

RQs<LOC 

Chronic 

0.09 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 13-day interval 

then another 3 apps @ 13-d interval 21-d after first 

3 apps 

RQs<LOC; a 28% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval RQs ≤1.05 

Mammals Chronic 

0.11 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval then 

another 3 apps @ 7-d interval 21-d after first 3 

apps 

RQs<LOC; 12% reduction in single app rate 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 13-day interval 

then another 3 apps @ 13-d interval 21-d after first 

3 apps 

RQs <LOC 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval 

then another 2 apps @ 7-d 21-d after first 3 apps 

RQs ≤LOC 

Potato 0.249 lb ai/A w/3 applications @ 7-day interval Scenario used in generating RQs in risk 

estimation (maximum allowable use rate); 

acute RQs >LOC; chronic RQs>LOC 

Birds Acute 

0.17 lb ai/A w/3 apps. @ 7-d interval RQs<LOC; a 32% reduction in single app 

rate 

0.249 lb ai/A 3/3 apps @ 30-d interval RQs≤0.10 

0.249 lb ai/A w/2 apps @ 7-d interval RQs≤0.10 

Chronic 

0.125 lb ai/A w/3 apps @ 7-d interval RQs≤1.05; a 50% reduction 

0.249 lb ai/A w/1 app RQs<LOC 

Mammals Chronic 

0.20 lb ai/A w/6 apps @ 7-d interval RQs≤1.09; 20% reduction in single app rate 

0.249 lb ai/A w/2 apps @ 7-d interval RQs ≤LOC 

The list in the table is not meant to be exhaustive, and other combinations may occur. Therefore, 

it appears that potentially modifying the current maximum application scenarios, may reduce the 

RQs to below the LOCs. 

Based on the usage data in Table 2, potatoes are not listed. This may suggest that the use of 

cyromazine on potatoes may be limited in amount applied. The map illustrates that the 

geographical areas with higher cyromazine use are in California, southern Texas and Florida and 

part of New York (Figure 2). Based on information, Florida produces less than 2% of the annual 
63 

potato supply, but one-third of the winter/spring crop7

. Other information states that potato 

cultivation in New York accounts for 1.7% of the U.S. production with potatoes planted across 

several places in the state8

. Other information reported that in 2011, 36,900, 36,400, 19,100 and 

16,500 acres were planted in California, Florida, Texas and New York, respectively9

. 

Soil Amendment with Cyromazine-treated Manure

The RQ values exceeded the acute listed species LOC for small birds (RQ of 0.11) but not for 

mammals, based on the lower soil incorporation rate cyromazine residues in manure used as a 

soil amendment (manure applied ‘as excreted’). However, for the higher incorporation rate 

(manure completely dried first), the acute listed LOC was exceeded for small and medium birds 

and mammals (RQs 0.18-1.14) and the LOC was exceeded for small non-listed birds and 

mammals (RQ 0.81-1.14). 

For this use, calculation of an application rate on a per acre basis involved not only using 

information on the product labels, but also considering livestock production and manure 

practices. Using the available information, application using hog (swine) manure was assumed to 

represent a high end-use scenario. The difference between the low and high application rates is 

the assumption of how much water is present when the manure is incorporated into the soil. As 

there was an upper limit on the mass of manure that was land applied (4.5 tons), the mass of 

water present in the manure at the time of application will have a large impact on the overall 

concentration of cyromazine present in the soil. The two assumptions were that is was applied 

‘as excreta’ in which for the hog manure the reported water content is 90%; the other scenario is 

that it was completely dried prior to amending the soil and this scenario is expected to be 

conservative. Data indicate that the percent moisture in excreta manure for different livestock 

animals range from 75 to 90% (ASAE 2005). In reviewing available data on manure 

management practices, especially land application of manure, the methods of application vary10. 

Manure from poultry may be land applied as a solid, but it may contain litter which, when 

applying on a weight basis, will influence the amount of cyromazine present. Cattle manure may 

be land applied as a semi-solid or slurry and may contain a substantial amount of water. Manure 

applied as a liquid, is done for dairy cattle as well as swine manure, and is expected to contain 

the most water of the listed manure states. Additionally, to reduce potential runoff of nutrients or 

other pollutants off-field, the manure may be incorporated into the soil, thereby reducing the 

amount of cyromazine present on the soil surface. Based on this information, the amount of 

moisture present in the manure that is land applied is anticipated to be significant, and therefore, 

the RQ calculations based on using completely dried manure as anticipated being conservative. 

This exposure route includes dietary consumption of contaminated feed and soil as well as 

dermal exposure. One route of the dietary exposure is through incidental ingestion of soil. 

 

7 http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/FLpotatoes.pdf (access January 17, 2013) 

8 http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/nypotatoes.pdf (accessed January 17, 2013) 9 http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/Pota/Pota-09-20-2012.pdf (accessed January 17, 2013) 10 (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_permit_guidance_appendixb.pdf (accessed January 13, 2013) 
64 

Based on available soil ingestion rates for terrestrial animals, the application rates were adjusted 

to account for the percentage of consumed soil. Ingestion rates range up to 30% for a sandpiper, 

with the upper range for other non-shoreline terrestrial birds and mammals of 11% (USEPA 

1993). If the cyromazine is only present in the soil and using a soil ingestion rate of 11% 

(adjusted application rates of 0.027 and 0.297, then the RQs would only exceed for small listed 

birds using the adjusted rate which contained completely dried manure. 

However, cyromazine is systemic and based on as the rotational crop data as well as the plantback restrictions on the label, it is anticipated that cyromazine can be taken up by plants grown in 

soil containing cyromazine. If it were assumed that all of the applied cyromazine was taken up 

by the plants, then this rate was used to calculate RQs. Also, it was assumed, that if plant 

material was present, then the manure would be sprayed on like a broadcast ground application 

with no incorporation. It was also assumed that if it was broadcast applied then it would contain 

a substantial amount of water and the higher application rate (dry manure) would not be 

appropriate. Poultry litter may be applied over foliage, but as it likely contains other organic 

material, the mass of potential cyromazine is not known, but is expected to be reduced. Using 

0.27 lb a.i./A as the application rate, the RQ values were below the LOC. 

Dermal exposure from contact to contaminated soil is the other pathway of exposure for soil 

amended with cyromazine. Evaluation of this pathway alone was examined using the draft 

Terrestrial Investigation Model (TIM; v2.2). The RQs calculated suggest that dermal exposure 

only is not a risk for birds and mammals. While the RQ for the dry manure application rate was 

0.10, this is based on the assumption that 100% of the material is available, with no sorption to 

the soil or incorporation; additionally, the dry manure application rate is expected to be 

conservative. 

These analyses are based on application rates for one year using the labeled maximum allowable 

mass of manure that can be used for soil amendment. Based on the fate data for cyromazine, it is 

stable with reported field dissipation half-lives of up to 250 days. In laboratory aerobic soil 

metabolism studies, reported half-lives (t1⁄2) were 107 and 142 days. As it is persistent, if a field 

is routinely amended with manure containing cyromazine, there may be residual cyromazine 

remaining from a previous application. Additionally, there is also some uncertainty in whether 

the amount of manure applied would exceed the labeled maximum, as manure is added for 

nutrients and available data suggests that higher amounts than the labeled amount can be applied. 

For birds, the application rate would need to increase by 66% and 22% over the yearly maximum 

(based on using 0.27 lb a.i./A, and applying as a broadcast application over foliage) to exceed the 

acute listed LOC and chronic LOC for small birds consuming short grass. For mammals, it 

would need to increase by 85% or more to exceed the LOCs. 

Therefore, while the preliminary RQs for this soil amendment use exceeded the LOC, based on 

further refinement, and the available data, risk to birds and mammals from this exposure route is 

anticipated to be low. 

Treated Onion Seeds
65 

In the preliminary RQ calculations for use on onion seeds, the acute listed and non-listed and 

chronic LOCs were exceeded for all bird and mammal size classes. The acute LOCs were 

exceeded for all size classes for birds and mammals when assessing it on a dietary basis but not 

for large birds and mammals when assessed using the LD50/ft2

 methodology. As there was a 

large difference in the RQ values for these two methodologies, the potential for exposure from 

consuming onion seeds needs to be evaluated further. 

The reported RQs were based on the lowest reported NOAEC for the avian toxicity testing. In 

the mallard study, effects on hatch were reported at 300 mg a.i./kg and effects on hatch and egg 

production were reported at 1,200 mg a.i./kg. If the 1,200 mg a.i./kg concentration were used 

instead of the NOAEC in calculation of the RQs, the RQs would still exceed the acute listed and 

non-listed LOC and the chronic LOC for both birds and mammals. 

The RQ values were based on a maximum seeding rate in TREX of 75 lbs onion seeds/A. The 

seeding rate used in the calculations is from the information provided by OPP’s Biological and 

Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) (US EPA, 2011). The minimum seeding rate reported in 

TREX is 0.38 lb seed/A for onions. This seeding rate was used to calculate RQ values. Since 

the Nagy (method #1) method is based on a dietary basis and is independent of seeding rate in 

the field, the acute RQ values using this method are the same as when a seeding rate of 75 lb 

seed/A was used, and the RQ values exceed the non-listed and listed LOCs for all size classes of 

birds and mammals. In addition, the methodology to calculate chronic RQs are also independent 

of seeding rates and the RQs exceed the chronic LOC for both birds and mammals. However, 

for the other RQ calculation method, which is dependent on seeding rate, none of the RQ values 

exceed either the non-listed or listed LOC. 

In the memo provided by BEAD, the seeding rates for onions vary and are based on reported 

values for all onion types (they range from 75 to 0.38 lbs seed/A) as well as reported values for 

different types of onions. Based on the cyromazine label, the use is for bulb onions, and based 

on the BEAD memo, the seeding rate for bulb onions reported is from approximately 2 lbs seed 

to 4 lbs seed/A. Using this information, a seeding rate of 4 lbs/A was used. Again, the RQ 

values that are based on the LD50/ft2 methodology do not exceed acute LOCs. 

An effort was undertaken to determine the number of seeds a bird or mammal would need to 

consume to reach either one-half the LD50 (corresponding to the acute non-listed LOC of 0.5) or 

one-tenth the LD50 (corresponding to the acute listed LOC of 0.1) for each of the three weight 

classes. According to the BEAD memo, there are approximately 100,000 to 130,000 onion seeds 

in one pound. With an application rate of 4.95 lb a.i./100 lb seed, this equates to 0.225 or 0.173 

mg a.i./seed for 100,000 and 130,000 seeds/lb, respectively. The different seeding rates and 

number of seeds per pound were used and the results are presented in Table 27. As expected, 

based on the range of seeding rates and the size of the animal, the number of consumed seeds to 

exceed the listed LOC ranged from 11 to over a thousand; to exceed the non-listed LOC, the 

necessary number of consumed seeds ranged from 55 to several thousand. These values assume 

that there are enough planted seeds available to exceed the acute listed LOC and potentially the 

non-listed LOC (i.e., assumptions include: incorporation such that enough seeds may be easily 
66 

gleaned by the animal as information suggests that seeds are planted about one-half inch deep11

and the seeds being uniformly distributed within an acre. Using the seeding rate of 4 lbs seed/A, 

the seeding rate presented for bulb onions, the necessary area appears to be within a plausible 

foraging range for a bird or mammal. Other factors may contribute to the amount of seeds 

available to a single bird such as the number of birds gleaning a planted field which would 

introduce potential competition for the available seeds. 

Table 27. Summary of Number of Consumed Treated Seeds Necessary to Achieve LOCs 

Seeding Rate & 

non-listed and 

listed LOCs 

100,000 onion 

seeds/lb seed 

130,000 onion 

seeds/lb seed 

Animal Size 

Class Number of Cyromazine-treated Seeds 

Consumed Necessary to Reach LOC 

0.38 lb seed/A bird mammal bird mammal 

LOC 0.5 551 149 71 193 Small 

LOC0.1 11 30 14 39 

4 lb seed/A 

LOC 0.5 348 281 452 365 medium 

LOC 0.1 70 56 90 73 

75 lb seed/A 

LOC 0.5 4911 3468 6388 4510 Large 

LOC0.1 982 694 1278 902 

1

 In this table, a value of 55 means that for a value of 100,000 seeds/lb seed at a seeding rate of 0.38 lb seed/A, a 

small bird would have to consume 55 treated seeds in that area to consume enough cyromazine to reach the nonlisted level of concern (LOC). 

Based on the available information, it appears that there is generally one onion crop per 12 

months12. This may limit the number of seeds available for consumption by birds and mammals. 

However, as shown above, on an acute basis, it may be plausible for at least small birds and 

mammals to consume enough treated seeds to exceed the LOC. In the discussion above for the 

foliar uses, it was discussed that the actual necessary foraging time on treated feed to elicit the 

reported effects is not known, one. One study, however, reported effects within the first 2 

weeks. Additionally, based on the available data, cyromazine is anticipated to equilibrate rather 

quickly in the animal and its eggs. Cyromazine residues on/in onion seeds were measured and 

measurable amounts were still present in the seeds approximately 60 days after application 

(MRID 43763101. This information suggests that cyromazine may be present on-field or 

adjacent to the field (spillage) for some time. 

Therefore, based on this further analysis of exposure to onion seeds, there still may be the 

potential for risk from consuming onion seeds for both birds and mammals, especially on an 

acute basis. 

 

11 http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/coonions.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012); 

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/gardening/node/471 (accessed September 10, 2012); 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/txonions.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012) 12 http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/caonions.pdf 
67 

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Based on the acute contact honeybee study, cyromazine is classified as practically non-toxic. 

However, cyromazine is intended to target the larval stage of terrestrial invertebrates and 

therefore the acute contact test using adult honeybees may not be predictive of toxicity to other 

honeybee life-stages or other terrestrial invertebrates. In addition, based on the fate and residue 

data, cyromazine has been shown to be persistent in the environment. Laboratory studies were 

conducted using various terrestrial invertebrates, and effects on larval mortality (ca. 40% at 0.4 

lb a.i./A) and approximately a 50% reduction in number of fertile eggs/female at 0.8 lb a.i./A for 

the lady bird beetle (MRID 48608301). While this concentration is greater than the single 

maximum concentration, cyromazine can be applied to crops at 0.125 and 0.249 lb a.i./A on a 7-

day application interval for a total of 6 or 3 applications, respectively, for a total mass of 0.75 lb 

a.i./A. Acute toxicity studies using other adult terrestrial invertebrates (beetles) did not show 

adverse effects at 0.80 lb a.i./L, which would be expected based on the larval stage being the 

targeted life-stage for cyromazine. In addition, data from open literature papers suggest adverse 

effects on fruit fly reproduction (Moreno et al., 1994) and effects to bumblebee larvae 

(Mommaerts et al., 2006). 

Given cyromazine’s mode of action and intended target pests and the observed toxicity discussed 

above, the potential for adverse effects to terrestrial invertebrates, especially during juvenile 

stages, is expected. 

b) Plants 

Toxicity data for terrestrial plants that can be used in a quantitative risk assessment are not 

available. However, a study in which seedling emergence and vegetative vigor were evaluated 

qualitatively (signs of phytotoxicity) for six species (3 monocots and 3 dicots) was available 

(MRID 48740901). For the seedling emergence test, some phytotoxicity (specific toxicity not 

reported), was observed for the dicot soybean (Glycine max) at concentrations of 0.033 - 0.27 lb 

a.i./A and for the monocot, maize (Zea mays) at 0.27 lb a.i./A. In the vegetative vigor study, 

phytotoxicity was reported for maize at 0.13 - 0.27 lb a.i./A. All other species were reported as 

having no visual damage. Single maximum foliar application rates of cyromazine are 0.125 to 

0.249 lb a.i./A. While six species were evaluated in this toxicity profiling study (3 dicots and 3 

monocots), per the OCSPP 850 guidelines for vegetative vigor and seedling emergence, six 

species of dicots and four species of monocots are tested. Therefore, evaluations on the 

recommended number of species are not available with the toxicity profiling data. Not knowing 

the type of phytotoxicity observed along with no other quantifiable endpoints available, there is 

much uncertainty in whether the effects observed would be at a level of concern. Based on the 

grading scale, with 1 being no emergence or complete destruction of above ground part and 9 

being no visual damage (normal growth) compared to the control, the ratings for the affected 

species ranged from 7.5 to 8.5. As there was reported phytotoxicity to two of the six species 

tested (one monocot and one dicot) at concentrations at or below the maximum application rates, 

visual signs of phytotoxicity to terrestrial plants in the environment may occur. 

As discussed in the section above for terrestrial invertebrates, there are open literature papers that 

examined the efficacy of cyromazine on insect pests (e.g., Linduska, 1996; Stansly and Conner, 
68 

1998; Speese, 1994 & 1996 and Lui, 2005a, b, c). Commonly, the primary objective of these 

studies was to examine the control of a target pest by a pesticide generally in the field under 

typical cultivation practices. Occasionally, in addition to reporting the number of pests observed 

on the plants treated with the pesticides compared to an untreated control, these studies report 

information on observed plant damage or crop yields. These studies generally reported lower 

pest populations on plants exposed to cyromazine and sometimes report decreased plant foliage 

damage or increase in yield or market value of the produce. However, as these studies are 

conducted in the presence of pest pressures and there is not a concurrent control that is not 

exposed to the pesticides or the pest, it is difficult to differentiate between effects that are caused 

by the pest and effects that may be caused or enhanced by cyromazine use even if the 

cyromazine-treated plants exhibit less damage than the untreated control. 

A study that evaluated the deposition and persistence of cyromazine in celery in the field under 

different application volumes at a concentration of 0.24 lb a.i./A reported no phytotoxicity 

(Cabras et al. 1993). Another study examining cyromazine residue concentrations on three 

species of mature Brassica sp. plants (bok choy, Napa cabbage, and Chinese mustard) under 

field conditions reported no observed phytotoxicity after a single foliar application of Trigard 

75W at an application rate of 0.5 lb a.i./A (Lim et al., 1990). In addition, another study that 

evaluated the effects of larval leafminer on celery, added to test system as transplants, also 

conducted a study in a greenhouse without the pest to evaluate effects of cyromazine alone on 

the celery (Foster and Sanchez, 1988). Cyromazine was applied as a foliar application repeated 

weekly at 0.125 lb a.i./A (study conducted from January 23 – April 20), and there were no 

significant differences in celery growth (fresh wt, dry wt, number of petioles and leaf area) when 

compared to the untreated control. The application rate in these two studies are the same as 

maximum single rate applications for the registered crops or is higher (0.249 lb a.i./A for 

potatoes only). While this study is only on celery, and the plants were exposed as established 

plants, not during seedling emergence, it does provide data on potential effects of cyromazine on 

terrestrial plants. 

The model Terrplant (v1,2,2, 12/26/2006) was used to calculate EECs from runoff and are 

presented in Table 28. Based on the highest application rate of 0.249 lb a.i./A for potatoes the 

EEC for semi-aquatic areas is 0.125 lb a.i./A which overlaps with the concentrations were some 

level of phytotoxicity was observed in the qualitative study (0.033-0.27 lb a.i./A), but is the same 

as the quantitative study on celery where no adverse effects were observed. Additionally, the 

EECs for dry areas are below the reported phytotoxicity values. If using the maximum single 

application rate for all the other crops, the semi-aquatic EEC is greater than the reported 

phytotoxicity for one concentration of one species where the rating was an 8.5 vs. a 9 in the 

control. Therefore, any effects from runoff may be spatially limited. 

Table 28. EECs for Cyromazine. Units in lb ai/A. 

Description Equation EEC 

Potato Use (0.249 lb a.i./A) 

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.01245 

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.1245 

All other foliar uses (beans, vegetables) 

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00625 
69 

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0625 

To evaluate exposure from spray drift, AgDrift (v2.01) was used. Using the highest single 

maximum use rate (0.249 lb a.i./A for potatoes; and using the default droplet sizes in AgDrift), a 

distance of just over 6 feet off-field is necessary to get below a spray drift concentration for 

monocots for both ground and aerial applications. For dicots, using ground application, the 

EECs overlap the reported phytotoxicity concentrations at ≤ 20 ft; for aerial application the 

overlapping distance is ≤ 72 ft. Using the application rate for the other crops (0.125 lb a.i./A) and 

an aerial application, the overlapping distance for dicots is 20 ft. At the edge of the field, the 

spray drift EEC is 0.124 lb a.i./A, when an aerial application rate of 0.249 lb a.i./A is modeled, 

which is the maximum application rate for all registered crops except potatoes. Based on these 

calculated distances, except for dicots exposed from aerial application to potatoes, any effect is 

anticipated to be spatially limited, and listed plants may not be present within 20 feet of the edge 

of an actively cultivated field. 

Based on available data, cyromazine appears to be systemic and is taken up by plants from soils 

that have been directly treated or amended with cyromazine-treated manure. This suggests that 

plants may also be exposed to cyromazine by not only direct exposure from spray drift, but also 

via uptake from soils containing cyromazine. 

Although cyromazine is a triazine, it is not reported to have herbicidal activity like other 

triazines. Unlike other triazines, cyromazine is not a halotriazine. Given the lack of quantitative 

toxicity data for terrestrial plants, a review of other toxicity data for triazines and their degradates 

was conducted. For the triazine, atrazine, many acute aquatic-non vascular toxicity studies were 

available for parent atrazine and several atrazine degradates. While these studies were not for 

terrestrial plants, a comparison of the parent toxicity to the degradate toxicity while comparing 

their chemical structures to cyromazine was conducted. The aquatic non-vascular plant 

degradate toxicity data for several atrazine degradates report non-definitive EC50 values (i.e., 

50% effect was not observed at the highest test concentrations) at concentrations that are at least 

700 times higher than the lowest reported aquatic plant EC50 value for parent atrazine suggesting 

that the degradates of atrazine may lose efficacy as an herbicide (U.S. EPA, 2009). The structure 

of some of these degradates includes the loss of the chloro-substituent on the ring structure 

which is consistent with cyromazine not be halogenated. Other degradates have retained the 

chloro- group but have lost a portion of a side-chain group which is also similar to cyromazine. 

This evaluation is an additional line of evidence that phytotoxicity from cyromazine exposure 

may be limited. 

Given the reported visual phytotoxicity for two species in the registrant-submitted qualitative 

data, effects to plants could not be precluded; however, there is much uncertainty regarding the 

level and type of adverse effect observed in the study. Based on the information presented above 

and that it is applied as a foliar application to a variety of crops and to ornamentals, visual 

phytotoxic effects to non-listed plants may occur but is anticipated to not likely rise to a level of 

toxicity to adversely affect the entire plant. 

For listed plants, based on the information above, and the anticipated off-field effect area, risk to 

listed monocots is anticipated to be low. Additionally, risk to listed dicots from ground 
70 

application is also anticipated to be low. However, as the off-field distance is greater for dicots 

from aerial application to potatoes, and that there was at least some signs of visual phytotoxicity, 

albeit the type of toxicity is not known or of a quantifiable magnitude, there is uncertainty in 

whether effects would occur. 

3. Review of Incident Data 

Reviews of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), the Avian Incident 

Monitoring System (AIMS)13, and the EPA Incident Data System (IDS) were conducted on 

January 17, 2013. There are no reported incidents for cyromazine in the EIIS or AIMS 

databases. However, there is one incident in the IDS database reported in 2002. The classified 

minor incident (013556-00027) is for wildlife for the cyromazine formulation Trigard. No other 

information on the incident is available. The lack of reported incidences should not be construed 

as the absence of incidents. Incident reports for non-target organisms typically provide 

information only on mortality events and plant damage. Sublethal effects in organisms such as 

abnormal behavior, reduced growth and /or impaired reproduction are rarely reported, except for 

phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants. 

4. Re-evaluation of the Risk Hypothesis 

The results of this preliminary risk assessment indicate that the foliar uses of cyromazine 

have the potential for direct adverse effects to listed and non-listed birds (and, thus, 

reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians), mammals from consumption of onion seeds, 

terrestrial invertebrates (for all foliar uses). The potential for direct effects to listed dicot 

terrestrial plants (from foliar application to potatoes) is uncertain. Therefore, the risk 

hypothesis from the Problem Formulation [Based on the use patterns only, the uses of 

cyromazine have the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in 

terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and plants through direct application, spray drift 

and/or runoff. Additionally, based on the known mode of action for the target pest and 

the sensitivity of non-target aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate species, the uses of 

cyromazine also have the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in 

terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species through direct application, spray drift and/or 

runoff.] is partially supported. 

5. Assumptions and Limitations 

a) There are a number of uncertainties regarding the soil amendment use with manure 

containing cyromazine. It is recognized that different livestock husbandry practices as 

well as different manure management practices would likely influence the concentration 

of cyromazine in the manure that is applied/incorporated into the soil, and the amount of 

manure that may be applied. In this assessment, the following assumptions/options were 

considered: 1) the manure was incorporated into the soil ‘as excreted’ meaning that it was 

not manipulated further prior to being added to the soil; 2) the moisture in the manure 

 

13 http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/pesticides/aims/aims/index.cfm 
71 

was removed (dry manure) and then was incorporated into the soil; and 3) since many of 

the registered labels indicate not to apply more than 3 or 4 tons of manure per acre, the 

use rate was calculated using 4 tons of manure both as ‘as excreted’ and as dry manure. 

There are several references that discuss livestock manure production rates as well as 

manure management practices (e.g., ASAE 2005 – Manure production and 

Characteristics; USDA NRCS – Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 

chapter 9). Also, the EFED risk assessment for the Neoprex 2SG label (D338467) 

completed in 2006 discussed the different methods of livestock management including 

manure management. 

Based on the available information, manure may be land applied by first creating a slurry 

or liquefying the manure, or it may be added on more of a solid basis. Also, for certain 

animals, the manure may be incorporated into bedding material. These techniques will 

likely affect the actual concentration of cyromazine that is being applied. Furthermore, 

while the label has restrictions on the amount of manure that can be incorporated into the 

soil, typically manure is incorporated into soil for nutrient requirements. While the label 

indicates a maximum amount of manure that may be applied, the tracking and 

containment of the manure once it leaves the livestock facility may not be possible. As 

such, the amount of manure containing cyromazine that may end up being used on an 

acre basis could likely be based on nutrient needs rather than the 4 tons per acre 

restriction on the label14. 

b) An evaluation into the potential foliar dissipation rate for dietary items that were exposed 

to cyromazine was conducted for this assessment. Based on the available information, it 

appears that cyromazine may dissipate on some types of foliage (i.e., leafy vegetables 

which may be similar to the broadleaf plant category in T-REX) with calculated halflives generally less than 14 days (based on magnitude of residue studies; MRID 

41976301, 00150744), but). But the data also seem to suggest that for some types of 

plants, cyromazine did not readily dissipate during the course of the study (i.e., ca. 14 or 

21 days for tomatoes, cucurbits; MRID 42255101, 42116001). For all the foliar uses, 

except potato, the use of a foliar dissipation half-life of 18 days or less results in RQs < 

LOC. For potatoes, a foliar dissipation half-life rate of less than 7 days is necessary on 

an acute basis and less than 3 day on a chronic-basis, which the available data do not 

generally support. Additionally, an evaluation of potential dissipation for all dietary item 

categories in T-REX (i.e., the grasses) could not be completed due to unavailable data. 

Therefore, there is uncertainty in the potential dissipation rate for these other dietary 

groups. Cyromazine has been shown to be persistent in other media such as soil and 

manure, and has been shown to be taken up by foliage. Therefore, as there is uncertainty, 

in an effort to be reasonably conservative for the grass dietary group, the default foliar 

dissipation rate was used. However, this approach may be overestimating the dissipation 

rate and as such, the EECs. 

c) Re-depositing of cyromazine dust from abraded onion seeds onto dietary food items is a 

potential route of exposure for birds and mammals. As stated above, depending on the 

 

14 http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0208.html (accessed October 10, 2012); 

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices/manuremgmt.aspx (accessed October 10, 2012); 
72 

seeding rate in the field, the maximum amount available ranges from 0.02, 0.2 and 3.71 

lb a.i./A. An evaluation of risk to birds and mammals from consuming onion seeds was 

conducted. However, those risks are from birds and mammals consuming seeds that have 

been treated with cyromazine (on the field exposure), and it is assumed that during 

planting, the amount of vegetation on the field is low. Furthermore, as all of the available 

cyromazine is not expected to be removed, but the amount that could be removed is 

unknown, there is much uncertainty in the exposure rate and eventual risk from this route 

of exposure. If the abraded dust is able to drift far enough and re-deposit off-field on 

established vegetation, then risk to birds and mammals may be possible. For terrestrial 

invertebrates and plants, exposure to this dust and its potential impact also remains an 

uncertainty. If all the cyromazine were removed during planting and released as dust into 

the air available for re-depositing into the aquatic environment, the amount available 

again would be approximately 0.02, 0.2 or 3.71 lb a.i./A based on the planting rate. 

Using AgDrift (ground application, high boom, fine to medium/course droplet) to 

calculate initial water concentration, for the 0.02 and 0.2 , the concentrations was 11 μg/L 

or less, therefore. Therefore, risk to aquatic animals and plants from this exposure are 

anticipated to be low. However, if 3.71 lb a.i./A is available for re-deposition into the 

aquatic environment, then the EEC was 208 μg/L and is higher than what was used for 

RQ calculations, with a peak EEC of 0.131 mg a.i./L. Comparison of the peak EEC to 

the lowest definitive acute toxicity value (124 mg a.i./L, green algae), the EEC is still 

approximately 947 times lower than the IC50 value. The lowest non-definitive acute 

LC/EC50 value is 84 mg a.i./L which is 640 times greater than the peak EEC. Therefore, 

acute risk to aquatic organisms from abraded seed dust is likely to be low. This 208 μg/L 

value, is higher than the lowest chronic toxicity value (0.131 mg a.i./L, mysid shrimp 

chronic) and is approximately 1.5 times lower than the next lowest chronic aquatic 

toxicity value, 0.31 mg a.i./L Daphnia LC. Since this value is based on all of the 

available cyromazine being removed from the seeds and redepositing into the aquatic 

environment, which is expected to be conservative, the likelihood of chronic adverse 

effect to aquatic organisms from abraded dust is considered to be low. 

d) Toxicity data were not available for terrestrial plants, non-adult life-stages of honeybees, 

or estuarine-marine organisms. Risk conclusions were made with the data that were 

available. There is uncertainty regarding the potential for risk to listed terrestrial plants as 

the risk was based on qualitative data. 

e) The chronic mammalian toxicity value used in the calculation of the RQ values was 1000 

mg/kg-diet (150 mg/kg-bw) (MRID 00103197). In this study, at 3000 mg/kg-diet, an 

approximate 15 - 20% decrease in body weight over the course of the study was observed 

in the parental group; decreases in pup body weight (10-20%) at 3000 mg/kg-diet were 

also reported. Moderate decreases in food consumption were reported at this dose. 

However, a decrease in body weight in the parental group was also reported at the 1000 

mg/kg-diet group with a reported decrease of about 7.5%; a slight decrease in food 

consumption was also reported. No effects on reproduction were reported in the study. 

Based on the study report, it appears that a decrease in mean body weight started to occur 

on about the 7th or 8th week of the study. The next lower test concentration, 30 mg/kgdiet, reported no treatment-related effects on body weight or food consumption. 
73 

However, as this concentration is 33 times lower than 1000 mg/kg-diet where an effect 

on body weight was reported, given the wide range between concentrations, there is 

uncertainty in where a no-effect on body weight may occur. The decrease in body weight 

at 1000 mg/kg is about half of the reported decrease at 3000 mg/kg. If this response 

follows a dose-response, then a decrease of about 4% would be around 300 mg/kg-diet. 

In other mammalian Teratogenic toxicity tests, decreases in material body weight gain 

were reported. In the rat study (MRID 0002748), a slight decrease in maternal body 

weight gain (dosed by oral gavage on Days 6-19) was observed at 300 mg/kg/day (this is 

not a dietary dose as reported for the 1000 mg/kg-diet; using T-REX a 300 mg/kg-bw 

equates to 6000 mg/kg-diet using the rat); no effect on body weight was observed at 100 

mg/kg/day. In the rabbit study (MRID 00150471), a slight decrease in maternal body 

weight during the dosing period at 30 mg/kg/day but was not statistically significant; a 

significant effect on body weight gain was observed at 60 mg/kg/day. Typically, results 

from teratogenic studies are not used in RQ calculations, but rather from the 2-generation 

dietary rat reproduction study. Effects on body weight at around 500 mg/kg-diet have 

also been reported in poultry species. 

In the 2-generation study, it appears that the rats may be able to tolerate the cyromazine 

treated feed for about 7 to 8 weeks before a noticeable change in food consumption or 

weight is observed; therefore, there is uncertainty in whether adequate cyromazine 

residue concentrations in the environment will be present for that period of time. 

However, there are other factors that may influence at what residue concentration a toxic 

response in animals in the environment is observed compared to laboratory animals such 

as nutrient differences in food items, predation avoidances, foraging efforts. If using a 

concentration of 100 or 300 mg/kg-diet in place of the 1000 mg/kg-diet, the chronic 

dietary RQ does not exceed the LOC; it is not exceeded using 1000 mg/kg-diet either. 

For 300 mg/kg-diet, the chronic dose-based RQs for the foliar uses are above the LOC 

and are about twice that of the RQs for the avian chronic RQs. If 500 mg/kg-diet is used, 

the chronic dose-based RQs are similar to the avian chronic RQs. In the Risk Description 

section, a discussion about the necessary modifications to the foliar application scenarios 

was presented. After reviewing the mammalian data, if a concentration around 300 

mg/kg-diet is used it will result in RQs similar to the avian RQs. Therefore, if 

modifications to application scenarios occur to reduce the RQs values, a chronic 

mammalian value around this level should be used which this correlates with the avian 

RQs and effects observed. 

f) A definitive NOAEC value was not determined for the chronic mysid toxicity test. A 4% 

decrease in total length in males was observed at Day 14 that was statistically significant 

(p<0.05), with a monotonic decreasing trend observed for this endpoint. Based on the 

observed magnitude of effect in comparison to the chronic EEC, the likelihood of adverse 

effect from cyromazine exposure is considered low. 

g) According to the labels, the use rate of cyromazine is per crop or season. For this 

preliminary assessment, one crop or season per year was used in the modeling scenarios. 

If there are multiple crop seasons within a year (January to December) for a crop, then 

the use of one crop/year may underestimate exposure to non-target organisms. However, 
74 

labels include language regarding the development of resistance by the target pests and 

recommend resistance management practices such as rotating cyromazine products with 

other products and avoiding treatment of successive generations with cyromazine 

products and using other non-chemical alternatives. 

h) Based on available data, cyromazine appears to be systemic and in cases is taken up by 

plants from soils that have been treated or amended with cyromazine-treated manure. 

This ability to uptake cyromazine may result in an additional route of exposure for nontarget animals such as birds and mammals, and for terrestrial invertebrates as a food 

source. However, exposure to terrestrial birds and mammals is also evaluated from 

consuming dietary items directly treated with cyromazine, and this exposure route is 

anticipated to be protective of exposure from uptake from the plants and is not anticipated 

to change any overall risk conclusions 

i) 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 387946), 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), cyromazine 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. 
75 

Cyromazine 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 

cyromazine. 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/). 
76 

APPENDIX A. REFERENCES 

Al-Mekhlafi, F.A., A. M. A. Mashaly, A. A. M. Adbel Mageed, M. A. Wadaan, and N.M. AlMallah. 2011. Overlap effects of cyromazine concentration, treatment method and rearing 

temperature on the Southern cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus F.) reared on cowpea. 

African J. Microbiol. Res. 5 (32) : 5848-5853. 

Al-Mekhlafi, F.A., A. M. A. Mashaly, H. Ebaid, M. A. Wadaan, and N. M. Al-Mallah.2012 

Control of the seed beetle Callosobruchus muculatus reared on chickpeas by different applicable 

conditions of the insect growth regulator, cyromazine. Sci. Res. Essays. 7(1) : 55-60. 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). Manure Production and Characteristics. ASAE 

D384.2 March 2005. 

Bel, Y., Wiesner, P. and Kayser, H. (2000), Candidate target mechanisms of the growth inhibitor 

cyromazine: Studies of phenylalanine hydroxylase, puparial amino acids, and dihydrofolate 

reductase in dipteran insects. Arch. Insect Biochem. and Physiol. 45: 69–78. doi: 10.1002/1520-

6327(200010)45:2<69::AID-ARCH3>3.0.CO;2-3 

Brake, J., Ort, J. F., Carter, T. A., and Campbell, W. R. (1984). Effect of the insect growth 

regulator CGA-72662 (Larvadex) on broiler breeder production, hatchability, and subsequent 

chick performance. Poult.Sci. 63: 910-916. 

Brake, J., Berry, W. D., Peebles, E. D., Ort, J. F., and Campbell, W. R. (1985). Effect of feeding 

CGA-72662 (Larvadex) during growth on body weight, feed consumption, livability, production, 

and egg quality of single comb white leghorn layers. Poult. Sci. 64: 247-252. 

Brake, J., Ort, J. F., Wages, D. P., and Campbell, W. R. (1989). Effects of CGA-72662 

(Larvadex) in Turkeys During Rearing and Reproduction. Poult. Sci. 68: 731-738 . 

Brake, J., R.C. Axtell, and W.R. Campbell. 1991. Retention of larvicidal activity after feeding 

cyromazine (Laradex®) for the initial 20 weeks of life of single combe white leghorn layers. 

Poult Sci 70:1873-5 

Cabras, P., Gioia, L. M., Melis, M., Spanedda, L., Cabitza, F., and Cubeddu, M. (1993). The Deposition 

and Persistence of Cyromazine in Celery in Relation to the Methods of Application. Mobility 

Degrad.Xenobiot., Proc.- Simp.Pestic.Chem., 9th 545-551. 

Civelek, H.S. and P.G. Weintraub. 2003. Effects of bensultap on larval serpentine leafminers, Liriomyza 

trifolii (Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in tomatoes. Crop Protection. 2: 479-483. 

Darvas, B. and A. Andersen. 1999. Effects of cyromazine and dimethoate on Chromatomyia fuscula

(Zett) (Dipt., Agromyzidae and its hymenoterous parasitoids. Acta Phtopathologica et Entomologica 

Hungarica. 34 (3): 231-239. 

European Food Safety Authority. 2008. EFSA Scientific Report. Conclusion on the peer review of 

cyromazine. 168, 1-94. 
77 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Tox. 

Chem. 13:1383-1391. 

Foster, R. E. and Sanchez, C. A. (1988). Effect of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) Larval 

Damage on Growth, Yield, and Cosmetic Quality of Celery in Florida. J.Econ.Entomol. 81: 1721-1725. 

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. 

Jones, R.D. et al., 2000. Guidance for use of the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area Factor in 

Drinking Water Assessments (March 21, 2000). Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arlington, VA. 

Lim, L.O., S.J. Scherer, K.D. Shuler, and J. P. Toth. 1990. Disposition of cyromazine in plants under 

environmental conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38: 860-864. 

Linduska, J.J., M. Ross, K. Mulford and D. Baumann. 1996. Colorado potato beetle control on potatoes 

with foliar insecticide sprays, 1995. Arthropod Manag. Tests. 21:143-144. 

Liu. T.-X. 2005a. Efficacy of selected insecticides against pepper pests on jalapeno pepper, 2004. 

Liu, T.-X. 2005b. Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Pepper Pests on Bell Pepper, Fall 2003. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 30: E47. 

Liu, T.-X. 2005c. Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Melon Pests on Cantaloupe, Spring 2004. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 30: E15. 

Lucus, E., S. Giroux, S. Demougeot, R-M. Duchesne, and D. Coderre. 2004. Compatibility of a natural enemy, 

Coleomegilla maculata lengi (Col., Coccinellidae) and four insecticides used against the Colorado potato beetle 

(Col., Chrysomelidae). J. Appl. Entomology, 128: 233–239 

Mommaerts, V., G. Sterk and G. Smagghe. 2006. Hazards and uptake of chitin synthesis inhibitors in 

bumblebees Bombus terrestris. Pest Manag. Sci. 62: 752-758. 

Moreno, D.S., A.J. Martinez, and M.S. Riviello. 1994. Cyromazine effects on the reproduction of 

Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the laboratory and in the field. Horticul. Entomol. 87 (1): 

202-211. 

Pote, D.H. et al., 1994. Effect of Drying and Rainfall Intensity on Cyromazine Loss from SurfaceApplied Caged-Layer Manure. J. Environ. Qual. 23:101-104. 

Sirota, J.M. and E. Grafius. 1994. Effects of cyromazine on larval survival, pupation, and adult 

emergence of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econom. Entomol. 87 (3): 577-

582. 

Speese,J. 1994. Foliar sprays for insect control in tomatoes, 1993. Arthropod Manag. Tests. 19: 154-155. 
78 

Speese,J. 1996. Use of cyromazine (Trigard 75W) ina foliar spray program to control insects in potatoes, 

1995. Arthropod Manag. Tests. 21: 163-164. 

Stansly P.A. and J. M. Conner. 1998. Impact of insecticides alone and in rotation on tomato pinworm, 

leafminer and beneficial arthropods on staked tomato, 1997. Arthropod Manag. Tests. 23: 162-165. 

USDA. 2011, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Part 651, Chapter 9. 210-VI-AWMFH, 

Amend. 47, December 2011. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

USEPA. 1990, National survey of pesticides in drinking water wells: Phase 1 report. 

90-01 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 

USEPA, 1992. Another look: national survey of pesticides in drinking water wells - 

report. EPA 57019-9 1-020 

USEPA. 1992. Pesticides in Ground Water Database. A compilation of monitoring 

197 1 -1 99 1 National Summary. EPA 734-12-92-00 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Arlington, VA. 

USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Handbook, United States Environmental Progection Agency. 

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/toc2-37.pdf

(Accessed June 19, 2009). 

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research 

and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=30759 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC. January 23, 2004. 

USEPA. 2006. User’s Guide TerrPlant version 1.2.2. December 2006. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. 

USEPA, 2009a. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and 

Transport of Pesticides. Version 2.1 October 22, 2009. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, 

VA. 

Wilson, H. R., Harms, R. H., Simpson, C. F., and Campbell, W. R. (1983). Effect of High Levels of Larvadex on 

Reproduction in Leghorn Breeders. Poult.Sci. 62: 1731-1733. 

 
79 

APPENDIX B. BIBLIOGRAPHY

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

103138 Sachsse, K.; Ullmann, L. (1978) Acute Oral LD50 in the Adult Peking Duck of Technical CGA 

72662: Project No. Siss 6446. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; prepared by Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:070912-B) 

108821 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1980) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50--Bobwhite Quail: 

?CGA-72662|: Project No. 108- 189. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Ciba- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:070912-C) 

108822 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1980) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50--Mallard Duck: 

?CGA-72662 Technical|: Project No. 108-190. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 

100-631; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, 

NC; CDL:070912-D) 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

103137 Honeycutt, R. (1982) Environmental Safety of Technical CGA-72662 to Representative Wildlife 

Species: Report No. EIR-81016. (Un- published study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-A) 

108823 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1980) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary LC50--Bobwhite 

Quail: ?CGA-72662|: Project No. 108-187. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 

100-631; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, 

NC; CDL:070912-F) 

108824 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1980) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary LC50--Mallard 

Duck: ?CGA-72662 Technical|: Project No. 108-188. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 

under 100-631; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., sub- mitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 

Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-G) 

71-4 Avian Reproduction 

MRID Citation Reference 

44743801 Beavers, J.; Dukes, V.; Jaber, M. (1989) A One Generation Reproduction Study with the 

Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): CGA-72662: Lab Project Number: 108-265: 208-87. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 97 p. 

44743802 Beavers, J.; Dukes, V.; Jaber, M. (1989) A One Generation Reproduction Study with the 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchus): CGA-72662: Lab Project Number: 108-266: 207-87. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 96 p. 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

103137 Honeycutt, R. (1982) Environmental Safety of Technical CGA-72662 to Representative Wildlife 

Species: Report No. EIR-81016. (Un- published study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 
80 

submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-A) 

103142 Vilkas, A.; Schupner, J. (1981) The Acute Toxicity of CGA-72662 (Technical Grade) to the 

Channel Catfish: UCCES Project No. 11506-04-04. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 

under 100-631; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, 

NC; CDL:070912-M) 

108825 Vilkas, A.; Schupner, J. (1981) The Acute Toxicity of CGA-72662 (Technical Grade) to the 

Rainbow Trout: UCCES Project No. 11506- 04-01. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 

under 100-631; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, 

NC; CDL:070912-L) 

112788 Vilkas, A.; Schupner, J. (1981) The Acute Toxicity of CGA-72662 (Technical Grade) to 

Bluegill Sunfish: UCCES Project No. 11506- 04-02. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 

under 100-631; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, 

NC; CDL:070912-K) 

128286 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1981) (Static Acute Toxicity Test: CGA-72662: Daphnia magna and Bluegill 

Trout). (Compilation; unpublished study received May 3, 1983 under 100-631; CDL:250096-A) 

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

MRID Citation Reference 

103137 Honeycutt, R. (1982) Environmental Safety of Technical CGA-72662 to Representative Wildlife 

Species: Report No. EIR-81016. (Un- published study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-A) 

103141 Vilkas, A.; Hughes, J. (1981) The Acute Toxicity of CGA-72662 Technical (Batch No. 780977, 

95.6% Purity) to the Water Flea ...: UCCES Project No. 11506-04-03. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Ciba-Geigy 

Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 070912-J) 

128286 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1981) (Static Acute Toxicity Test: CGA-72662: Daphnia magna and Bluegill 

Trout). (Compilation; unpublished study received May 3, 1983 under 100-631; CDL:250096-A) 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study 

MRID Citation Reference 

150746 Iley, E. (1984) Flow-through Daphnia magna Chronic Toxicity Test with CGA-72662: Final 

Report: B906. Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. 50 

p. 

150747 Iley, E. (1984) Flow-through Fathead Minnow Early Life Stage Tox- icity Test with CGA72662: Final Report: PB906. Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Research & 

Technology, Inc. 112 p. 

81-1 Acute oral toxicity in rats 

MRID Citation Reference 

82836 Sachsse, K.; Bathe, R. (1978) Acute Oral LD50 in the Rat of Tech- nical CGA 72662: Project 

No. Siss 6446. (Unpublished study re- ceived Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX-65; prepared by CibaGeigy, Ltd., Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:098384-B) 

82837 Sachsse, K.; Bathe, R. (1978) Acute Oral LD50 in the Mouse of Technical CGA 72662: Project 

No. Siss 6446. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX-65; prepared by Ciba-
81 

Geigy, Ltd., Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:098384-C) 

82838 Sachsse, K.; Ullman, L. (1978) Acute Oral LD50 in the Rabbit of Technical CGA 72662: 

Project No. Siss 6446. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX-65; prepared by 

Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; 

CDL:098384-D) 

129611 Cannelongo, B.; Sabol, E.; Maedgen, J.; et al. (1983) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity: CGA 72662 

75W-C GP160502 FL-821649: Project No. 2826-82. (Unpublished study received Jul 25, 1983; 

Jul 27, 1983 under 100-631; prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 

Greensboro, NC; CDL:250851-A) 

135424 Sabol, R.; Sabol, E.; Cannelongo, B.; et al. (1979) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity: CGA-72662, 0.3% 

Premix, 245-18: Project No. 1116-79. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX65; prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:098383-A) 

135428 Sabol, R.; Sabol, E.; Cannelongo, B.; et al. (1979) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity: CGA 72662, 5SCOA, FL 790350: Project No. 1111-79. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX65; prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:098383-E) 

142185 Sabol, E. (1982) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity: Project No:2735-82. Un- published study prepared by 

Stillmeadow, Inc. 10 p. 

151137 Sabol, E. (1983) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity--Trigard 5% SC-C: Project No. 2936-82. Unpublished 

study prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc. 8 p. 

163907 Lain, D. (1986) Rat Acute Oral Toxicity: Project No. 3949-86. Un- published study prepared by 

Stillmeadow, Inc. 8 p. 

45936703 Kuhn, J. (2002) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Cyromazine 2.12% Pellet: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 7302-02. Unpublished study prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc. 10 p. {OPPTS 

870.1100} 

81-3 Acute inhalation toxicity in rats 

MRID Citation Reference 

43799901 Holbert, M. (1994) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats: Cyromazine Technical: Final 

Report: Lab Project Number: 0971-94: S9-FF81-3.C3. Unpublished study prepared by 

Stillmeadow, Inc. 34 p. 

83-4 2-generation repro.-rat 

MRID Citation Reference 

103197 Blair, M.; Slezak, S.; Allen, S.; et al. (1981) Two-generation Reproduction Study with CGA72662 in Albino Rats: 382-086. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; prepared by International Research and Development Corp., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 

Greensboro, NC; CDL:070920-D; 070921) 

141-1 Honey bee acute contact 

MRID Citation Reference 
82 

43152601 Palmer, S.; Beavers, J. (1993) An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: 

Cyromazine: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 108/368. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International Ltd. 19 p. 

165-4 Bioaccumulation in fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

850.1025 Oyster acute toxicity test (shell deposition) 

MRID Citation Reference 

47940803 Gerke, A. (2009) Cyromazine- Effect on New Shell Growth of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica): Final Report. Project Number: 64941, T009025/08. Unpublished study prepared by 

ABC Laboratories, Inc. 62 p. 

850.1350 Mysid chronic toxicity test 

MRID Citation Reference 

47940802 Lehman, C. (2009) Cyromazine- Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid, 

Americamysis bahia, Conducted Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report. Project 

Number: 64942, T009026/08. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 79 p. 

48608301 Meeker, J. (2011) Larvadex 1% Premix and Neporex 2SG: EPA Requested 

Information for the Development of the Cyromazine Risk Assessment. 

Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Animal Health US, Inc. 291p. 

161-1 Hydrolysis 

MRID Citation Reference 

103148 Burkhard, N. (1979) Hydrolysis of CGA-72662 under Laboratory Con- ditions: Project Report 

17/79. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., 

Switz., submitted by Ciba Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070914-F) 

103149 Burkhard, N. (1979) Photolysis of CGA-72662 in Aqueous Solutions under Artificial Sunlight 

Conditions: Project Report 18/79. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:070914-G) 

135420 Burkhard, N. (1979) Hydrolysis of CGA-72662 under Laboratory Con- ditions: Project Report 

17 /79. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX-65; prepared by Ciba-Geigy 

Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 098381-B) 

142778 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (19??) Cyromazine -- Celery and Lettuce [Residue Data]. Unpublished study. 

262 p. 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

153795 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1985) Cyromazine: [Residue Chemistry]. Unpub- lished compilation. 247 p. 
83 

161-2 Photodegradation-water 

MRID Citation Reference 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

161-3 Photodegradation-soil 

MRID Citation Reference 

103151 Burkhard, N. (1980) Photolysis of CGA 72 662 on Soil Surfaces under Artificial Sunlight 

Conditions: Project Report 24/80. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:070914-I) 

103152 Caplan, J. (1981) Soil/Manure Metabolism of 14C-CGA-72662: BRL Project No. 22-201-224A. 

(Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 

Greensboro, NC; CDL:070914-K) 

142191 Honeycutt, R.; Ballantine, L. (1982) Application of Mathematical Modeling Results for 

Environmental Risk Assessments. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 19 p. 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism 

MRID Citation Reference 

103152 Caplan, J. (1981) Soil/Manure Metabolism of 14C-CGA-72662: BRL Project No. 22-201-224A. 

(Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 

Greensboro, NC; CDL:070914-K) 

146845 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Environmental Fate of CGA-72662 in Field Soil Amended with 

Mushroom Compost Treated with Armor 5SC Insecti- cide: Report No. EIR-85008. 

Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 7 p. 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

150744 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1984) Cyromazine--Celery and Lettuce: Residues Observed and Metabolism 

Data Including Analytical Methods. Un- published compilation. 295 p. 

151049 Burgess, D. (1985) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil of CGA-72662: Nine Month Progress Report: 

Project No.: 84-E-016. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics Inc. 35 p. 

156483 Borriston Laboratories Inc. (1982) Soil/Manure Metabolism of Carbon -14-CGA-72662. Final 

Report and Addendum: BRL Project No. 22-201-224A. Unpublished study. 62 p. 

157458 Cargile, N. (1986) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of CGA-72662: Final Report: 

Project No. 84-E-016. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics Incorporated. 38 p. 

43767901 Esser, T. (1995) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon 14)-Cyromazine: Lab Project Number: 

348W: 130-91. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 231 p. 
84 

162-2 Anaerobic soil metabolism 

MRID Citation Reference 

146845 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Environmental Fate of CGA-72662 in Field Soil Amended with 

Mushroom Compost Treated with Armor 5SC Insecti- cide: Report No. EIR-85008. 

Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 7 p. 

150744 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1984) Cyromazine--Celery and Lettuce: Residues Observed and Metabolism 

Data Including Analytical Methods. Un- published compilation. 295 p. 

151049 Burgess, D. (1985) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil of CGA-72662: Nine Month Progress Report: 

Project No.: 84-E-016. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics Inc. 35 p. 

156483 Borriston Laboratories Inc. (1982) Soil/Manure Metabolism of Carbon -14-CGA-72662. Final 

Report and Addendum: BRL Project No. 22-201-224A. Unpublished study. 62 p. 

157458 Cargile, N. (1986) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of CGA-72662: Final Report: 

Project No. 84-E-016. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics Incorporated. 38 p. 

43767902 Esser, T. (1995) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon 14)-Cyromazine: Lab Project Number: 

349W: 132-91. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 105 p. 

163-1 Leach/adsorp/desorption 

MRID Citation Reference 

103139 Burkhard, N. (1981) Adsorption and Desorption of CGA-72662 (Vet- razin) in Various Soil 

Types: Project Report 32-81. (Unpub- lished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

prepared by Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, NC; 

CDL:070912-E) 

103150 Burkhard, N. (1980) Leaching Characteristics of Aged 14C-CGA 72662 Residues in Two 

Standard Soils: Project Report 14/80. (Unpub- lished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-

631; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, NC; 

CDL:070914-H) 

103165 Guth, J. (1980) Leaching Model Study with the Insecticide/Larvacide CGA 72662 in Four 

Different Soils: Project Report 13/80. (Un- published study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-

631; prepared by Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; 

CDL:070915-B) 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

142191 Honeycutt, R.; Ballantine, L. (1982) Application of Mathematical Modeling Results for 

Environmental Risk Assessments. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 19 p. 

146838 Ballantine, L. (1985) Cyromazine/Melamine Field Dissipation: Tri- gard 75W: Project No. 

329924S. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 450 p. 

146839 Ballantine, L. (1985) Cyromazine/Melamine Field Dissipation: Tri- gard 75W: Project No. 

329924S. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 410 p. 

146840 Ballantine, L. (1985) Cyromazine/Melamine Field Dissipation: Tri- gard 75W: Project No. 
85 

329924S. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 428 p. 

146845 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Environmental Fate of CGA-72662 in Field Soil Amended with 

Mushroom Compost Treated with Armor 5SC Insecti- cide: Report No. EIR-85008. 

Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 7 p. 

147381 Dickson, G. (1984) Review of Previously Submitted Environmental Fate Studies Supporting the 

Safety of Triumph (CGA-12223) on Turf: Report No. EIR-84035. Unpublished study prepared 

by Ciba- Geigy Corp. 16 p. 

147743 Ballantine, L. (1985) Cyromazine/Melamine Field Dissipation: Tri- gard 75W: Project No. 

329924S. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 426 p. 

164-2 Aquatic field dissipation 

MRID Citation Reference 

103137 Honeycutt, R. (1982) Environmental Safety of Technical CGA-72662 to Representative Wildlife 

Species: Report No. EIR-81016. (Un- published study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-A) 

142191 Honeycutt, R.; Ballantine, L. (1982) Application of Mathematical Modeling Results for 

Environmental Risk Assessments. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 19 p. 

 Non-Guideline Study 

MRID Citation Reference 

86008 Hall, R.D.; Foehse, M.C. (1980) Laboratory and field tests of CGA- 72662 for control of the 

house fly and face fly in poultry, bo- vine, or swine manure. Journal of Economic Entomology 

73(4): 564-569. (Also in unpublished submission received Oct 28, 1981 under 100-EX-65; 

submitted by Ciba Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:246154-B) 

86009 Williams, R.E.; Berry, J.G. (1980) Evaluation of CGA 72662 as a topical spray and feed 

additive for controlling house flies breeding in chicken manure. Poultry Science 59:2207-2212. 

(Also in unpublished submission received Oct 28, 1981 under 100- EX-65; submitted by CibaGeigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL: 246154-C) 

86011 Ciba-Geigy Corporation (1981) (Efficacy Study of CGA-72662 on House Fly Larvae in Poultry 

Cages). (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 28, 1981 under 100-EX-65; 

CDL:246154-F) 

103146 Brown, G.; Seim, V. (1978) Biological Report for the Metabolism of ?delta|-14C-CGA-72662 in 

Beef Manure: BIOL-78008. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1982 under 100-631; 

submitted by Ciba- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070914-D) 

135419 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1979) CGA-72662 for Fly Control When Used as a Feed-through Treatment 

in Poultry or as a Surface Treatment to Animal Manure: R & D Objective 652001, 652002, 

652003. (Com- pilation; unpublished study received Jul 10, 1979 under 100- EX-65; 

CDL:098380-A) 

135421 Simoneaux, B.; Cassidy, J. (1979) Metabolism of Topically Applied ?delta|14C-CGA-72662 in 

Chicken Manure M5-21-2TM: Report No. ABR-79024. (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 

1979 under 100-EX-65; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 098381-D) 
86 

135422 Simoneaux, B.; Cassidy, J.; Boka, G.; et al. (1979) Metabolism of Topically Applied ?delta|14CCGA-72662 in Beef Manure M5- 21-1TM: Report No. ABR-79045. (Unpublished study 

received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX-65; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, NC; 

CDL:098381-E) 

157462 Clayton, F. (1985) Determination of Cyromazine and Melamine Resi- dues in Water by High 

Performance Liquid Chromatography: Method No. AG-490. Unpublished study prepared by 

Ciba-Geigy Corp. 11 p. 

159886 Merricks, D. (1986) Cyromazine Field Dissipation from Spent Mushroom Compost Previously 

Treated with Armor 5SC: Protocol. Unpublished protocol prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 10 p. 

42283501 Bussey, C. (1992) Summary of a Prospective Ground Water Study with Cyromazine in 

Tomatoes Grown in Florida and its Applica- tion to Other Cyromazine Uses. Unpublished study 

prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 30 p. 

42283503 Hatfield, M.; Masters, T. (1992) Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study for 

Cyromazine (Trigard 75WP): Lab Project Number: 365.08: 900206: 91-0008CGAG. 

Unpublished study prepared by Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C., Chemalysis, Inc. and En-Cas 

Analytical Labs. 475 p. 

42283504 Williams, W.; Holden, P. (1992) An Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability Associated with 

Potential Market Areas for Trigard/Citation (Cyromazine) for Leafminer Control in Arizona, 

California, Florida and Texas: Lab Project Number: 91AG003. Unpublished study prepared by 

Clendenin Consulting and Remediation Group. 88 p. 

43061200 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1993) Submission of Environmental Fate Data for Trigard in Support of the 

Response to Review Cyromazine Ground Water Issues. Transmittal of 3 Studies. 

43061201 Gold, B.; Balu, K. (1993) Response to EPA Review of Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water 

Monitoring Study for Cyromazine: MRID No. 422835-03: Lab Project Number: ABR-93067: 

149-90. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Ciba Plant Protection. 92 p. 

43061202 Gold, B.; Balu, K. (1993) Response to EPA Review of Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water 

Monitoring Study for Cyromazine: MRID No. 422835-03: Lab Project Number: CA002: 

CA003: ENC-1/91. Unpublished study prepared by ChemAlysis, Inc., EN-CAS Analytical 

Labs., and A & L Mid West Labs., Inc. 80 p. 

43061203 Hiscock, A. (1993) Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Study for Cyromazine 

(Trigard 75WP): Report Addendum to EPA MRID No. 422835-03: Lab Project Number: 149-

90: 365.08: 900206. Unpublished study prepared by Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C. and 

ChemAlysis, Inc. 49 p. 

46307801 Donahue, W. (2004) Evaluation of Cyromazine on the Development of the House Fly, Musca 

Domestica, in Manure From Horses after an Oral Dosing Regime. Project Number: PMP04/1A. 

Unpublished study prepared by Sierra Research Labs. 32 p. 

46307802 Donahue, W. (2004) Evaluation of Cyromazine on the Development of the Stable Fly, Stomoxys 

calcitrans, in Manure from Horses after an Oral Dosing Regime. Project Number: PMP04/1B. 

Unpublished study prepared by Sierra Research Labs. 31 p. 
87 

47084101 Kent, D. (2007) Refinement of Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment for Neporex 2SG 

as a Fly Larvicide on Manure in Livestock Facilities. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis 

Animal Health US Inc. 41 p. 

 
88 

APPENDIX C. Example of Aquatic Modeling Results 

GENEEC 

Manure use: 

Potato Use: 

 
89 

Onion seed use (using 75 lb seed/A rate) 

 
90 

APPENDIX D. Sample T-REX, T-HERPS, TIM, TerrPlant Inputs and Outputs for Cyromazine 

 

 

Acute and Chronic RQs are based on the Uppe

Kenaga Residues.

Chemical Name: The maximum single day residue estimation is

 Use both the acute and reproduction RQs.

 Formulation

Application Rate 0.249 lbs a.i./acre RQs reported as "0.00" in the RQ tables be

Half-life 35 days <0.01 in your assessment. This is due to ro

Application Interval 7 days figure issues in Excel.

Maximum # Apps./Year 3

Length of Simulation 1 year

Variable application rates? no

Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 1706.00

Bobwhite quail LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEL(mg/kg-bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 75.00

2029.00

0.00

50.00

1000.00

Kenaga

Values

Short Grass 157.07

Tall Grass 71.99

Broadleaf plants 88.35

Fruits/pods/seeds 9.82

Arthropods 61.52

Avian Results

Avian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-02

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02

Large 1000 58 291 29 2.91E-01

20 5 5 25 5.06E-03

Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02

1000 58 65 6 6.46E-02

Avian Body Adjusted LD50

Weight (g) (mg/kg-bw)

20 1229.05

100 1564.65

1000 2210.12

small mid large

20 100 1000

Short Grass 178.89 102.01 45.67

Tall Grass 81.99 46.76 20.93

Broadleaf plants 100.63 57.38 25.69

Fruits/pods 11.18 6.38 2.85

Arthropods 70.07 39.95 17.89

Seeds 2.48 1.42 0.63

Dose-based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw) 

Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams)

 Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs (ppm)

NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)

Mammals

LD50 (mg/kg-bw)

LC50 (mg/kg-diet)

cyromazine

potatoes

0

Avian

Endpoints

Questions? 

Comments? 

Click here
91 

20 100 1000

Short Grass 0.15 0.07 0.02

Tall Grass 0.07 0.03 0.01

Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.04 0.01

Fruits/pods 0.01 0.00 0.00

Arthropods 0.06 0.03 0.01

Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dietary-based RQs 

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 2.09

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.96

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 1.18

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.13

Arthropods #DIV/0! 0.82

Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based 

RQs be calculated when data are available

cyromazine potatoes Upper bound Kenaga Residues

Mammalian Results

Mammalian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g bwt/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

15 3 14 95 1.43E-02

Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03

1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted

Class Weight LD50 NOAEL

15 2305.39 109.89

Herbivores/ 35 1865.31 88.91

insectivores 1000 806.80 38.46

15 2305.39 109.89

Granivores 35 1865.31 88.91

1000 806.80 38.46

15 35 1000

Short Grass 149.76 103.50 24.00

Tall Grass 68.64 47.44 11.00

Broadleaf plants 84.24 58.22 13.50

Fruits/pods 9.36 6.47 1.50

Arthropods 58.66 40.54 9.40

Seeds 2.08 1.44 0.33

15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Short Grass 0.06 1.36 0.06 1.16 0.03 0.62

Tall Grass 0.03 0.62 0.03 0.53 0.01 0.29

Broadleaf plants 0.04 0.77 0.03 0.65 0.02 0.35

Fruits/pods 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04

Arthropods 0.03 0.53 0.02 0.46 0.01 0.24

Seeds 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.16

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.07

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 0.09

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.01

Arthropods #DIV/0! 0.06

Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based 

RQs be calculated when data are available

Dietary-based RQs 

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or 

NOAEC)

Mammal RQs

Medium mammal Large mammal Dose-based RQs 

(Dose-based EEC/LD50 or 

Small mammal

Dose-Based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw)

(grams)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight

Dose-based RQs 

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)

RQs

Avian Acute RQs

Size Class (grams)
92 

Endpoints Reported Tested Body Adjusted LD50 Size class for adjusted LD50

Weight (g)

Avian LD50: 1706 178 1229.052758 Small (20g)

Avian repro. NOAEC: 75 1564.645756 Medium (100g)

2210.120874 Large (1000g)

Mammalian LD50: 2029 25 2305.389095 Small (15g)

Mammalian NOAEL: 1000 1865.305789 Medium (35g)

806.8021543 Large (1000g)

Adjusted NOAEL for Mammals

Small (15g) 109.8915251

Medium (35g) 88.9139705

Large (1000g) 38.45802837

Animal Size Crop

Maximum 

Application 

Rate

Maximum Seed 

Application Rate Avian Nagy Dose Mammalian Nagy Dose Available AI

(lbs ai/A) (mg ai/kg seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2)

Small onion (75 lbs seed/A) 3.71 49500 12527.90 10487.66 38.74

Medium 7143.94 7248.37

Large 3198.44 1680.56

RQS

Animal Nagy allometry Wt

acute Method #1 

Nagy

Acute Method #2 

LD50/ft2 chronic

Food ingestion value g/day 20 g 10.19 1.58 660

20 g Bird 5.061777181 100 g 4.57 0.25

15 g Mammal 3.178078065 1000 g 1.45 0.02

100 g Bird 14.4321986

35 g Mammal 5.125113265 15g 4.55 1.12 49.5

1000 g Bird 64.6148732 35g 3.89 0.59

000 g Mammal 33.95072796 1000 g 2.08 0.05

Animal Size Crop

Maximum 

Application 

Rate

Maximum Seed 

Application Rate Avian Nagy Dose Mammalian Nagy Dose Available AI

(lbs ai/A) (mg ai/kg seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2)

Small onion (0.38 lbs seed/A) 0.02 49500 12527.90 10487.66 0.2

Medium 7143.94 7248.37

Large 3198.44 1680.56

RQS

Wt

acute Method #1 

Nagy

Acute Method #2 

LD50/ft2 chronic

20 g 10.19 0.008136 660

100 g 4.57 0.001278

1000 g 1.45 0.000090

15g 4.55 0.00578 49.5

35g 3.89 0.00306

1000 g 2.08 0.00025

Animal Size Crop Maximum ApMaximum Seed ApAvian Nagy Dose Mammalian Nagy Dose Available AI

(lbs ai/A) (mg ai/kg seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2)

Small onion (4 lbs seed/A) 0.2 49500 12527.90 10487.66 2.07

Medium 7143.94 7248.37

Large 3198.44 1680.56

RQS

Wt

acute Method #1 

Nagy

Acute Method #2 

LD50/ft2 chronic

20 g 10.19 0.084211194 660

100 g 4.57 0.013229832

1000 g 1.45 0.0009366

15g 4.55 0.073982508 49.5

35g 3.89 0.073305279

1000 g 2.08 0.002565685
93 

 

calcs to determine the number seeds necessary to exceed LOCs and the area necessary to gleen to obtain the necessary number of seeds.

Parameter Value 

Bird Mammal

Weight of assessed animal (kg) 0.02 0.015

LD50, mg/kg-bw 1229.053 4459.398 0.225 mg a.i/seed 0.173 mg ai/seed

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LD50 for 

animal of assessed weight 24.581 66.891 bird mammal bird mammal

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.5 (1/2 LD50) for animal of assessed 

weight 12.291 33.445 55 149 71 193

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.1 (1/10th LD50) for animal of 

assessed weight 2.458 6.689 11 30 14 39

Parameter Value 

Bird Mammal

Weight of assessed animal (kg) 0.1 0.035

LD50, mg/kg-bw 1564.645756 3608.128923

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LD50 for 

animal of assessed weight 156.4645756 126.2845123 bird mammal

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.5 (1/2 LD50) for animal of assessed 

weight 78.2322878 63.14225615 348 281 452 365

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.1 (1/10th LD50) for animal of 

assessed weight 15.64645756 12.62845123 70 56 90 73

Parameter Value 

Bird Mammal

Weight of assessed animal (kg) 1 1

LD50, mg/kg-bw 2210.120874 1560.626791

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LD50 for 

animal of assessed weight 2210.120874 1560.626791 bird mammal

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.5 (1/2 LD50) for animal of assessed 

weight 1105.060437 780.3133955 4911 3468 6388 4510

Mg a.i. needed to achieve the LOC of 

0.1 (1/10th LD50) for animal of 

assessed weight 221.0120874 156.0626791 982 694 1278 902

based on BEAD memo there is 

100000 to 130000 onion seeds/lb

mass a.i. per seed

100,000 seeds/lb

4.95 lb ai/100 lb seed 4.95E-07 lb a.i./see 0.2245 mg a.i./seed

130,000 seeds/lb

4.95 lb ai/100 lb seed 3.81E-07 lb a.i./see 0.1727 mg a.i./seed

number of seeds to 

reach the LOC of 

0.5 or 0.1 (100,000)

number of seeds to 

reach the LOC of 0.5 

or 0.1 (130,000)
94 

T-HERPS 

Acute and Chronic RQs are based on the Upper B

Kenaga Residues.

Chemical Name: The maximum single day residue estimation is use

 Use both the acute and reproduction RQs.

 Formulation

Application Rate 0.249 lbs a.i./acre RQs reported as "0.00" in the RQ tables below

Half-life 35 days <0.01 in your assessment. This is due to roun

Application Interval 7 days figure issues in Excel.

Maximum # Apps./Year 3

Length of Simulation 1 year

Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 1706.00

Bobwhite quail LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 0.00

Bobwhite quail NOAEL(mg/kg-bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 75.00

Kenaga

Values

Short Grass 157.07

Tall Grass 71.99

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 88.35

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 9.82

Small herbivore mammals 352.86

Medium herbivore mammal 120.40

Large herbivore mammal 41.09

Small insectivore mammals 22.05

Medium Insectivorous mammal 7.53

Large Insectivorous mammal 2.57

Small terrestrial phase amphibians 4.85

Medium terrestrial phase amphibians 2.77

Large terrestrial phase amphibians 1.58

 Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs (ppm)

cyromazine

Endpoints

Avian

potatoes

0

Questions? 

Comments? 

Click here
95 

Weight Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

Small 2 0.022 0.1 5.6 1.11E-04

Mid 20 0.132 0.7 3.3 6.59E-04

Large 200 0.781 3.9 2.0 3.90E-03

Body Adjusted LD50

Weight (g) (mg/kg-bw)

2 1706.00

20 1706.00

200 1706.00

small (g) mid (g) large (g)

2 20 200

Short Grass 8.72 5.17 3.07

Tall Grass 4.00 2.37 1.41

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 4.91 2.91 1.73

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 0.55 0.32 0.19

Herbivore mammals 370.66 148.94 59.85

Insectivore mammals 23.17 9.31 3.74

Reptile/Terrestrial phase amphibian 5.10 3.43 2.31

Dose-based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw) 

Herpetofaunal Size Classes and Body Weights

2 20 200

Short Grass 0.01 0.00 0.00

Tall Grass 0.00 0.00 0.00

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 0.00 0.00 0.00

Herbivore mammals 0.22 0.09 0.04

Insectivore mammals 0.01 0.01 0.00

Terrestrial phase amphibian 0.00 0.00 0.00

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 2.09

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.96

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 1.18

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.13

Herbivore mammals #DIV/0! 1.61

Insectivore mammals #DIV/0! 0.10

Terrestrial phase amphibian #DIV/0! 0.04

Dietary-based RQs (Dietarybased EEC/LC50 or NOAEC)

Amphibian/Reptile Acute RQs for Small, Medium, and 

Dose-based RQs (Dose- Large Species (grams)

based EEC/adjusted LD50)

RQs
96 

Dermal Output using equations in TIM 

Parameter Value Unit Parameter Value Unit

Bobwhite Oral LD50 1706 mg a.i./kg‐bw Bobwhite Oral LD50 1706 mg a.i./kg‐bw

Mineau scaling factor 1.15 none Mineau scaling factor 1.15 none

Adjusted Oral LD50 1229 mg a.i./kg‐bw Adjusted Oral LD50 2210 mg a.i./kg‐bw

Body weight 20 g Body weight 1000 g

Surface Area of bird 74 sq cm Surface Area 1002 sq cm

Application rate 2.70 lb a.i./A Application rate 2.70 lb a.i./A

Application rate 0.030 mg/sq cm Application rate 0.030 mg/sq cm

Dermal dose 56 mg a.i./kg‐bw Dermal dose 15 mg a.i./kg‐bw

Oral equivalent dose 120 mg a.i./kg‐bw Oral equivalent dose 41 mg a.i./kg‐bw

RQ 0.10 none RQ 0.02 none
97 

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.

Chemical Name

PC code

Use

Application Method

Application Form

Solubility in Water (ppm)

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.249 lb ai/A

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Equation EEC

(A/I)*R 0.01245

(A/I)*R*10 0.1245

A*D 0.00249

((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.01494

((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.12699

Table 3. EECs for cyromazine. Units in lb ai/A.

Runoff to dry areas

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas

Spray drift

Total for dry areas

Description

Total for semi-aquatic areas

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

cyromazine

potatoes

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Aerial

Spray

350000

61402
98 

APPENDIX E: Additional Information on Uses 

Reg. 

Number 

% 

a.i. Uses Use Instructions 

100-667 

[Citation 

Insecticide] 

75 Chrysanthemums General Use - Apply 2.66 oz./A in minimum of 100 gals. of water as a foliar spray to 

runoff when stippling first appears. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals if necessary 

to maintain control. Do not make more than six (6) applications of Citation per crop. 

Special Precaution - Citation should not be used as the only control for leafminers. 

Make no more than three (3) applications at 7 day intervals then switch to Avid as an 

alternative control for the same period. 

70585-6 

[Cyromazine] 

97 Technical For use only in the formulation of end-use products used in layer and breeder chicken 

operations 

75066-2 

[Flyzine] 

96.8 Technical For use only in the formulation of end-use products used in layer and breeder chicken 

operations. 

75066-1 

[Flyzine 

1% premix] 

1.0 Intended for use 

only in poultry 

(chickens) layer and 

breeder operations 

Dosage and use- Mix 1 lb. of Flyzine 1% premix per ton of feed. Feed the treated feed 

as a daily ration. Begin feeding when adult flies become active and continue the 

treatment as prescribed through the fly season. Feed Flyzine 1% continuously as directed 

for four (4) to six (6) weeks. Then carefully examine manure pits. If little or no activity 

is observed in the manure, discontinue the use of Flyzine 1% premix. 

During winter months or during periods of low fly pressure, discontinue Flyzine 1% 

use for at least four (4) consecutive months per year 

Note – Do not feed Flyzine 1% treated feed to broiler poultry. Flyzine 1% use in poultry 

is limited to use as a feed-through in chicken layer and breeder operations only and may 

not be fed to any other poultry species 

Manure from chickens fed Flyzine 1% may be used as a soil fertilizer supplement. Do 

not apply more than three (3) tons of manure per acre per year. Do not apply to small 

grain crops that will be harvested or grazed or illegal residues may result. Do not feed 

manure from chickens fed Flyzine to animals. 

To avoid illegal residues, Flyzine treated feed must be removed at least three days (72 

hours) before slaughter. 

Important Note to Feed Mill Operators: Flyzine feed formulators (those mixing as a 

service to customers) must inform the feed user that treated feed must be removed from 

layers and breeders at least (3) days before slaughter. 

70585-2 

[Larvadex 

2SL] 

2 Fly control in 

Poultry Operations, 

Including Layer and 

Breeder Chickens 

Mixing Applications – Dilute Larvadex 2SL with water to make a 0.1% spray. Apply 1 

gallon of finished spray per 100 sq. ft. of area over surface of manure. Manure storage 

areas, spilled feed and other sites where maggots are active. 

Do not - apply Larvadex 2SL more frequently than once every 21 days. 

Do not apply Larvadex 2SL directly to poultry or poultry feed as illgal residues may 

result. 

Do not feed manure treated with Larvadex 2SL to animals 

To avoid illegal residues, allow 1 day (24 hours) between last application and slaughter 

Do not use Larvadex 2SL in conjunction with Larvadex 1% premix. If chickens have 

been fed Larvadex – treated feed, do not apply Larvadex 2SL to manure 

Manure treated with Larvadex 2SL may be used as a soil fertilizer supplement. Do not 

apply more than 4 tons of manure treated with Larvadex 2SL per acre per year. 

1007-93 

[Solitude IGR 

fly control 

pellets] 

2.12 Equine (Horse) 

Operations 

Do not use on Horses intended for slaughter for food. This product is to be fed topdressed on grain or mixed with the horse’s total ration to provide 300mg (1 scoop) of 

cyromazine per horse per day or 600 mg (2 scoops) of cyromazine per horse every other 

day. Note: Each scoop equivalent to 1⁄2 oz. 

100-790 

[Trigard OMC] 

75.0 Seed treatment for 

onion maggot 

control in bulb 

onions. 

Do not use on agricultural establishments in hopper-box, planter-box, slurry-box, or 

other seed-treatment applications at or immediately before planting. Trigard OMC is for 

use only by licensed commercial seed treatment companies. 

Apply Trigard OMC to seed at the rate of 6.6 lbs. of product per 100 lbs. of seed (4.5 

lbs.) active ingredient per 100 lbs. of seed). 

100-667 

[Citation 

Insecticide] 

75.0 Landscape 

ornamentals, 

container grown 

ornamentals, 

greenhouse, lath and 

shadehouse grown 

ornamental bedding 

plants and 

ornamental crops 

and interiorscapes; 

and shore flies only 

in greenhouse 

ornamental crops 

For control of Dipterous leafminers, apply 2.66 oz./A in a minimum of 100 gals. water 

as a foliar spray to the point of runoff when slippling first appears. Repeat application at 

7- day intervals or as necessary to maintain control. Do not make more than a total of 6 

applications to one crop 

For control of fungus gnats and shore flies apply 2.66 oz. of Citation in 100 gals of water 

as a spray or drench to all surfaces where insect pests may breed. This includes the 

potting media surfaces, bench tops, undersides of benches, and the areas under benches 

that may be contaminated with potting media or algae. Repeat application on a 7 to 14 

day schedule to minimize manifestation 
99 

Reg. 

Number 

% 

a.i. Uses Use Instructions 

and interiorscapes 

100-656 

[Armor] 

5 Used on treated 

spent mushroom 

compost to land on 

which food crops are 

grown. 

Apply in sufficient water for uniform distribution at rates at a concentration of 5 parts 

per million (ppm) of active ingredient. 

100-632 

[Cyromzine 

Technical] 

97 Technical Crops = Abyssinian cabbage, Brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbits, dry 

beans, Hanover salad, leafy vegetables, tomatoes, peppers; seakale cabbage, and turnip 

greens. Ornamentals = Chrysanthemums; container-grown ornamentals; greenhouse, 

lathhouse, and shade house-grown ornamental crops; interiorscapes and landscape 

ornamentals. Other = layer and breeder chicken operations, mushroom compost 

100-654 

[Trigard 75W] 

75 Leafy vegetables 

(except Brassica 

vegetables), 

succulent lima 

beans, peppers, 

cucurbits, tomatoes, 

Chinese mustard 

(Florida Use Only), 

and Chinese cabbage 

(Florida Use Only) 

Add 2/3 of the required amount of water to the spray or mixing tank. With the agitator 

running, drop the required number of unopened soluble packets of Trigard into the tank. 

One 2.66 oz. water-soluble packet of Trigard will treat one acre of leafy vegetables, lima 

beans, peppers, cucurbits, tomatoes, Chinese mustard (Florida Use Only), or Chinese 

cabbage (Florida Use Only). Continue agitation while adding the remainder of the water. 

To avoid spray drift, do not apply under windy conditions 

Aerial application should be used only when conditions exist that prohibit application 

by ground equipment. 

Chinese Mustard 

(Forida use only) 

and Chinese 

Cabbage (Florida 

use only) 

For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre, or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals. of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Notes: 1 Do not make more than 6 applications to one crop of Chinese mustard or 

Chinese cabbage, and 2 Do not make the last application within 7 days of harvest, or 

illegal residues may result. 

Cucurbits Cucurbits include balsam pear (bittermelon), Chinese waxgourd (Chinese preserving 

melon), citron melon, cucumber, gherkin, edible gourds, melons (including hydrids; 

cantaloupe, casaba, Crenshaw, honeydrew melons, honey balls , mango melon, 

muskmelon, Persian melon), pumpkin, summer squash, winter squash, and water melon 

(including hybrids). 

For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Note To avoid possible illegal residues, 1 Do not make more than 6 applications per 

growing season to cucurbits and 2 Curcurbits may be harvested on the same day of the 

last application 

Leafy Vegetables 

(except Brassica 

Vegetables) 

Leafy vegetable include: Amaranth, arugula, cardoon, celery, celtuce, chervil 

chrysanthemum, corn salad, cress, dandelion, dock, endive, fennel, lettuce, orach, 

parsley, purslane, radicchio, rhubarb, spinach, and Swiss chard. 

For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Notes: Do not make more than 6 applications to one crop of celery or head lettuce 2 For 

all other leafy vegetable crops do not make more than 5 applications per crop, and 3 Do 

not make the application within 7-days of harvest, or illegal residues may result 

Succulent Lima 

Beans 

For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Notes: 1 Do not make more than 6 applications to one of lima beans 2 Do not apply 

more than 0.88 lb (0.66 lb active ingredient) to one crop, and 3 Do not make the last 

application with-in 7-days of harvest or illegal residues may occur 

Peppers For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Notes 1 Do not make more than 6 applications to one crop of peppers, and 2 Peppers 
100 

Reg. 

Number 

% 

a.i. Uses Use Instructions 

may be harvested on the same day of the last application 

Tomatoes For leafminer control, apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Trigard per acre as a foliar spray 

when leafminers first appear. Apply by air in a minimum of 5 gals. of water per acre or 

by ground in a minimum of 10 gals of water per acre, using sufficient carrier to achieve 

adequate coverage. Repeat applications at 7-day intervals or as necessary to maintain 

control. 

Notes: 1 Do not make more than 6 applications to one crop of tomatoes and 2 Tomatoes 

may be harvested on the same day of the last application. 

70585-1 

[Lavardex 1% 

premix] 

1 Caged or slatted 

flooring layer chicken 

operations Breeder 

Chicken Operations 

Blending and Feeding Laradex 1% Premix Housefly, solder fly, lesser housefly:

Mix 1lb of Larvadex 1% Premix per ton of feed. Feed the treated feed as a daily ration. 

Begin feeding when adult flies become active and continue treatment as prescribed 

through the fly season. 
101 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APPENDIX F. BEAD Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses and CRD Usage 

Maps 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Cyromazine Usage Map by Crop Reporting District (121301) 

FROM: Monisha Kaul, Biologist 

 Biological Analysis Branch 

 Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief 

 Biological Analysis Branch 

 Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

TO: Tiffany Dowen, Environmental Engineer 

 Environmental Risk Branch 3 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Below is the map showing the average annual usage for cyromazine from 2006-2010, as 

requested. 
102 

Cyromazine Usage by Crop Reporting District (2006-2010). 

This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (CRD) level. CRDs are 

boundaries created by USDA NASS which are aggregates of counties (USDA, 2010). Pesticide usage is 

displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006-2010) per 1,000 acres of farmland in a CRD to normalize 

for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007). 

Usage is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2006-2010). The 

survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-90% of acreage for the individual crops, 

therefore, use may be occurring in regions outside the scope of the survey. CRDs showing no usage of 

pesticides may be due to either the lack of pesticide use in the region or non-participation in the agricultural 

surveys. In addition, across the years, there may be variations in the specific crops included in the CRD 

survey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD. 

Sources:

Proprietary Data. 2006-2010 

USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts. Online: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass. 

USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture. Online: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp. 
103 

Table F1. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Cyromazine (121301)

 (February 16, 2011) 

Percent Crop Ttd. 

 

 Crop Lbs. A.I. Avg. Max. 

Beans, Green <500 <1 <2.5 

Cantaloupes <500 <1 <2.5 

Celery 3,000 45 60 

Chicory* <500 N/C N/C 

Lettuce 5,000 10 25 

Onions <500 <2.5 <2.5 

Peppers <500 <2.5 5 

Spinach 2,000 20 35 

Tomatoes 2,000 5 25 

Watermelons <500 <1 <2.5 

All numbers rounded. 

<500 Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient 

<2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated 

<1 Less than 1 percent of crop treated 

N/C Only Lbs. A.I. available 

* Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 95% or 

more of U.S. acres grown are in California) 

 SLUA data sources include: 

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National 

Agricultural Statistics Service) 

Private Pesticide Market Research 

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) 
104 

APPENDIX G. Summary of Toxicity Endpoints and Study Classifications 

TAXON ENDPOINT FORMULATION MRID 

STUDY 

CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS 

FRESHWATER FISH 

Acute 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) 

96-hr LC50 >84 

mg a.i./L 

TGAI (95.6%) 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEC = 47.8 mg a.i./L. 

Sublethal effects observed 

were surfacing, rapid, irregular 

respiration, irritated behavior 

at 84 mg a.i./L 

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis 

macrochirus) 

96-hr LC50 

>85.8 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (95.6%) 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEC = 85.8 mg a.i./L. No 

mortality or sublethal effects 

observed 

Fathead 

minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas) 

96-hr LC50 = 

715 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (93.4%) 00073085 Supplemental 

NOAEC = 460 mg a.i./L, 

based on mortality. Sublethal 

effects not reported. This acute 

study used to determine 

concentrations for ELS study; 

classification as such as 

aeration provided during study 

but concentrations not 

measured after aeration and 

dissolved oxygen was below 

60% at concentration were 

mortality was observed. Not 

for RQ calculation 

Channel catfish 

(Ictalurus 

punctatus) 

96-hr LC50 

>88.3 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Supplemental 

NOAEC = 88.3 mg a.i./L, no 

sublethal effects or mortality 

observed.. Classification 

based on fish being older and 

larger than preferred. 

Chronic 

Fathead 

minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas) 

NOAEC = 73 

mg a.i./L 

LOAEC = 127 

mg a.i./L 

TGAI (93.4%) 00073085 Acceptable 

LOAEC based on reduction in 

% of live normal larvae at test 

termination. 

ESTUARINE/MARINE FISH 

Acute 

No data available 

Chronic 

No data available 

FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATES 

Acute 

Water flea 

(Daphnia 

magna) 

48-hr EC50

>88.7 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEC = 8.7 mg a.i./L 

(based on immobility); no 

other sublethal effects noted 

Chronic

Water flea 

(Daphnia 

magna) 

NOAEC: 0.31 

mg a.i./L TGAI (93.4%) 

 00073085 Acceptable Based on length and reproduction 
105 

TAXON ENDPOINT FORMULATION MRID 

STUDY 

CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS 

LOAEC: 0.64 

mg a.i./L 

ESTUARINE/MARINE INVERTEBRATES

Acute

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea 

virginica) 

96-hr EC50

>104 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (97.2%) 

 47940803 Acceptable NOAEC = 104 mg a.i./L (No effects observed). 

Chronic

Mysid Shrimp 

(Americamysis 

bahia) 

NOAEC = 

<0.131 mg 

a.i./L 

LOAEC = 

0.131 mg a.i./L 

TGAI (98.5%) 48691501 Acceptable Based on male length at 14 

days 

TERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS 

Acute Oral 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

14-day LD50 = 

1706 mg 

a.i./kg-bw 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEL = 380 mg a.i./kg-bw 

based on lethargy at 603 mg 

a.i./kg-bw 

Mallard duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

14-day LD50

>956 mg 

a.i./kg-bw 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Supplemental 

NOAEL <380 mg a.i./kg-bw 

based on decreased body 

weight gain at all doses; 

regurgitation observed at two 

highest doses so LD50 value 

reported as highest dose with 

no observed regurgitation 

Sub-Acute Dietary 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

8-day LC50

>5,373 mg 

a.i./kg-diet 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEC < 537 mg a.i./kg-diet 

based lethargy in one bird at 

lowest dose (one mortality at 

956, 1702 and 5,373 mg 

a.i./kg-diet) 

Mallard duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

8-day LC50

>5,373 mg 

a.i./kg-diet 

TGAI (95.6%) 

 00070912 Acceptable 

NOAEC < 537 mg a.i./kg-diet 

based on reduced body weight 

and feed consumption (one 

mortality at 956 but not 

highest doses) 

Chronic 

Mallard duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

22-wk NOAEC 

= 75 mg a.i./kgdiet 

LOAEC = 300 

mg a.i./kg-diet 

TGAI (96.3%) 

 44743802 Acceptable 

NOAEC based on reduction in 

number of normal hatchlings 

at 300 mg a.i./kg-diet 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

22-wk NOAEC 

= 300 mg 

a.i./kg-diet TGAI (96.3%) 44743801 Acceptable 

NOAEC based on slight 

regression of testes at 1,200 

mg a.i./kg-diet 
106 

TAXON ENDPOINT FORMULATION MRID 

STUDY 

CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS 

LOAEC = 

1,200 mg 

a.i./kg-diet 

Acute 

Rat LD50 = 3,387 

mg/kg-bw 

TGAI (% not 

reported) 00082836 Acceptable 

Acute oral; Within 2 hours 

after treatment the rats in all 

dosage groups showed 

sedation, dyspnoea transiet 

effects 

Mouse 

LD50 = 2,029 

mg/kg-bw TGAI (% not 

reported) 00082837 Acceptable 

Acute oral Wtihin 2 hours 

after treatment the mice in all 

dosage groups showed 

sedation, dyspnoea transiet 

effects 

Rabbit 

LD50 = 1,467 

mg/kg-bw TGAI (% not 

reported) 00082838 Acceptable 

Acute oral; Within 1 hour all 

rabbit showed sedation transiet 

effects 

Rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus) 

LC50 >0.744 

mg/L (acute 

inhalation) 

TGAI (96.5%) 43799901 Acceptable 

4-hr exposure; there were no 

deaths. Transient clinical signs 

of decrease in activity 

Chronic 

Rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus) 

3000 mg/kgdiet (150 

mg/kg-bw) 

1000 mg/kgdiet (50 mg/kgbw) 

30 mg/kg-diet 

(1.5 mg/kg-bw) 

TGAI (95.3%) 00103197 Acceptable 

Reproduction study: No 

reported effects on 

reproduction; Decreased body 

weights in parental group and 

pups at 3000 ppm; slight 

decrease in parental body 

weight at 1000 ppm 

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

The registrant submitted one guideline (acute honey bee-contact) terrestrial invertebrate toxicity 

studies for cyromazine. The young adult honey bee (A. mellifera) acute contact LD50 of >25 μg 

a.i./bee (MRID 43152601); there were no mortalities or sublethal effects at this dose. Therefore, 

cyromazine is classified as practically nontoxic to non-target terrestrial insects on an acute 

contact exposure basis. 

Additional non-guideline terrestrial invertebrate studies with predatory mites, a parasitic wasp 

and rove beetle were available. Additional data for a fruit fly and bumblebee were also 

available. 
107 

Summary of Non-target Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicity Data for Cyromazine 

Formulation 72662 WP 75

Species Exposed 

life stage 

Test type / Test 

substance 

Test Design Endpoint MRID 

Poecilus 

cupreus L. 

(ground 

dwelling 

predator, 

beetle) 

Adult (2-

10 wks 

old) 

Acute Toxicity 

(14-d) / 

Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test Material 

sprayed on 

sand 

substrate, 

beetles and 

food 

NOAEC = 900 g a.i./ha [0.80 lb a.i./A] 

(based on mortality and food 

consumption, highest concentration 

tested) 

48608301 

Coccinella 

septempunctat

a L. 

(lady bird 

beetle) 

Larvae (2 

days old) 

Acute Toxicity 

(22-d) / 

Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test Material 

sprayed onto 

glass plates; 

larvae 

exposed after 

material had 

dried 

Mortality: 40% at 450 g a.i./ha [0.4 lb 

a.i./A]; 38% at 900 g a.i./ha [0.8 lb 

a.i./A] 

Fecundity: No. of fertile eggs/female at 

0.8 lb a.i./A ca. Half of control [23 vs 

44.7] 

48608301 

Aleochara 

bilineata 

(Rove beetle) 

Adult (10-

14 days 

old) 

Acute Toxicity 

(4-d) / 

Formulation 

72662 WP 75 

(75.6%) 

Test Material 

sprayed onto 

sand 

NOAEC = 900 g a.i./ha [0.80 lb a.i./A] 

(based on feeding activity, egg 

production and larvae hatching, highest 

concentration tested 

48608301 

Anastrepha 

ludens 

(Mexican fruit 

fly)

Adult (2-d 

old) 

48 h / tech. 

(%NS) 

Test Material 

incorporated 

into diet 

Mortality: LOAEC = 0.125%; NOAEC 

<0.125% 

Fecundity (eggs/female): LOAEC = 

0.125%; NOAEC <0.125% 

Moreno et al. 

1994 (e94812) 

Bombus 

terrestris 

(bumblebee)

Adult 11 wks / Trigard 

EC (75%) 

Test Material 

topically 

applied or 

incorporated 

into 

sugar/water or 

pollen 

Mortality: Adults: NOAEC = 100 mg 

ai/L, highest concentration tested; 

Larvae: NOAEC <100 mg ai/L, 

LOAEC = 100 mg ai/L 

Fecundity (# males produced/nest): 

NOAEC <100 mg ai/L, LOAEC = 100 

mg ai/L 

Mommaerts et 

al., 2006 

(e94221) 

Terrestrial Plants 

Quantitative seedling emergence and vegetative vigor terrestrial plant toxicity data were not 

available for cyromazine. The registrant did submit phytotoxicity profiling data for the 

formulation CGA 72662 75 WP (75%) for six plant species (three monocots and three dicots) for 

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor: Beta vulgaris (sugarbeet), Zea mays (maize), Brassica 

napus (oilseed rape), Avena fatua (wild oat), Glycine max (soybean), Allium cepa (onion) 

(email). The reported results are qualitative with a rating scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being complete 

destruction to 9 having no visual damage; however, the specific details on the type of 

phytotoxicity observed was not reported. For the seedling emergence test, some phytotoxicity 

was observed for Glycine max (ratings of 7.5 and 8.5 at concentrations of 50-400 g CGA 75 

WP/ha [0.033 – 0.27 lb a.i./A]) and for Zea mays (7.5 rating at 400 g CGA 75 WP/ha [0.27 lb 

a.i./A]). In the vegetative vigor study, phytotoxicity was reported for Zea mays (8.5 rating at 

200-400 g CGA 75 WP/ha [0.13 – 0.27 lb a.i./A]). All other species were reported as having no 

visual damage. 
108 

APPENDIX H. STIR Inputs and Outputs

 

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name cyromazine

Enter Chemical Use foliar crops

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) air

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 166.19

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 3.36E-09

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.249

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 1706

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 3387

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 0.744

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 3.01E-05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.78E-06

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 2.09E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.81E-06 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.39E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.14E-02 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 3.01E-05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.75E-06

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 4.43E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.07E-07 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.01E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 6.79E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant

**NOTE**: When entering values, pres

in order to update linked cells.
109 

Appendix I. ECOTOX Summary Tables and Accepted Papers 

CYROMAZINE AND MELAMINE 

Papers that Were Accepted for ECOTOX 

Acceptable for ECOTOX and OPP

 1. Abou-Fakhr Hammad, E. M., Nemer, N. M., and Kawar, N. S. (2000). Efficacy of Chinaberry Tree (Meliaceae) 

Aqueous Extracts and Certain Insecticides Against the Pea Leafminer (Diptera: Agromyzidae). 

J.Agric.Sci. 134: 413-420. 

EcoReference No.: 63573 

Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(ALSV,CYR). 

 2. Anderson, N., McKenzie, J. A., Laby, R. H., Strong, M. B., and Jarrett, R. G. (1989). Intraruminal Controlled 

Release of Cyromazine for the Prevention of Lucilia cuprina myiasis in Sheep. Res.Vet.Sci. 46: 131-

138. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

 3. Axtell, R. C. and Edwards, T. D. (1983). Efficacy and Nontarget Effects of Larvadex as a Feed Additive for 

Controlling House Flies in Caged-Layer Poultry Manure. Poult.Sci. 62: 2371-2377. 

EcoReference No.: 35693 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

 4. Bjorksten, T. A. and Robinson, M. (2005). Juvenile and Sublethal Effects of Selected Pesticides on the 

Leafminer Parasitoids Hemiptarsenus varicornis and Diglyphus isaea (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) 

from Australia. J.Econ.Entomol. 98: 1831-1838. 

EcoReference No.: 90318 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,ABM,MZB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP; Rejection Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED(MZB),OK(ABM),TARGET(CYR). 

 5. Bowen, F. L., Fisara, P., Junquera, P., Keevers, D. T., Mahoney, R. H., and Schmid, H. R. (1999). Long-Lasting 

Prevention Against Blowfly Strike Using the Insect Growth Regulator Dicyclanil. Aust.Vet.J. 77: 454-

460. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

 6. Brake, J., Ort, J. F., Carter, T. A., and Campbell, W. R. (1984). Effect of the Insect Growth Regulator CGA72662 (Larvadex) on Broiler Breeder Production, Hatchability, and Subsequent Chick Performance. 

Poult.Sci. 63: 910-916. 

EcoReference No.: 35937 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,REP,GRO; Rejection Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED(CYR). 

 7. Brink, N. G. (1970). Complete and Mosaic Visible Mutations Produced by Ethyl Methanesulphonate in 

Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 10: 

227-236. 
110 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

 8. Brunel, E., Carballo, R., and Blot, Y. (1991). Effect of Cyromazine an Insect Growth Regulator on the Cabbage 

Root Fly Delia-Radicum Diptera Anthomyiidae. In: Annual Meet.of the Societe Zoologique De 

France (French Society for Zoology) on Pests of Economic Importance, July 2-4, 1990 Paris, France

116: 267-273. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

 9. Buxton, J. H. and Macdonald, O. C. (1994). Chemical Control of the South American Leaf Miner, Liriomyza 

huidobrensis. In: Brighton Crop Prot.Conf.-Pests and Diseases 2: 731-736. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

10. Byrne, A. M., Grafius, E., and Pett, W. (2006). Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 2005. Arthropod Manag.Tests

31: E54. 

EcoReference No.: 94231 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,CYF,TMX,IMC,ABM,LCYT,ACT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: 

POP,PHY; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR,CYF). 

11. Cabras, P., Gioia, L. M., Melis, M., Spanedda, L., Cabitza, F., and Cubeddu, M. (1993). The Deposition and 

Persistence of Cyromazine in Celery in Relation to the Methods of Application. Mobility 

Degrad.Xenobiot., Proc.- Simp.Pestic.Chem., 9th 545-551. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

12. Carvalho, G. A., Reis, P. R., Rocha, L. C. D., Moraes, J. C., Fuini, L. C., and Ecole, C. C. (2003). Side-Effects 

of Insecticides Used in Tomato Fields on Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera, 

Trichogrammatidae). Acta Sci.Agron. 25: 275-279. 

EcoReference No.: 82682 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

13. Chandler, L. D. (1985). Response of Liriomyza-Trifolii to Selected Insecticides with Notes on Hymenopterous 

Parasites. Southwest.Entomol. 10: 228-235. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

14. Civelek, H. S. and Weintraub, P. G. (2003). Effects of Bensultap on Larval Serpentine Leafminers, Liriomyza 

tirfolii (Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Tomatoes. Crop Prot. 22: 479-483. 

EcoReference No.: 94230 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

15. Civelek, H. S. and Weintraub, P. G. (2004). Effects of Two Plant Extracts on Larval Leafminer Liriomyza 

trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in Tomatoes. J.Econ.Entomol. 97: 1581-1586. 

EcoReference No.: 94273 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CYR). 

16. Cranshaw, W. S., Gerace, D., Tupy, A., and Sclar, C. (1997). Control of Honeylocust Pod Gall Midge with 
111 

Foliar-Applied Insecticides 1996. Arthropod Manag.Tests 22: 393. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

17. Daborn, P. J., McKenzie, J. A., and Batterham, P. (2000). A Genetic Analysis of Cyromazine Resistance in 

Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 911-919. 

EcoReference No.: 63321 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

18. Darvas, B. and Andersen, A. (1999). Effects of Cyromazine and Dimethoate on Chromatomyia fuscula (Zett.) 

(Dipt., Agromyzidae) and Its Hymenopterous Parasitoids. Acta Phytopathol.Entomol.Hung. 34: 231-

239. 

EcoReference No.: 66761 

Chemical of Concern: DMT,CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,CYR). 

19. Davis, J. A., Radcliffe, E. B., and Ragsdale, D. W. (2005). Control of Colorado Potato Beetle Using Multiple 

Applications of Foliar Insecticides 2004. Arthropod Manag.Tests 30: E60. 

EcoReference No.: 94229 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,LCYT,TMX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR). 

20. Davis, M., Grafius, E., and Ebert, S. (1997). Onion Maggot Control, 1996. Arthropod Manag.Tests 22: 143. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

21. Davis, M., Grafius, E., McDaniel, J., and Kolarik, P. (1994). Onion Maggot Control, 1993. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 19: 102-103 (59E). 

EcoReference No.: 94282 

Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYR,FNF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CPY,CYR). 

22. Davis, M., Pett, W., and Grafius, E. (1994). Onion Maggot Control, 1992. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 102 

(58E). 

EcoReference No.: 94283 

Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CPY,CYR). 

23. Davis, M. K., Grafius, E., and Garvin, P. (1996). Onion Maggot Control, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 

128-129. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

24. Dyer, K. F. (1975). Mutagenic Activity of Trimethylphosphate in Drosophila at Low Doses. 

Mutat.Res./Genetic Toxicology 28: 465-468. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

25. Eckenrode, C. J., Hessney, M. L., Webb, D., and Taylor, A. G. (1999). Onion Maggot Control, 1998. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 24: 140 (E50). 
112 

EcoReference No.: 94275 

Chemical of Concern: FPN,CYR,CPY,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(FPN,CYR,CPY). 

26. Fadzil, M. and Nazri, A. (1988). Field Trial of Cyromazine (Cga-72662) as a Feed Additive to Control Breeding 

of Flies in Cattle Manure. Trop.Biomed. 5: 95-96. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

27. Fang, M. N. (1994). The Insect Pests on Pea and Their Control. Bull.Taichung Dist.Agric.Improv.Stn. 27-43. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

28. Fang, M. N. (1996). The Occurrence and Combined Control of Frankliniella Intonsa and Liriomyza Bryoniae in 

Pea Plant. Bull.Taichung Dist.Agric.Improv.Stn. 43-57. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,PSM; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

29. Fang M.N. (1992). Population Fluctuation and Control of Liriomyza Bryoniae Kaltenbach on Pea. 

Bull.Taichung Dist.Agric.Improv.Stn. 17-28. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

30. Farkas, R. and Seregi, A. (1992). Field Trials with Two Bait- and One Anti-Larval Insecticides to Control Flies 

in Swine Farrowing Houses with Batteries. Magy.Allatorv.Lapja 47: 11-15. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

31. Fernandez-Alba, A. R., Guil, L. H., Lopez, G. D., and Chisti, Y. (2001). Toxicity of Pesticides in Wastewater: 

A Comparative Assessment of Rapid Bioassays. Anal.Chim.Acta 426: 289-301. 

EcoReference No.: 74540 

User 1 Abbreviation: www.sciencedirect.com (1995-Present) 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

32. Foster, R. E. and Sanchez, C. A. (1988). Effect of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) Larval Damage on 

Growth, Yield, and Cosmetic Quality of Celery in Florida. J.Econ.Entomol. 81: 1721-1725. 

EcoReference No.: 94810 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

33. Fouche, C., Canevari, M., and Cutter, D. (1998). Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Leafminers on Lima 

Beans, 1997. Arthropod Manag.Tests 23: 74-75 (3E). 

EcoReference No.: 94749 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,SS,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR,ACP). 

34. Grafius, E. and Hayden, J. (1988). Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza 

trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism. Gr.Lakes Entomol. 21: 49-

54. 

EcoReference No.: 94182 

Chemical of Concern: PMR,CPY,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP,MOR; Rejection Code: 
113 

TARGET(CYR,PMR,CPY). 

35. Gruss, B. and Janse van Rensburg, B. J. (1988). Propetamphos a Comparison of Three Formulations in 

Preventing Blowfly Strike in Sheep. J.S.Afr.Vet.Assoc. 59: 77-80. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

36. Hart, R. J., Cavey, W. A., Ryan, K. J., Strong, M. B., Moore, B., Thomas, P. L., Boray, J. C., and Von Orelli, 

M. (1982). CGA-72662 - A New Sheep Blowfly Insecticide. Aust.Vet.J. 59: 104-109. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

37. Hoepting, C. A., Scott-Dupree, C. D., Harris, C. R., Ritcey, G., and McDonald, M. R. (2000). Evaluation of 

Insecticide and Fungicide Combinations for the Control of Onion Maggot (Delia antiqua) and Onion 

Smut (Urocystis cepulae) in Ontario. BCPC Conf.-Pests & Diseases 1: 279-284. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

38. Hoffman, S. M., Snetsinger, R., Tetrault, R., Kielbasa, R., Rinker, D. L., and Bucholz, C. ( 1987). Laboratory 

and Cropping Tests with Cyromazine for Mushroom Sciarid Control in Mushroom Compost. 

Dev.Crop Sci. 10: 599-606. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

39. Hoy, C. W. and Dunlap, M. J. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1993. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), 

Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 19: 110-111. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

40. Hoy, C. W., Dunlap, M. J., and Jallow, M. F. A. (2006). Control of Onion Maggot on Seed Treated Dry Bulb 

Onions, 2005. Arthropod Manag.Tests 31: E36. 

EcoReference No.: 94227 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

41. Hoy, C. W., Dunlap, M. J., and Jallow, M. F. A. (2006). Onion Thrips Control on Green Onion, 2005. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 31: E37. 

EcoReference No.: 94235 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

42. Hughes, P. B. and Levot, G. W. (1987). Simulation of Fly-Waves to Assess the Ability of Diflubenzuron to 

Protect Sheep Against Flystrike by Lucilia cuprina. Vet.Parasitol. 24: 275-284. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

43. Ikebuchi, M., Nishimori, T., Teranishi, Y., and Nakao, Y. (1973). Frequency Pattern Analysis of Translocation 

and Sex-Llinked Recessive Lethals Induced by Triethylene Melamine and Ethyl Methanesulfonate in 

Drosophila melanogaster : Zoological Institute, Faculty of Sciences, Hiroshima University, 

Hiroshima (Japan). Mutati.Res./Environmental Mutagenesis and Related Subjects 21: 346-347. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

44. Ikebuchi, M. and Teranishi, Y. (1981). Storage Effects on Sex-Chromosome Losses Induced by Triethylene 
114 

Melamine (Tem) and Ethyl Methane-Sulfonate (Ems) in Drosophila Melanogaster . 

Jpn.J.Genet.Tokyo 56: 145-153. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

45. Inoue, Y. (1988). Chromosomal Mutation in Drosophila Melanogaster and Drosophila Simulans. Mutat.Res.

197: 85-92. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

46. Jukes, A. A., Collier, R. H., and Finch, S. (2001). Cabbage Root Fly Control Using Non-Organophosphorus 

Insecticides. Meded.Fac.Landbouwkd.Toegep.Biol.Wet.(Univ.Gent) 66: 395-402. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

47. Jukes, A. A., Collier, R. H., and Finch, S. (2000). Evaluation of Non-Organophosphorus Insecticides for 

Controlling the Cabbage Root Fly. The Insecticide Conundrum. 

Meded.Fac.Landbouwkd.Toegep.Biol.Wet.(Univ.Gent) 65: 167-173. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

48. Kakiichi, N. , Kitamikado, A., Sasamori, T., Tanaka, Y., Ishiwata, Y., Sakurai, A., Shimizu, K., and Kamata, S.-

I. (1996). Toxicity of Several Insecticides Against Ciliate Colpoda aspera. Anim.Sci.Technol. 67: 844-

850. 

EcoReference No.: 70277 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

49. Keiding, J., El-Khodary, A. S., and Jespersen, J. B. (1992). Resistance Risk Assessment of Two Insect 

Development Inhibitors, Diflubenzuron and Cyromazine, for Control of Thehousefly, Musca 

Domestica L. Part Ii. Effect of Selection Pressure in Laboratory and Field Populat. Pestic.Sci. 35: 27-

37. 

EcoReference No.: 37424 

Chemical of Concern: DFZ,CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

50. Koehler, P. G. and Patterson, R. S. (1989). Effects of Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors on German Cockroach 

(Orthoptera: Blattellidae) Mortality and Reproduction. J.Econ.Entomol. 82: 143-148. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

51. Kolarik, P., Grafius, E., Bishop, B., Nelson, N., Hoffman, H., Ayotte, A., Miller, K., and Patrick, J. (1998). 

Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1997. Arthropod Manag.Tests 23: 124-126 (67E). 

EcoReference No.: 94750 

Chemical of Concern: ADC,SS,ABM,IMC,TUZ,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; 

Rejection Code: EFFICACY(ADC,CYR). 

52. Kubota, S. ( 1989). Evaluation of the Effect of Some Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors Against Thrips Palmi Karny 

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Infesting Musk Melons. Appl.Entomol.Zool. 24: 349-357. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

53. Lee, H. S. ( 1990). Insecticides for the Control of Liriomyza Bryoniae (Kalt.) And the Parasite's Survival on 
115 

Head Mustard. Chin.J.Entomol. 10: 183-190 . 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

54. Levot, G. W. and Sales, N. (1998). Effectiveness of a Mixture of Cyromazine and Diazinon for Controlling 

Flystrike on Sheep. Aust.Vet.J. 76: 343-344 . 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

55. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Mcshane, N. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 112. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

56. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Mcshane, N. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 113. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

57. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Mcshane, N. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 111. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

58. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., Mulford, K., and Baumann, D. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes 

with Foliar Insecticide Sprays, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 143-144. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

59. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Rouse, R. (1993). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1992. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

18: 145. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

60. Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Stevenson, S. (1992). Potato Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1991. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

17: 131. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

61. Liu, T. S. and Wang, Y. S. (1992). Screening for Insecticides and the Application of Yellow Sticky Card in the 

Control of American Leafminer Liriomyza Trifolii Burgess. Bull.Taichung Dist.Agric.Improv.Stn. 7-

16. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

62. Liu, T.-X (2005). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Melon Pests on Cantaloupe, Spring 2004. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 30: E15. 

EcoReference No.: 94194 

Chemical of Concern: IDC,EMMB,CYR,ABM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection 
116 

Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

63. Liu, T.-X (2005). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Pepper Pests on Bell Pepper, Fall 2003. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 30: E47. 

EcoReference No.: 94193 

Chemical of Concern: TMX,OML,EMMB,ABM,CYR,IDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; 

Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

64. Liu, T.-X (2005). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Pepper Pests on Jalapeno Pepper, 2004. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 30: E53. 

EcoReference No.: 94195 

Chemical of Concern: IDC,ABM,CYR,EMMB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection 

Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

65. Maciesiak, A. (1985). Evaluation of Acylurea Insecticides for the Control of Stigmella malella Stt. Fruit 

Sci.Rep. 12: 119-126. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

66. Magoc, L., Yen, J. L., Hill-Williams, A., McKenzie, J. A., Batterham, P., and Daborn, P. J. (2005). CrossResistance to Dicyclanil in Cyromazine-Resistant Mutants of Drosophila melanogaster and Lucilia 

cuprina. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 81: 129-135. 

EcoReference No.: 80231 

Chemical of Concern: LUF,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,CEL; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR). 

67. Mcenhill, E., Grafius, E., Sirota, J., Brunt, C., Ferrigan, J., Garvin, P., Haas, L., and Ricci, J. (1996). Colorado 

Potato Beetle Control, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 144-145. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

68. Melnick, R. L., Boorman, G. A., Haseman, J. K., Montali, R. J., and Huff, J. (1984). Urolithiasis and Bladder 

Carcinogenicity of Melamine in Rodents. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 72: 292-303. 

EcoReference No.: 94269 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,CEL,PHY,BEH,GRO; Rejection Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED(MEL). 

69. Meyer, J. A., Rooney, W. F., and Mullens, B. A. (1984). Effect of Larvadex Feed-Through on Cool-Season 

Development of Filth Flies and Beneficial Coleoptera in Poultry Manure in Southern California. 

Southwest.Entomol. 9: 52-57. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

70. Miller, R. W., Corley, C., Cohen, C. F., Robbins, W. E., and Marks, E. P. (1981). CGA-19255 and CGA-72662: 

Efficacy Against Flies and Possible mode of Action and Metabolism. Southwest.Entomol. 6: 272-278. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

71. Miller, R. W. and Miller, J. A. (1985). Feed-Through Chemicals for Insect Control in Animals. In: J.L.Hilton, 

(Ed.), Beltsville Symp.in Agricultural Research, Agricultural Chem.of the Future, Meet.May 16-19, 

1983, Beltsville, MD, Rowman and Allanheld Publ., Totowa, NJ 8: 355-364. 
117 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

72. Miller, R. W. and Schmidtmann, E. T. (1985). Feeding Cyromazine (Larvadex) to Dairy Calves for the Control 

of House Flies. J.Agric.Entomol. 2: 313-316. 

EcoReference No.: 94748 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

73. Mohsen, Z. H., Ouda, N. A., and Zaiya, H. H. (1989). Predatory Efficiency and Tolerance of Gambusia affinis 

to Mosquito Larvicides. J.Biol.Sci.Res. 20: 528-536. 

EcoReference No.: 184 

Chemical of Concern: CYR, MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR,MEL). 

74. Mollet, P. and Wurgler, F. E. (1974). Detection of Somatic Recombination and Mutation in Drosophila A 

Method for Testing Genetic Activity of Chemical Compounds. Mutat.Res./Genetic Toxicology 25: 

421-424. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

75. Mommaerts, V., Sterk, G., and Smagghe, G. (2006). Hazards and Uptake of Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors in 

Bumblebees Bombus terrestris. Pest Manag.Sci. 62: 752-758. 

EcoReference No.: 94221 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

76. Moreno, D. S., Martinez, A. J., and Sanchez, M. R. (1994). Cyromazine Effects on the Reproduction of 

Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Laboratory and in the Field. J.Econ.Entomol. 87: 

202-211. 

EcoReference No.: 94812 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR). 

77. Mulla, M. S. and Axelrod, H. (1983). Evaluation of the IGR Larvadex as a Feed-Through Treatment for the 

Control of Pestiferous Flies on Poultry Ranches. J.Econ.Entomol. 76: 515-519. 

EcoReference No.: 94814 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

78. National Toxicology Program (1983). Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Melamine (Cas No. 108-78-1) in F344/N 

Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Feed Study). TR-245 Report.National Toxicology Program, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 168 p. (NTIS/PB83-202630). 

EcoReference No.: 94197 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,MOR,CEL,PHY; Rejection Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED(MEL). 

79. Natskova, V. and Karadzhova, O. (1990). Efficiency of Some Preparations on the Imagoes and Larvae of 

Liriomyza Trifolii and Liriomyza Bryoniae (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Rasteniev"d Nauki 27: 96-101. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 
118 

80. Nault, B. A., Straub, R. W., and Taylor, A. G. (2006). Performance of Novel Insecticide Seed Treatments for 

Managing Onion Maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in Onion Fields. Crop Protect. 25: 58-65. 

EcoReference No.: 92503 

Chemical of Concern: CPY,FPN,SS,CTD,TMX,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection 

Code: OK TARGET(CPY,FPN,CYR). 

81. Nelson, F. R. S., Holloway, D., and Mohamed, A. K. A. (1986). A Laboratory Study of Cyromazine on Aedes 

aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus and Its Activity on Selected Predators of Mosquito Larvae. 

J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 2: 296-299. 

EcoReference No.: 94261 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

82. Noetzel, D. M. and Holder, B. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control Crookston Mn, 1995. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 21: 147-148. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

83. Noetzel, D. M., Holder, B., Miller, J., and Holen, C. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control Crookston Mn, 

1994 . Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 150-151. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

84. Noetzel, D. M. and Miller, J. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control Verndale Mn, 1994. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 21: 153-154. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

85. Noetzel, D. M. and Miller, J. (1996). Control of Resistant Colorado Potato Beetle Big Lake Mn, 1994. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 149-150. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

86. Noetzel, D. M. and Miller, J. (1996). Control of Resistant Colorado Potato Beetle Blaine Mn, 1995. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 21: 149. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

87. Noetzel, D. M., Miller, J., and Holen, C. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control Furadan 4f Comparisons 

Grand Forks ND, 1994. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 153. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

88. Olson, D. L. and Oetting, R. D. (1999). Compatibility of Insect Growth Regulators and Beauveria bassiana 

(Balsamo) Vuillemin in Controlling Green Peach Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) on Greenhouse 

Chrysanthemums. J.Entomol.Sci. 34: 286-294. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

89. Otto, D., Behnisch, I., Dietrich, K., and Koerner, H. J. (1990). A Novel Type of Microencapsulated ParathionMethyl Formulations and the Evaluation of Its Biological Efficacy to Colorado Potato Beetles and 

Other Insect Pests. Arch.Phytopathol.Pflanzenschutz 26: 177-188. 
119 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

90. Overman, A. J. and Price, J. F. (1985). Application of Avermectin and Cyromazine Via Drip Irrigation and 

Fenamiphos by Soil Incorporation for Control of Insect and Nematode Pests in Chrysanthemums. 

Proc.Fla.State Hortic.Soc. 97: 304-306. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

91. Pap, L. and Farkas, R. (1994). Monitoring of Resistance of Insecticides in House Fly (Musca domestica) 

Populations in Hungary. Pestic.Sci. 40: 245-258 . 

EcoReference No.: 70791 

Chemical of Concern: 

RSM,DDT,HCCH,MOM,CYP,DM,BRSM,PMR,MLN,TCF,PTP,DFZ,CYR,PYN,PPX; Habitat: T; 

Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(MLN,CYP,RSM,CYR). 

92. Parrella, M. P. (1983). Evaluations of Selected Insecticides for Control of Permethrin-Resistant Liriomyza 

trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on Chrysanthemum. J.Econ.Entomol. 76: 1460-1464. 

EcoReference No.: 94800 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR). 

93. Pospischil, R., Szomm, K., Londershausen, M., Schroder, I., Turberg, A., and Fuchs, R. (1996). Multiple 

Resistance in the Larger House Fly Musca domestica in Germany. Pestic.Sci. 48: 333-341. 

EcoReference No.: 93122 

Chemical of Concern: PYX,UREA,CYF,BCY,TCF,CMPH,PPX,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: 

MOR,CEL,BCM; Rejection Code: NO COC(TBF),OK TARGET(CYF,CYR). 

94. Price, J. F. (1984). Field Evaluations of new Pesticides for Control of Leaf Miners, Mites and Aphids on Flower 

Crops. Proc.Fla.State Hortic.Soc. 96: 287-291. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

95. Radcliffe, E. B., Difonzo, C. D., Longtine, C. A., Flanders, K. L., and Hansen, R. (1993). Control of Colorado 

Potato Beetle, 1992. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society 

of America, Lanham, MD 18: 150-152. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,PSM; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

96. Radcliffe, E. B., Suranyi, R. A., Samuelson, M. P., Difonzo, C. D., Longtine, C. A., Kleven, T. L., Flanders, K. 

L., and Hansen, R. A. (1994). Control of Colorado Potato Beetle in the Red River Valley Grand Forks 

ND, 1993. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of 

America, Lanham, MD 19: 119-120. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

97. Ratnayake, W., Strachan, C., and Auerbach, C. (1967). Genetical Analysis of the Storage Effect of Triethylene 

melamine (TEM) on Chromosome Breakage in Drosophila. Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular 

Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 4: 380-381. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

98. Ratnayake, W. E. (1968). Effects of Storage on Dominant Lethals Induced by Alkylating Agents (triethylene 
120 

melamine and ethylenimine). Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 5: 

271-278. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

99. Reid, J. C. and Robinson, D. E. (1994). Assessment of Different Insecticides for the Suppression of an Outbreak 

of Leucoptera coffeella in Jamaica. Turrialba 44: 112-116. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

100. Reynolds, S. E. (1989). The Integument as a Target for Insecticides Disruption of Cuticle Chemistry 

Structure and Function. In: N.R.Mcfarlane (Ed.), British Crop Prot.Council Monograph, Progess and 

Prospects In Insect Control, Int.Conf.Reading Sept.18-20, 1989, England, UK British Crop 

Prot.Council, Surrey, England, UK 73-88. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

101. Robbins, P. S., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1991). Onion Allium-Cepa Buccaneer Onion 

Maggot Delia-Antiqua Meigen Onion Maggot Control Using Pelleted Seed Treatment 1990. In: 

J.H.Thomas (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of American, Lanham, MD

16: 88-89. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

102. Robert, F. (1990). Field Study of Larvadex on Caged-Layer Houses in Hungary. Parasitol.Hung. 23: 

93-101. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

103. Robinson, P. W. and Scott, R. R. (1995). The Toxicity of Cyromazine to Chironomus zealandicus 

(Chironomidae) and Deleatidium sp. (Leptophlebiidae). Pestic.Sci. 44: 283-292. 

EcoReference No.: 15768 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: A; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CYR,MEL). 

104. Ross, D. C., Crim, J. W., Brown, M. R., Herzog, G. A., and Lea, A. O. (1987). Toxic and Antifeeding 

Actions of Melittin in the Corn Earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie): Comparisons to Bee Venom and the 

Insecticides Chlorpyrifos and Cyromazine. Toxicon 25: 307-313. 

EcoReference No.: 68739 

Chemical of Concern: CPY,CPR,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,BEH,PHY; Rejection 

Code: TARGET(CPY,CYR). 

105. Royer, T. A., Edelson, J. V., Bogle, C. R., and Mccrate, S. (1989). Insecticide Application and Insect 

Control Using a Drip Irrigation Delivery System. Pestic.Sci. 25: 231-240. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

106. Saito, T. ( 2004). Insecticide Susceptibility of the Leafminer, Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) 

(Diptera: Agromyzidae). Appl.Entomol.Zool. 39: 203-208. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

107. Schuster, D. J. (1994). Life-Stage Specific Toxicity of Insecticides to Parasitoids of Liriomyza trifolii 

(Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Int.J.Pest Manag. 40: 191-194. 
121 

EcoReference No.: 74151 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,TDC,FNV,MOM,PMR,MTM,ES; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; 

Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(TDC,MTM,FNV,CYR). 

108. Schuster, D. J. and Everett, P. H. (1983). Response of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) to 

Insecticides on Tomato. J.Econ.Entomol. 76: 1170-1174. 

EcoReference No.: 94881 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,PMR,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR,PMR,FNV). 

109. Scott, J. G., Alefantis, T. G., Kaufman, P. E., and Rutz, D. A. (2000). Insecticide Resistance in House 

Flies from Caged-Layer Poultry Facilities. Pest Manag.Sci. 56: 147-153. 

EcoReference No.: 64291 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,CYF,DMT,FPN,TVP,PMR,SS,PYN,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: 

MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,CYF,FPN,MOM,CYR). 

110. Sewell, G. H. and Storch, R. H. (1994). Irish Potato Control of Colorado Potato Beetle, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 122-123. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

111. Shanahan, G. J. and Hughes, P. B. (1980). Susceptibility of Organophosphorus Resistant and NonResistant Larvae of Lucilia Cuprina to a Triazine Pesticide. Vet.Rec. 106: 306-307. 

EcoReference No.: 35435 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(CYR,MEL). 

112. Sirota, J. M. and Grafius, E. (1994). Effects of Cyromazine on Larval Survival, Pupation, and Adult 

Emergence of Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 87: 577-582. 

EcoReference No.: 94811 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,MOR,REP,POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR). 

113. Sirota, J. M., Grafius, E., Ferrari, B., Kolarik, P., Scriber, B., Simstad, S., and Boylan-Pett, W. (1993). 

Control of Colorado Potato Beetle with Trigard, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and 

Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 18: 155-156. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

114. Slizynska, H. (1973). Cytological Analysis of Storage Effects on Various Types of Complete and 

Mosaic Change Induces in Drosophila cromosomes by Some Chemical Mutagens. 

Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 19: 199-213. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

115. Slizynska, H. (1969). The Progressive Approximation, with Storage of the Spectrum of the TemInduced Chromosomal Changes in Drosphila Sperm to that Found After Irradiation. 

Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 8: 165-175. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 
122 

116. Smith, R. F. (1986). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides Against Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) (Diptera: 

Agromyzidae), a Leafminer of Chrysanthemum. Can.Entomol. 118: 761-766. 

EcoReference No.: 90888 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,ADC,DFZ,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR,POP; Rejection 

Code: TARGET(MOM,CYR). 

117. Smitley, D. R., Davis, T. W., Kearns, K. A., and Papp, C. M. (1992). Greenhouse Whitefly Control on 

Marigolds Michigan, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological 

Society of America, Lanham, MD 17: 348. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

118. Snyder, L. A. and Oster, I. I. (1964). A Comparison of Genetic Changes Induced by a Monofunctional 

and a Polyfunctional Alkylating agent in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat.Res. 1: 437-445. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET (MEL). 

119. Sorensen, K. A. and Holloway, C. W. (1993). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Insecticides 

Pasquotank Co. North Carolina, 1992. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, 

Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 18: 159-160. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

120. Sorensen, K. A. and Kidd, K. A. (1992). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Traditional Insecticides, 

1991. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, 

Lanham, MD 17: 140. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

121. Sorensen, K. A. and Wade-Holloway, C. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle and European Corn Borer 

Control with Insecticides Pasquotank Co. NC, 1993. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and 

Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 19: 131-133. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

122. Sparks a N Jr (1994). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides for Control of Leafminers on Melons, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 81-82. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

123. Speese, J. (1994). Foliar Sprays for Insect Control in Tomatoes, 1993. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), 

Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 19: 154-155. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

124. Speese, J. (1993). Foliar Sprays to Control Colorado Potato Beetle in Potatoes Painter Virginia, 1992. 

In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, 

MD 18: 161. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

125. Speese, J. (1996). Use of Biorational and Standard Insecticides to Control Insects in Potatoes, 1995. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 162-163. 
123 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,PPB,AZD,DMT; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(DMT,AZD),EFFICACY(CYR). 

126. Speese, J. (1994). Use of Cyromazine Trigard 75 Wp in an Ipm Program to Control Colorado Potato 

Beetle, 1993. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of 

America, Lanham, MD 19: 137-138. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

127. Speese, J. (1996). Use of Cyromazine Trigard 75w in a Foliar Spray Program to Control Insects in 

Potatoes, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 163-164 . 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

128. Stansly, P. A. and Conner, J. M. (1998). Impact of Insecticides Alone and in Rotation on Tomato 

Pinworm, Leafminer and Beneficial Arthropods on Staked Tomato, 1997. Arthropod Manag.Tests 23: 

162-165 (109E). 

EcoReference No.: 94751 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,ABM,TUZ,EMMB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CYR). 

129. Stoltz, R. L. and Matteson, N. A. (1996). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Foliar Sprays, 1995. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 168-169. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

130. Stoltz, R. L. and Matteson, N. A. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Foliar Sprays of 

Conventional and Biorational Insecticides, 1992. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide 

Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 19: 141. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

131. Stoltz, R. L. and Matteson, N. A. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Trigard, 1993. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

19: 138-139. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

132. Taylor, A. G., Eckenrode, C. J., and Straub, R. W. (2001). Seed Coating Technologies and Treatments 

for Onion: Challenges and Progress. Hortscience 36: 199-205. 

EcoReference No.: 94753 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CYR,CPY). 

133. Tran, D. H., Le, Van Hai, Luong, T. B. P., and Takagi, M. (2006). Field Evaluation of Cartap, 

Cyromazine, Permethrin and Phenthoate for Control of the Stone Leek Leafminer Liriomyza Chinensis 

(Diptera: Agromyzidae). J.Fac.Agric.Kyushu Univ. 51: 265-268. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

134. Trumble, J. T. (1985). Integrated Pest Management of Liriomyza trifolii: Influence of Avermectin, 

Cyromazine, and Methomyl on Leafminer Ecology in Celery. Agric.Ecosyst.Environ. 12: 181-188. 
124 

EcoReference No.: 74144 

Chemical of Concern: MOM,AV,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK 

TARGET(MOM,CYR). 

135. Van de Veire, M. (1990). Chemical Control of the Cecid heteropeza pygmaea in the Culture of the 

Oyster Mushroom Pleurotus ostreatus. Meded.Fac.Landbouwwet.Univ.Gent 55: 681-684. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

136. Van de Veire, M. and Bleyaert, P. (1990). Control of the Leafminer liriomyza huidobrensis 

(Blanchard) on Glasshouse Lettuce with the IGR Cyromazine. Meded.Fac.Landbouwwet.Univ.Gent

55: 661-666. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

137. Van de Veire, M. and Degheele, D. (1994). Toxicity of the Insect Growth Regulator Cyromazine on 

the Tomato Looper Chrysodeixis Chalcites (Esper) (Lep.: Plusiinae). Phytoparasitica 50: 131-133. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

138. Van de Veire, M., Smagghe, G., and Degheele, D. (1996). Laboratory Test Method to Evaluate the 

Effect of 31 Pesticies on the Predatory Bug, Orius laevigatus (Het.: Anthocoridae). Entomophaga 41: 

235-243. 

EcoReference No.: 63513 

Chemical of Concern: 

Captan,CYR,DDVP,PIM,TUZ,TZM,ABM,AZD,DFZ,LUF,PRB,BMY,CBD,MZB,TPM,THM; 

Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(Captan,MZB),OK TARGET(CYR,AZD,THM). 

139. Van de Vrie, M., Price, J. F., and De Jong, J. (1986). Behavior of Liriomyza trifolii leafminer Flies and 

Responses to Hostplants and Insecticides. Meded.Fac.Landbouwwet.Univ.Gent 51: 879-84. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

140. Van der Staay, M. (1992). Chemical Control of the Larvae of the Leafminer liriomyza huidobrensis 

(Blanchard) in Lettuce. Meded.Fac.Landbouwwet.Univ.Gent 57: 473-8. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

141. Van Steenwyk, R. A. and Coates, W. W. (1998). Walnut Husk Fly Control with Low-Toxicity 

Insecticides, 1997. Arthropod Manag.Tests 23: 72 (18D). 

EcoReference No.: 94752 

Chemical of Concern: IMC,ABM,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CYR). 

142. Wall, R., French, N. P., and Morgan, K. L. (1995). Population Suppression for Control of the Blowfly 

Lucilia Sericata and Sheep Blowfly Strike. Ecol.Entomol. 20: 91-97. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

143. Webb, D. R., Eckenrode, C. J., Hessney, M. L., and Taylor, A. G. (1993). Seed Maggot Control, 1992. 

In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, 
125 

MD 18: 83-84. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

144. Webb, D. R., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1992). Onion Maggot Control, 1991. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

17: 119-120. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

145. Webb, D. R., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1996). Onion Maggot Control Oswego, 1995. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 131-132. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

146. Webb, D. R., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1996). Onion Maggot Control Prattsburg, 1995. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 131. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

147. Webb, D. R., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1993). Onion Maggot Control with Seed Furrow 

Treatments, 1992. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of 

America, Lanham, MD 18: 138. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

148. Webb, D. R., Taylor, A. G., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1992). Onion Maggot Control 

Using Pelleted Trigard Seed Treatments, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide 

Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 17: 120. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

149. Webb, D. R., Taylor, A. G., Hessney, M. L., and Eckenrode, C. J. (1993). Onion Maggot Control with 

Trigard Seed Treatments, 1992. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, 

Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD 18: 137. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

150. Weintraub, P. G. (1999). Effects of Cyromazine and Abamectin on the Leafminer, Liriomyza 

huidobrensis and Its Parasitoid, Diglyphus isaea in Celery. Ann.Appl.Biol. 135: 547-554. 

EcoReference No.: 66710 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,ABM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,ACC; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CYR). 

151. Weintraub, P. G. (2001). Effects of Cyromazine and Abamectin on the Pea Leafminer Liriomyza 

huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and Its Parasitoid Diglyphus isaea (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in 

Potatoes. Crop Prot. 20: 207-213. 

EcoReference No.: 65283 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

152. Whalen, J. and Spellman, M. (1993). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Foliar Sprays, 1992. In: 

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD

18: 165-166. 
126 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

153. White, P. F. (1988). The Potential of Cyromazine for Mushroom Pest Control. Brighton Crop 

Protection Conf.-Pests and Diseases 193-198. 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYR). 

154. Wills, L. E., Mullens, B. A., and Mandeville, J. D. (1990). Effects of Pesticides on Filth Fly Predators 

(Coleoptera: Histeridae, Staphylinidae; Acarina: Macrochelidae, Uropodidae) in Caged Layer Poultry 

Manure. J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 451-457. 

EcoReference No.: 94754 

Chemical of Concern: DMT,CYR,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(DMT,CYR,PMR). 

155. Wilson, H. R., Harms, R. H., Simpson, C. F., and Campbell, W. R. (1983). Effect of High Levels of 

Larvadex on Reproduction in Leghorn Breeders. Poult.Sci. 62: 1731-1733. 

EcoReference No.: 39406 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,REP,BEH,MOR; Rejection Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED(CYR). 

156. Wilson, T. G. (1997). Cyromazine Toxicity to Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and 

Lack of Cross-Resistance in Natural Population Strains. J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 1163-1169. 

EcoReference No.: 64198 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CYR). 

157. Yandoc, C. B., Rosskopf, E. N., Pitelli, R. L. C. M., and Charudattan, R. (2006). Effect of Selected 

Pesticides on Conidial Germination and Mycelial Growth of Dactylaria higginsii, a Potential 

Bioherbicide for Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 20: 255-260. 

EcoReference No.: 88572 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,DCF,SXD,IZP,FSTAl,CuOH,MLX,TPM,Du,GYP,OXF; Habitat: T; 

Effect Codes: GRO,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED(IZP),TARGET(CYR,CuOH),OK(SXD,OXF,GYP). 

158. Yildirim, E. and Hoy, C. W. (2003). Cyromazine Seed Treatments to Control Onion Maggot, Delia 

antiqua, on Green Onions. J.Econ.Entomol. 96: 1494-1499. 

EcoReference No.: 94211 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: 

EFFICACY(CYR). 

159. Zijlstra, J. A. and Vogel, E. W. (1988). The Ratio of Induced Recessive Lethals to Ring-X loss has 

Prognostic Value in Terms of Functionality of Chemical Mutagens in Drosophila melanogaster. 

Mutat.Res./Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 201: 27-38. 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(MEL). 

Acceptable for ECOTOX but not OPP

 1. Amer.Cyanid Co. (1991). Contact Sensitization Study of CT-244-85A, CT-244-85B, CT-244-85C, CT-244-85D 

and CT-244-85E in Albino Guinea Pigs (Final Report) with Attachments and Cover Letter Dated 

112591. EPA/OTS Doc.#86-920000351 (NTIS/OTS0534437). 
127 

EcoReference No.: 94995 

Chemical of Concern: FML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

 2. Anonymous (1981). Chenodeoxycholic Acid Animal Teratology and Reproductive Performance Studies - Rat, 

Hamster. Govt.Reports Announcements & Index 98 p. 

EcoReference No.: 95180; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,REP,CEL,PHY; Rejection Code: 

NO COC(MEL). 

 3. Bryant, E. H. and Cowles, J. R. (2000). Differential Responses of Wild and Laboratory Strains of the Housefly 

to PCBs. J.Chem.Ecol. 26: 1001-1011. 

EcoReference No.: 94815 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,CPY,DLD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO 

CONTROL(TARGET-CYR,CPY). 

 4. Chen, H.-T., Neerman, M. F., Parrish, A. R., and Simanek, E. E. (2004). Cytotoxicity, Hemolysis, and Acute In 

Vivo Toxicity of Dendrimers Based on Melamine, Candidate Vehicles for Drug Delivery. 

J.Am.Chem.Soc. 126: 10044-10048. 

EcoReference No.: 94270; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

 5. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1992). Initial Submission: Letter from Ciba-Geigy Corp Submitting Information on a 

Guinea Pig Sensitization Study with Cyromazine. EPA/OTS Doc.#88-920004329 3 p. (NTIS/OTS 

0540677). 

EcoReference No.: 94374 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT(CYR). 

 6. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1992). Initial Submission: Letter Submitting Results from a Previously Submitted Acute 

Toxicity Study in Rats on Technical CGA-72662 (EPA Accession Number 098384). EPA/OTS 

Doc.#88-920001431 3 p. (NTIS/OTS 0536107). 

EcoReference No.: 94373 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO 

CONC,CONTROL(CYR). 

 7. Cohen, J. (1986). Observations on the Effect of Cyromazine on Inhibition of Larval Mosquito Development in 

Diluted Wastewater. J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 2: 367-368. 

EcoReference No.: 94274 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT(CYR). 

 8. Cremonezzi, D. C., Diaz, M. P., Valentich, M. A., and Eynard, A. R. (2004 ). Neoplastic and Preneoplastic 

Lesions Induced by Melamine in Rat Urothelium are Modulated by Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty 

Acids. Food Chem.Toxicol. 42: 1999-2007. 

EcoReference No.: 94264 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR,GRO,BCM,CEL; Rejection 

Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(MEL). 

 9. Dash, A. P. and Ranjit, M. R. (1992). Comparative Efficacy of Aphid Extracts and Some Juvenoids Against the 

Development of Mosquitoes. J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 8: 247-251. 
128 

EcoReference No.: 94262 

Chemical of Concern: MTPN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK(MTPN),NO 

COC(CYR). 

10. Eckberg, T. and McQueen, R. (1999). Control of Boxwood Leafminers with Systemic Insecticides, 1997. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 24: 364 (G54). 

EcoReference No.: 94276 

Chemical of Concern: ABM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO COC(CYR). 

11. Fernandez-Alba, A. R., Guil, M. D. H., Lopez, G. D., and Chisti, Y. (2002). Comparative Evaluation of the 

Effects of Pesticides in Acute Toxicity Luminescence Bioassays. Anal.Chim.Acta 451: 195-202. 

EcoReference No.: 75217 

Chemical of Concern: CBF,FTT,CYR,FMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO 

CONTROL(ALL CHEMS). 

12. Generoso, W. M., Rutledge, J. C., Cain, K. T., Hughes, L. A., and Downing, D. J. (1988). Mutagen-Induced 

Fetal Anomalies and Death Following Treatment of Females Within Hours After Mating. Mutat.Res.

199: 175-181. 

EcoReference No.: 94201; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP,GRO; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

13. Goldberg, B., Rattendi, D., Lloyd, D., Sufrin, J. R., and Bacchi, C. J. (1998). Effects of Intermediates of 

Methionine Metabolism and Nucleoside Analogs on S-Adenosylmethionine Transport by 

Trypanosoma brucei brucei and a Drug-Resistant Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense. 

Biochem.Pharmacol. 56: 95-103. 

EcoReference No.: 94277 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,CEL; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(MEL). 

14. Karras, G., Savvas, D., Patakioutas, G., Pomonis, P., and Albanis, T. (2007). Fate of Cyromazine Applied in 

Nutrient Solution to a Gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii) Crop Grown in a Closed Hydroponic System. 

Crop Prot. 26: 721-728. 

EcoReference No.: 94226 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO 

CONTROL(CYR). 

15. Kuhar, T. P., Hitchner, E. M., and Chapman, A. V. (2006). Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides on Potatoes, 2005. 

Arthropod Manag.Tests 31: E56. 

EcoReference No.: 94196 

Chemical of Concern: OML,TMX,CYR,ACT,IMC,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; 

Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(EFFICACY-CYR,FNV). 

16. Lim, L. O., Scherer, S. J., Shuler, K. D., and Toth, J. P. (1990). Disposition of Cyromazine in Plants Under 

Environmental Conditions. J.Agric.Food Chem. 38: 860-864. 

EcoReference No.: 94272 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO 

CONTROL(CYR). 

17. Mayer, D. F. (1999). Bee Poisoning Hazard, 1995-1998. In: K.N.Saxena (Ed.), Arthropod Management Tests, 
129 

Volume 24, Entomol.Soc.of Am., Lanham, MD 24: 393 . 

EcoReference No.: 79301 

Chemical of Concern: AZD,TDC,OTQ,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO 

CONTROL,ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(TDC). 

18. Miller, R. W., Schmidtmann, E. T., Wauchope, R. D., Clegg, C. M., Herner, A. E., and Weber, H. (1996). Urine 

Delivery of Cyromazine for Suppressing House and Stable Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in Outdoor Dairy 

Calf Hutches. J.Econ.Entomol. 89: 689-694. 

EcoReference No.: 94813 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,ACC; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT(CYR). 

19. Monsanto Co. (1992). Initial Submission: Dermal and Eye Irritation Studies of Iso-Butylated Melamine 

Formaldehyde Resin with Cover Letter Dated 08/13/92. EPA/OTS Doc.#88-920008614 29 p. 

(NTIS/OTS 0555112). 

EcoReference No.: 95027; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

20. Monsanto Company (1992). Initial Submission: Toxicity Study of Iso-Butylated Melamine Formaldehyde 

Resin Solution with Cover Letter Dated 08/13/92. 14 p. (EPA/OTS Doc.#88-920008613 

(NTIS/OTS0555111)). 

EcoReference No.: 95294; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,BEH,GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: NO 

COC(MEL). 

21. Morita, M., Hatakoshi, M., and Tojo, S. (1988). Hormonal Control of Cuticular Melanization in the Common 

Cutworm, Spodoptera litura. J.Insect Physiol. 34: 751-758. 

EcoReference No.: 94284 

Chemical of Concern: MTPN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO 

COC(MEL),NO ENDPOINT(TARGET-MTPN). 

22. Nelson, F. R. S., Edmond, M., and Mohamed, A. K. (1988). Effects of Selected Insect Growth Regulators and 

Pesticides on Dugesia dorotocephala and Dugesia tigrina (Tricladida: Turbellaria). J.Am.Mosq.Control 

Assoc. 4: 184-186. 

EcoReference No.: 13051 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: A; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CYR,MEL). 

23. Nelson, F. R. S., Gray, J., and Aikhionbare, F. (1994). Tolerance of the Planarian Dugesia tigrina (Tricladida: 

Turbellaria) to Pesticides and Insect Growth Regulators in a Small-Scale Field Study. 

J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 10: 104-105 . 

EcoReference No.: 16457 

Chemical of Concern: RSM,CYR,TMP,MTPN,MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,REP; 

Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MTPN),NO ENDPOINT(RSM,CYR,MEL,TMP). 

24. Rengel, D. and Pisano, A. (1994). Teratogenic Effects and Cannibalism Caused by Melamine on Bufo arenarum 

Larvae. Biocell 18: 13-19. 

EcoReference No.: 94185 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,CEL; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT(MEL). 
130 

25. Sancho, J. V., Ibanez, M., Grimalt, S., Pozo, O. J., and Hernandez, F. (2005 ). Residue Determination of 

Cyromazine and Its Metabolite Melamine in Chard Samples by Ion-Pair Liquid Chromatography 

Coupled to Electrospray Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Anal.Chim.Acta 530: 237-243. 

EcoReference No.: 94380 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO 

ENDPOINT(CYR,MEL). 

26. Schramm, K. W., Behechti, A., Beck, B., and Kettrup, A. (1998). Influence of an Aquatic Humic Acid on the 

Bioconcentration of Selected Compounds in Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 41: 73-76. 

EcoReference No.: 19645 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: A; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CYR,MEL). 

27. Sewell, G. H. and Alyokhin, A. (2005). Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato, 2004. Arthropod 

Manag.Tests 30: E67. 

EcoReference No.: 94381 

Chemical of Concern: IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection Code: NO COC(CYR). 

28. Simon, G. S., Tardiff, R. G., and Borzelleca, J. F. (1979). Failure of Hexachlorobenzene to Induce Dominant 

Lethal Mutations in the Rat. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 47: 415-419. 

EcoReference No.: 94285 

Chemical of Concern: CBZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

29. Thake, D. C., Metcalf, D., Gram, T., Guarino, A. M., and Davis, R. D. (1977). Vasotoxicity Study of 

Pentamethylmelamine (Nsc-118742). Gov.Rep.Announc.Index 13 p. (NTIS/PB84-169374). 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: NO COC (MEL). 

30. Tye, C.-K., Kasinathan, G., Barrett, M. P., Brun, R., Doyle, V. E., Fairlamb, A. H., Weaver, R., and Gilbert, I. 

H. (1998). An Approach to Use an Unusual Adenosine Transporter to Selectively Deliver Polyamine 

Analogues to Trypanosomes. Bioorg.Med.Chem.Lett. 8: 811-816. 

EcoReference No.: 94202; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

31. Velsicol Chemical Corp. (2000). Letter from Velsicol Chemical Corporation to USEPA Submitting Enclosed 

Information on Bis(1,3-Dichloro-2-Propyl)-3-Chloro-2,2-Dibromomethyl-1-Propyl Phosphate with 

Attachments. EPA/OTS Doc.#88-7800107 (NTIS/OTS0200498). 

EcoReference No.: 95299; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP; Rejection Code: NO COC(MEL). 

32. Walker, J. T., Oetting, R. D., Johnston-Clark, M., and Melin, J. B. (1997). Evaluation of Newer Chemicals for 

Control of Foliar Nematode on Begonia. J.Environ.Hortic. 15: 16-18. 

EcoReference No.: 79024 

Chemical of Concern: IMC,FYC,DFZ,CYR,BFT,AZD,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; 

Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(IML,FYC,DFZ,CYR,BFT,AZD),OK(OML). 

33. Webb, D. R. and Eckenrode, C. J. (1991). Seed Maggot Control, 1990. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 55-56 (6E). 

EcoReference No.: 76611 

Chemical of Concern: Captan,CPY,CYP,CYR,IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection 

Code: NO ENDPOINT(Captan,CPY,CYP,CYR,IZP). 
131 

34. Yasuhara, K., Shimo, T., Mitsumori, K., Onodera, H., Kitaura, K., and Takahashi, M. (1997). Lack of 

Carcinogenicity of Cyanoguanidine in F344 Rats. Food Chem.Toxicol. 35: 475-480. 

EcoReference No.: 94263; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY,CEL; Rejection Code: NO 

COC(MEL). 

35. Yildrim, E. and Hoy, C. W. (2003). Interaction Between Cyromazine and the Entomopathogenic Nematode 

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar "GPS11" for Control of Onion Maggot, Delia antiqua (Meigen). 

Crop Prot. 22: 923-927. 

EcoReference No.: 81658 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONC(CYR). 

36. Zendzian, R. P. (2003). Pesticide Residue on/in the Washed Skin and Its Potential Contribution to Dermal 

Toxicity. J.Appl.Toxicol. 23: 121-136. 

EcoReference No.: 94210 

Chemical of Concern: 

VCZ,MTL,CYR,TVP,MLT,MCPA,MTAS,Maneb,EFX,ATZ,AZ,CCA,DDP,DS,EPTC; Habitat: T; 

Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO 

CONTROL(MTL,CYR,MLT,MTAS,Maneb,EFX,ATZ,AZ,DS). 

Cyromazine Refresh 

Papers that Were Accepted 

Accepted for EcoTox and OPP

Ahmed, M. T., Ahmed, Y. M., and Mostafa, A. M. A. (1992). Feeding Cyromazine to Luhmann Hens: Residues in 

Tissues and Effects on Some Biochemical Constituents. Nahrung 36: 84-86. 

EcoReference No.: 96075 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Beitia, F., Garrido, A., and Castaner, M. (1991). Mortality Produced by Various Pesticides Applied to Eggs of 

Diglyphus isaea (Walker) (Hym. :Eulophidae) in Laboratory Tests. Tests Agrochem. Cultiv. 12: 16-17. 

EcoReference No.: 103776 

Chemical of Concern: ACP,ACYP,BPZ,CYR,DMT,ES,FBOX,FNT,FYC,HTX,MOM,PIM; Habitat: T; 

Effect Codes: MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(ACP,CYR,DMT,ES,FBOX,FNT,FYC,HTX,MOM,PIM), NO EFED CHEM (ACYP,BPZ). 

Brake, J., Berry, W. D., Peebles, E. D., Ort, J. F., and Campbell, W. R. (1985). Effect of Feeding CGA-72662 

(Larvadex) During Growth on Body Weight, Feed Consumption, Livability, Production, and Egg Quality 

of Single Comb White Leghorn Layers. Poult. Sci. 64: 247-252. 

EcoReference No.: 96667 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,BEH,GRO,MOR,REP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR). 

Brake, J., Ort, J. F., Wages, D. P., and Campbell, W. R. (1989). Effects of CGA-72662 (Larvadex) in Turkeys 

During Rearing and Reproduction. Poult. Sci. 68: 731-738 . 

EcoReference No.: 97534 
132 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,MOR,REP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR). 

Cantelo, W. W. (1992). Effect of Insecticide Treatment of Compost and Casing on Mushroom Yield. J. Entomol. 

Sci. 27: 158-163. 

EcoReference No.: 97536 

Chemical of Concern: BDC,CYR,PYX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (BDC,CYR,PYX), NO EFED CHEM (BDC). 

Carvalho, G. A., Reis, P. R., Rocha, L. C. D., Moraes, J. C., Fuini, L. C., and Ecole, C. C. (2003). Side-Effects of 

Insecticides Used in Tomato Fields on Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae). Acta 

Sci. Agron. 25: 275-279. 

EcoReference No.: 82682 

Chemical of Concern: ABM,CYR,IMC,LUF,MFZ,PIM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Code: LITE 

EVAL CODED (ABM,CYR,IMC,MFZ,PIM), NO EFED CHEM (LUF). 

Choi, L., Kwak, M. Y., Kwak, E. H., Kim, D. H., Han, E. Y., Roh, T., Bae, J. Y., Ahn, I. Y., Jung, J. Y., Kwon, M. 

J., Jang, D. E., Lim, S. K., Kwack, S. J., Han, S. Y., Kang, T. S., Kim, S. H., Kim, H. S., and Lee, B. M. 

(2010). Comparative Nephrotoxicity Induced by Melamine, Cyanuric Acid, or a Mixture of Both 

Chemicals in Either Sprague-Dawley Rats or Renal Cell Lines. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 73: 

1407-1419. 

EcoReference No.: 152923 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,GRO,PHY; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (ATZ,MEL). 

Darriet, F., Zaim, M., and Corbel, V. (2008). Laboratory Evaluation of Cyromazine Against Insecticide-Susceptible 

and -Resistant Mosquito Larvae. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 24: 123-126. 

EcoReference No.: 152935 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Fernandez-Alba, A. R., Guil, L. H., Lopez, G. D., and Chisti, Y. (2001). Toxicity of Pesticides in Wastewater: A 

Comparative Assessment of Rapid Bioassays. Anal. Chim. Acta 426: 289-301. 

EcoReference No.: 74540 

Chemical of Concern: CBF,CBL,CYR,DDT,DZ,FMP,FTT,MLN,PPM,PQT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: 

BEH,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CBF,CYR,FMP,FTT,PPM), NO EFED CHEM (DDT), NO 

REVIEW (CBL,DZ,MLN,PQT). 

Furlong, M. J. and Groden, E. (2001). Evaluation of Synergistic Interactions Between the Colorado Potato Beetle 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Pathogen Beauveria bassiana and the Insecticides, Imidacloprid, and 

Cyromazine. J. Econ. Entomol. 94: 344-356. 

EcoReference No.: 100704 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR,IMC). 

Gao, C. Q., Wu, S. G., Yue, H. Y., Ji, F., Zhang, H. J., Liu, Q. S., Fan, Z. Y., Liu, F. Z., and Qi, G. H. (2010). 

Toxicity of Dietary Melamine to Laying Ducks: Biochemical and Histopathological Changes and Residue 

in Eggs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58: 5199-5205. 

EcoReference No.: 152936 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM,BEH,CEL,GRO,PHY,REP; Code: 
133 

LITE EVAL CODED (MEL). 

Hoepting, C. A., Scott-Dupree, C. D., Harris, C. R., Ritcey, G., and McDonald, M. R. (2000). Evaluation of 

Insecticide and Fungicide Combinations for the Control of Onion Maggot (Delia antiqua) and Onion Smut 

(Urocystis cepulae) in Ontario. In: The BCPC Conference - Pests & Diseases 2000, Proceedings, Brighton 

Crop Protection Council, November 13-16, 2000, Brighton, UK 1: 279-284. 

EcoReference No.: 97443 

Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYR,FPN,MZB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CPY,CYR,FPN,MZB). 

Hoy, C. W. and Dunlap, M. J. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1993. Arthropod Manag. Tests 19: 110-111 

(67E). 

EcoReference No.: 97728 

Chemical of Concern: AZ,CYR,CYT,IMC,PSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR), TARGET (AZ,CYT,IMC,PSM). 

Jacob, C. C., Reimschuessel, R., Von Tungeln, L. S., Olson, G. R., Warbritton, A. R., Hattan, D. G., Beland, F. A., 

and Da Costa, G. G. (2011). Dose-Response Assessment of Nephrotoxicity from a 7-Day Combined 

Exposure to Melamine and Cyanuric Acid in F344 Rats. Toxicol. Sci. 119: 391-397. 

EcoReference No.: 152925 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,GRO; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (ATZ,MEL). 

Jingbin, W., Ndong, M., Kai, H., Matsuno, K., and Kayama, F. (2010). Placental Transfer of Melamine and Its 

Effects on Rat Dams and Fetuses. Food Chem. Toxicol. 48: 1791-1795. 

EcoReference No.: 152926 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM,CEL,GRO,REP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (MEL). 

Karimzadeh, R., Hejazi, M. J., Rahimzadeh Khoei, F., and Moghaddam, M. (2007). Laboratory Evaluation of Five 

Chitin Synthesis Inhibitors Against the Colorado Potato Beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. J. Insect Sci. 7: 

1-6. 

EcoReference No.: 152927 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,DFZ,HFR,LUF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR,DFZ,HFR,LUF), NO EFED CHEM (LUF). 

Kobayashi, T., Okada, A., Fujii, Y., Niimi, K., Hamamoto, S., Yasui, T., Tozawa, K., and Kohri, K. (2010). The 

Mechanism of Renal Stone Formation and Renal Failure Induced by Administration of Melamine and 

Cyanuric Acid. Urol. Res. 38: 117-125. 

EcoReference No.: 152928 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL,GRO,PHY; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (MEL), NO MIXTURE (ATZ). 

Kotze, A. C. and Reynolds, S. E. (1991). An Examination of Cuticle Chitin and Protein in Cyromazine-Affected 

Manduca sexta Larvae. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 41: 14-20. 

EcoReference No.: 100668 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,DFZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM,GRO; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR,DFZ), NO IN VITRO (DFZ), TARGET (DFZ). 
134 

Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and McShane, N. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1993. Insectic. 

Acaric. Tests 19: 112-(70E). 

EcoReference No.: 97444 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,IMC,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(CYR,IMC,OML). 

Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Rouse, R. (1993). Colorado Potato Beetle Control on Potatoes, 1992. Insectic. Acaric. 

Tests 18: 145-(76E). 

EcoReference No.: 97475 

Chemical of Concern: CFP,CYP,CYR,CYT,EFV,IMC,MTM,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; 

Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CFP,CYP,CYR,CYT,EFV,IMC,OML), NO MIXTURE (MTM). 

Linduska, J. J., Ross, M., and Stevenson, S. (1992). Potato, Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1991. Insectic. Acaric. 

Tests 17: 131-(71E). 

EcoReference No.: 97476 

Chemical of Concern: CFP,CYR,CYT,IMC,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CFP,CYR,CYT,IMC,OML). 

Nelson, F. R. S., Holloway, D., and Mohamed, A. K. A. (1986). A Laboratory Study of Cyromazine on Aedes 

aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus and Its Activity on Selected Predators of Mosquito Larvae. J. Am. 

Mosq. Control Assoc. 2: 296-299. 

EcoReference No.: 94261 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Olson, D. L. and Oetting, R. D. (1999). Compatibility of Insect Growth Regulators and Beauveria bassiana 

(Balsamo) Vuillemin in Controlling Green Peach Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) on Greenhouse 

Chrysanthemums. J. Entomol. Sci. 34: 286-294. 

EcoReference No.: 97535 

Chemical of Concern: AZD,BPZ,CYR,DFZ,FYC,PYX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE 

EVAL CODED (AZD,CYR,DFZ,FYC,PYX), NO EFED CHEM (BPZ). 

Overman, A. J. and Price, J. F. (1984). Application of Avermectin and Cyromazine via Drip Irrigation and 

Fenamiphos by Soil Incorporation for Control of Insect and Nematode Pests in Chrysanthemums. Annu. 

Meet. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97: 304-306 . 

EcoReference No.: 99385 

Chemical of Concern: AV,CYR,FMP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR), NO EFED CHEM (AV), OK (FMP). 

Palumbo, J. C. and Reyes, F. J. (1998). Evaluation of Experimental Compounds for Leafminer Control on Lettuce, 

1996. Arthropod Manag. Tests 23: 107-108 (48E). 

EcoReference No.: 150684 

Chemical of Concern: ABM,CFP,CYR,EMMB,MOM,NMX,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED (ABM,CFP,CYR,EMMB,MOM,NMX,SS), NO EFED CHEM (SS). 

Parrella, M. P., Christie, G. D., and Robb, K. L. (1983). Compatibility of Insect Growth Regulators and 

Chrysocharis parksi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) for the Control of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: 

Agromyzidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 949-951. 

EcoReference No.: 113400 
135 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,FYC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,POP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(CYR,FYC). 

Patel, J. J., Patel, N. C., Jyani, D. B., and Patel, J. R. (1998). Cyromazine - An Effective Insecticide Against the 

American Serpentine Leafminer (Liriomyza trifolii) Infesting Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Indian 

J. Agric. Sci. 68: 782-783. 

EcoReference No.: 152921 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,DMT,ES,PMZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR,DMT,ES,PMZ), NO EFED CHEM (PMZ). 

Reimschuessel, R., Evans, E., Andersen, W. C., Turnipseed, S. B., Karbiwnyk, C. M., Mayer, T. D., Nochetto, C., 

Rummel, N. G., and Gieseker, C. M. (2010). Residue Depletion of Melamine and Cyanuric Acid in Catfish 

and Rainbow Trout Following Oral Administration. J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 33: 172-182. 

EcoReference No.: 152274 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,CEL; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(ATZ,MEL). 

Reimschuessel, R., Gieseker, C. M., Miller, R. A., Ward, J., Boehmer, J., Rummel, N., Heller, D. N., Nochetto, C., 

De Alwis, G. K., Bataller, N., Andersen, W. C., Turnipseed, S. B., Karbiwnyk, C. M., Satzger, R. D., 

Crowe, J. B., Wilber, N. R., Reinhard, M. K., Roberts, J. F., and Witkowski, M. R. (2008). Evaluation of 

the Renal Effects of Experimental Feeding of Melamine and Cyanuric Acid to Fish and Pigs. Am. J. Vet. 

Res. 69: 1217-1228. 

EcoReference No.: 152942 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: CEL,MOR,PHY; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (ATZ,MEL). 

Robinson, P. W. and Scott, R. R. (1995). The Toxicity of Cyromazine to Chironomus zealandicus (Chironomidae) 

and Deleatidium sp. (Leptophlebiidae). Pestic. Sci. 44: 283-292. 

EcoReference No.: 15768 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(CYR). 

Root, D. S. and Dauterman, W. C. (1996). Cyromazine Toxicity in Different Laboratory Strains of the Tobacco 

Hornworm (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 89: 1074-1079. 

EcoReference No.: 112619 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,PHY; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Ross, D. C. and Brown, T. M. (1982). Inhibition of Larval Growth in Spodoptera frugiperda by Sublethal Dietary 

Concentrations of Insecticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30: 193-196. 

EcoReference No.: 90474 

Chemical of Concern: 

ADC,AMZ,CBL,CPY,CYR,DDT,DFZ,ES,FNV,MCB,MOM,MP,MTPN,NTZ,PFF,PMR,PPB,SPS,TCF,T

DC,TXP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(ADC,AMZ,CBL,CPY,CYR,DFZ,ES,FNV,MCB,MOM,MP,MTPN,NTZ,PFF,PMR,PPB,TCF,TDC), NO 

EFED CHEM (DDT,SPS,TXP). 

Saleh, M. S. and Wright, R. E. (1989). Effects of the IGR Cyromazine and the Pathogen Bacillus thuringiensis var. 

Israelensis on the Mosquito Aedes epacticus. J. Appl. Entomol. 108: 381-385. 

EcoReference No.: 104036 
136 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Samsoe-Petersen, L. (1993). Effects of 45 Insecticides, Acaricides and Molluscicides on the Rove Beetle Aleochara 

bilineata (Col.: Staphylinidae) in the Laboratory. Entomophaga 38: 371-382. 

EcoReference No.: 63489 

Chemical of Concern: 

ACP,AMZ,AZ,BPZ,CBL,CPY,CTZ,CYF,CYP,CYR,DFZ,DM,DMT,DZ,FNT,FPP,FVL,FYC,HTX,KSP,L

CYT,MAL,MCB,MTM,MVP,OML,OTQ,PIM,PMR,PPHD,PSM,THO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: 

MOR,REP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CPY,CYR,HTX,MAL,MTM,PMR), NO EFED CHEM 

(BPZ,OTQ,PPHD,THO), NO PUBL AS (ACP,AMZ,AZ,DM,FNT), TARGET 

(ACP,AMZ,AZ,CBL,CTZ,CYF,CYP,DFZ,DM,DMT,DZ,FNT,FPP,FVL,FYC,KSP,LCYT,MCB,MVP,O

ML,PIM,PSM). 

Sewell, G. H. and Storch, R. H. (1994). Irish Potato, Control of Colorado Potato Beetle, 1993. Insectic. Acaric. 

Tests 19: 122-123 (83E). 

EcoReference No.: 97424 

Chemical of Concern: AZ,CBL,CYR,CYT,EFV,FPN,PSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE 

EVAL CODED (CYR), OK (AZ,CBL,CYT,EFV,FPN,PSM). 

Sirota, J. M. and Grafius, E. (1994). Effects of Cyromazine on Larval Survival, Pupation, and Adult Emergence of 

Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 577-582. 

EcoReference No.: 94811 

Chemical of Concern: CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CYR). 

Sorensen, K. A. and Holloway, C. W. (1994). Colorado Potato Beetle and European Corn Borer Control with 

Insecticides, Pasquotank Co., NC, 1993. Arthropod Manag. Tests 19: 131-133 (94E). 

EcoReference No.: 99780 

Chemical of Concern: AZD,CYR,ES,PMR,PPB,PSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE 

EVAL CODED (AZD,CYR,ES,PMR,PSM), NO MIXTURE (PPB). 

Sorensen, K. A. and Kidd, K. A. (1992). Colorado Potato Beetle Control with Traditional Insecticides, 1991. 

Insectic. Acaric. Tests 17: 140-(85E). 

EcoReference No.: 97486 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,EFV,ES,MTM,OML; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL 

CODED (CYR), OK (EFV,ES,MTM,OML). 

Tarjan, A. C. and Frederick, J. J. (1984). Comparative Nematicidal Efficacies of Several Commercial Products on 

Bermudagrass. Annu. Meet. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97: 300-304. 

EcoReference No.: 99384 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,EP,FMP,IFP,IZF,MLX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,POP; Code: LITE 

EVAL CODED (CYR,EP,FMP,IFP,IZF,MLX), NO EFED CHEM (IFP,IZF). 

Wang, Z., Chen, L., Al-Kasir, R., and Han, B. (2011). In Vitro Toxicity of Melamine Against Tetrahymena 

pyriformis Cells. J. Vet. Sci. 12: 27-34. 

EcoReference No.: 152940 

Chemical of Concern: MEL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,POP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(MEL). 

Wills, L. E., Mullens, B. A., and Mandeville, J. D. (1990). Effects of Pesticides on Filth Fly Predators (Coleoptera: 
137 

Histeridae, Staphylinidae; Acarina: Macrochelidae, Uropodidae) in Caged Layer Poultry Manure. J. Econ. 

Entomol. 83: 451-457. 

EcoReference No.: 94754 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,DMT,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(CYR), NO CONC (PMR), OK (DMT). 

Xie, G., Zheng, X., Qi, X., Cao, Y., Chi, Y., Su, M., Ni, Y., Qiu, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H., Zhao, A., and Jia, W. (2010). 

Metabonomic Evaluation of Melamine-Induced Acute Renal Toxicity in Rats. J. Proteome Res. 9: 125-

133. 

EcoReference No.: 152941 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MEL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM,BEH,CEL,GRO,PHY; Code: 

LITE EVAL CODED (ATZ,MEL). 

Yandoc, C. B., Rosskopf, E. N., Pitelli, R. L. C. M., and Charudattan, R. (2006). Effect of Selected Pesticides on 

Conidial Germination and Mycelial Growth of Dactylaria higginsii, a Potential Bioherbicide for Purple 

Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 20: 255-260. 

EcoReference No.: 88572 

Chemical of Concern: CYR,CuOH,DCF,DU,FSTAL,GYPI,IZP,MFX,OXF,RMLX,SXD,TPM; Habitat: 

T; Effect Codes: POP,REP; Code: LITE EVAL CODED 

(CYR,CuOH,DCF,DU,FSTAL,GYPI,IZP,MFX,OXF,RMLX,SXD,TPM), NO EFED CHEM (TPM). 
APPENDIX I. ECOTOX Open Literature That Passed Initial Screen

Accepted ECOTOX DATA Table – Cyromazine 

The code list for ECOTOX can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdf ChemicalName Genus Species

CommonName

EffectGroup

Effect

Meas

Endpt1

Endpt2

DurPreferred

Dur UnitPreferred

Conc Value1Preferred

Conc Value2Preferred

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp GRO

DVP

EMRG

LOAEL em 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp GRO

DVP

EMRG

NOAEL em 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp GRO

DVP

EMRG

LOAEL em 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp REP REP

SEXR

LOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp REP REP

SEXR

NOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp REP REP

SEXR

NOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp MOR

MOR LFSP

LOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp MOR

MOR LFSP

LOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Cyromazine

Trichogramma pretiosum

Parasiticwasp MOR

MOR LFSP

NOAEL >2 d 0.11 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

LD50 14 d 3066.17 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

LD50 14 d 3713.16 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

LD50 14 d 3197.12 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

LD50 14 d 6803.58 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 11640 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 17460 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 11640 
Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 17460 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

SURV

NOAEL

LOAEL 735 d 2182.5 4365 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

SURV

NOAEL 735 d 8730 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL 644 d 4365 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL 644 d 8730 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat CEL HIS LESI

NOAEL

LOAEL 700 d 2182.5 4365 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat CEL HIS LESI

LOAEL 700 d 2182.5 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

SURV

NOAEL

LOAEL 735 d 2182.5 4365 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

SURV

NOAEL 735 d 8730 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL 700 d 4365 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL 700 d 8730 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse CEL HIS LESI

NOAEL 721 d 4365 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse CEL HIS LESI

NOAEL 721 d 8730 

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellowfevermosquito MOR

MOR

MORT

LOAEL NA lvp 0.25 

Cyromazine Culex

quinquefasciatus

Southernhousemosquito MOR

MOR

MORT

LOAEL NA lvp 0.25 

Cyromazine Daphnia magna Water flea BEH

BEH

MOTL

EC50 2 d 5.08 

Cyromazine Allium cepa

Commononion GRO

GRO

BMAS

NOAEL 75 d 2.5 

Cyromazine Thrips tabaci

Onion

thrip POP

POP

ABND

NOAEL 67 d 2.5 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP

BDEP

NOAEL

LOAEL 280 d 30 300 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL 280 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL

LOAEL 280 d 300 1000 

Cyromazin Gallus domesticus Domestic MOR MO MO NOA LOA 280 d 300 1000 
e Chicken R RT EL EL Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

GAIN

NOAEL 280 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

GAIN

NOAEL 280 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

WGHT

NOAEL

LOAEL 175 d 300 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

WGHT

NOAEL

LOAEL 245 d 30 300 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP

AEG

FERT

NOAEL 252 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

HTCH

NOAEL 273 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

WGHT

NOAEL

LOAEL 35 d 300 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH

FDB FEFF

NOAEL 259 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 300 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 259 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP

HDEP

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 500 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 1000 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP

HDEP

NOAEL

LOAEL 56 d 1000 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP

HDEP

LOAEL 56 d 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

WGHT

NOAEL

LOAEL 56 d 1000 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

GRO

WGHT

LOAEL 56 d 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

HTCH

NOAEL

LOAEL 27 d 1000 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

HTCH

NOAEL 27 d 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH

FDB

FCNS

NOAEL

LOAEL 56 d 500 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH

FDB

FCNS

LOAEL 56 d 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO

MPH

WGHT

NOAEL 77 d 2000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 77 d 2000 
Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP

MOTL

NOAEL 77 d 2000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 77 d 100 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee REP REP

PROG

NOAEL 77 d 100 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 77 d 100 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 77 d

636(591 TO685) 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee REP REP

PROG

LOAEL 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 77 d 1.3(1.0 TO 1.5) 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee REP REP

PROG

LOAEL 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT

LOAEL 77 d 100000 

Cyromazine Bombus terrestris

Buff TailedBumblebee MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 77 d 17(6.6 TO 40) 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 14 d 30000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 14 d 30000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 15000 
Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 18000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 12000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 91 d 12000 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 14 d 30000 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 14 d 30000 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 14 d 18000 

Cyromazine Gambusia affinis

Westernmosquitofish MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 3 d 0.037 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid GRO

GRO

LGTH

LOEC ~30 d 0.05 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 4 d 100 TO 400 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 4 d 1000 TO 10000 

Cyromazine

Deleatidium sp. Mayfly MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d 0.1 

Cyromazine

Deleatidium sp. Mayfly MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 2 d 300 TO 400 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid GRO

GRO

LGTH

NOEC ~30 d 0.01 TO 0.011 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid GRO

DVP

EMRG

MATC 120 d 0.0175 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid GRO

GRO

LGTH

MATC ~30 d 0.03 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 10 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 ~30 d 0.064 

Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 1 
Cyromazine

Chironomus zealandicus

Chironomid MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 4 d 10000 

Cyromazine Lucilia cuprina

Ceaser'sgreenbottle fly MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 2 d 0.8 

Cyromazine Lucilia cuprina

Ceaser'sgreenbottle fly MOR

MOR

MORT LC50 2 d 0.8 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL

LOAEL 730 d 2250 4500 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 730 d 9000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat CEL HIS

IFLM

LOAEL 730 d 9000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat CEL HIS LESI

NOAEL

LOAEL 730 d 2250 4500 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat PHY INJ

MTMR

NOAEL

LOAEL 730 d 2250 4500 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat PHY INJ

MTMR

NOAEL 730 d 9000 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL

LOAEL 730 d 2250 4500 

Melamine Mus musculus

Housemouse MOR

MOR

MORT

NOAEL 730 d 4500 

Melamine

Reithrodontomys humulis

Eastern

harvestmouse PHY INJ

ADNM

NOAEL 730 d 4500 

Melamine

Reithrodontomys humulis

Eastern

harvestmouse PHY INJ

ADNM

NOAEL 730 d 4500 

Cyromazine Colpoda aspera Protozoa PHY ITX

GITX

EC10 1 d 2.7312 

Cyromazine Colpoda aspera Protozoa PHY ITX

GITX

EC50 1 d 6.8458 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

Serpentineleafminer POP

POP

ABND

LOAEL na em 6 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

Serpentineleafminer POP

POP

ABND

LOAEL na em 6 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat GRO

GRO

WGHT

LOAEL

NOAEL 28 d 1.2935 0.995

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat BEH

FDB

WCON

LOAEL 2 d 0.199

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat CEL HIS

HYPL

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 0.995 1.2935
Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat BCM

BCM

NACO

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 0.398 0.6965 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat PHY

PHY

VOLU

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 1.592 1.8905 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus

Norwayrat PHY INJ GINJ

NOAEL

LOAEL 28 d 0.398 0.6965 

ChemicalName Genus Species

CommonName

EffectGroup

Effect Meas

Endpt1

Endpt2

DurPreferred Mean

Dur UnitPreferred

Conc #1PurityAdjustedinPreferred Unit

Mean

Conc #2

PurityAdjustedinPreferred Unit

Mean

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito MOR MOR

MORT NOEL lva 1.5 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito MOR MOR

MORT NOEL lva 1.5 

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito MOR MOR

MORT LC50 lvp 0.45 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito MOR MOR

MORT LC50 lvp 0.84 

Cyromazine Gambusia affinis

WesternMosquitofish MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 5 d 1 

Cyromazine Macromia magnifica

Western RiverCruiser MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 1 

Cyromazine Argia fumipennis

VariableDancer MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 1 

Cyromazine Dugesia dorotocephala

Turbellarian,Flatworm MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 1 

Cyromazine Spodoptera frugiperda

FallArmyworm GRO GRO

WGHT LOEL 12 d 50 

Cyromazine Spodoptera frugiperda

FallArmyworm GRO GRO

WGHT LOEL 6 d 50 

Cyromazine Daphnia magna Water Flea BEH BEH MOTL EC50 1 d 23.59 Cyromazine Delia antiqua Onion Maggot POP POP ABND LOAEL 69 d 50Cyromazine Urocystis cepulae Onion Smut POP POP ABND

NOAEL 141 d 50

Cyromazine Allium cepa

CommonOnion POP POP BMAS

NOAEL 141 d 50

Cyromazine Diglyphus isaea

ParasitoidWasp MOR MOR

MORT

NOAEL ht 0.011
Cyromazine Aleochara bilineata Rove Beetle MOR MOR HTCH

NOAEL 15 d 0.0503 

Cyromazine Aleochara bilineata Rove Beetle REP REP PROG

NOAEL 5 d 0.0503 

Cyromazine Aleochara bilineata Rove Beetle MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 5 d 0.0503 

Cyromazine Beauveria bassiana Fungus POP POP ABND NOEL 1 d 110 Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 13 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 41 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Ostrinia nubilalis

European CornBorer POP POP ABND NOEL 41 d 0.16 

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOEL 41 d 0.16 Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 13 d 0.33 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 0.66 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 13 d 0.33 
Cyromazine Ostrinia nubilalis

European CornBorer POP POP ABND NOEL LOEL 13 d 0.33 0.66 

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOEL 13 d 0.66 Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 13 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 6 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 13 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 13 d 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL 41 d 

Cyromazine Ostrinia nubilalis

European CornBorer POP POP ABND LOEL 41 d 

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP ABND NOEL 41 d Cyromazine Chironomus zealandicus Chironomid MOR MOR

MORT LC50 4 d 10000 

Cyromazine Chironomus zealandicus Chironomid MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 1 

Cyromazine Chironomus zealandicus Chironomid MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 4 d 100 

Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG NOEL 13.1 d 110 Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG NOEL 13.1 d 110 Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG LOEL 13.7 d 110 Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG LOEL 13.7 d 110 Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG LOEL 14 d 110 Cyromazine Trichogramma pretiosum Parasitic Wasp REP REP PROG LOEL 14 d 110 Cyromazine Aedes epactius Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 1 d 0.09 
Cyromazine Aedes epactius Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 1 d 0.17 

Cyromazine Aedes epactius Mosquito REP REP NFOL NOEC 2 d 0.17 Cyromazine Aedes epactius Mosquito MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 1 d 0.03 

Melamine Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout ACC ACC RSDE LOAEL 1 d 20.6Melamine Ictalurus punctatus

ChannelCatfish ACC ACC RSDE LOAEL 1 d 21.9

Cyromazine Agaricus bisporus

ChampignonMushroom POP POP BMAS

NOAEL hv 1.95 

Cyromazine Agaricus bisporus

ChampignonMushroom GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL hv 1.95 

Cyromazine Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted

Spider Mite POP POP ABND NOEL hv 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer POP POP ABND LOEL hv 

Cyromazine Belonolaimus longicaudatus

StingNematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 

Cyromazine Meloidogyne incognita

Root‐KnotNematode POP POP ABND LOEL hv 

Cyromazine Hoplolaimus galeatus Nematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv Cyromazine

Paratrichodorus christiei

Stubby RootNematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 

Cyromazine

Chrysanthemum X morifolium Florist's Daisy GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL hv 

Cyromazine Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted

Spider Mite POP POP ABND NOEL hv 0.14 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer POP POP ABND LOEL hv 0.14 

Cyromazine Belonolaimus longicaudatus

StingNematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 0.14 

Cyromazine Meloidogyne incognita

Root‐KnotNematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 0.14 

Cyromazine Hoplolaimus galeatus Nematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 0.14 Cyromazine

Paratrichodorus christiei

Stubby RootNematode POP POP ABND NOEL hv 0.14 

Cyromazine

Chrysanthemum X morifolium Florist's Daisy GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL hv 0.12488 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer GRO DVP PUPA LOEL lvp 3000 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer POP POP ABND LOEL lva 3000 
Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 3 d

Melamine Tetrahymena pyriformis Ciliate POP POP ABND

NOAEL LOAEL

1.08333

3 d 50 250 

Melamine Tetrahymena pyriformis Ciliate POP POP GENT IC50

2.16666

7 d 820 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL LOAEL 21 d 250 500 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH FDB FCNS LOAEL 7 d 25 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL LOAEL 28 d 25 250 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR MOR SURV

NOAEL 224 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BEH FDB FCNS

NOAEL LOAEL 112 d 250 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP AEG

WGHT

NOAEL 224 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken BCM BCM SGRV

NOAEL 224 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken GRO MPH

WGHT

NOAEL 224 d 1000 

Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken REP REP HHEP

NOAEL 224 d 1000 

Melamine Oreochromis sp. Blue Tilapia MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 10 d

Melamine Ictalurus punctatus

ChannelCatfish MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 10 d

Melamine Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 10 d

Melamine Salmo salar

AtlanticSalmon MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 10 d

Melamine Sus scrofa Pig MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 1 d 400 

Cyromazine Liriomyza sativae

VegetableLeafminer POP POP ABND LOAEL d 0.17

Cyromazine Belonolaimus longicaudatus

StingNematode POP POP ABND

NOAEL 60 d 6.7 

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer POP POP ABND LOAEL d 0.17

Cyromazine Criconemoides sp.

RingNematode POP POP ABND

NOAEL 60 d 6.7 

Cyromazine

Helicotylenchus dishystera

Steiner'S SpiralNematode POP POP ABND LOAEL 60 d 6.7 

Cyromazine NR Hymenoptera Bee Order POP POP ABND LOAEL d 0.17
Cyromazine

Paratrichodorus christiei

Stubby RootNematode POP POP ABND

NOAEL 60 d 6.7 

Cyromazine NR Nemata

NematodePhylum POP POP ABND

NOAEL 60 d 6.7 

Cyromazine Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass POP POP BMAS

NOAEL 60 d 5.9764 

Cyromazine Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass PHY PHY TNST

NOAEL 180 d 5.9764 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL LOAEL 112 d 1000 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL LOAEL 35 d 1000 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey BEH FDB FCNS LOAEL 112 d Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey MOR MOR

MORT

NOAEL 280 d 2000 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey MOR MOR

MORT

NOAEL 280 d 2000 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey REP AEG FERT

NOAEL LOAEL 245 d 1000 2000 

Cyromazine Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey REP REP PROG

NOAEL 266 d 2000 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL 15 d 600

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT

NOAEL 15 d 600

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM URIC

NOAEL LOAEL 15 d 100 300

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT LC90 3 d 628 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT LC50 3 d 69.6 

Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM GLUC LOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM GLUC LOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM GLUC NOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM LIPD NOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM LIPD NOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM LIPD NOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM PRCO LOEL 7 d 0.15 
Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM PRCO LOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM BCM PRCO NOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ ALPH LOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ ALPH LOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ ALPH LOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOTR LOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOTR LOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOTR LOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GPTR NOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GPTR LOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GPTR NOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOPG NOEL 7 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOPG NOEL 14 d 0.15 Cyromazine Gallus sp. Chicken BCM ENZ GOPG NOEL 21 d 0.15 Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 14 d

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 28 d

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND NOEL LOEL 5 d 0.125 0.25

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 11 d 0.125

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 21 d 0.125

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOEL 77 d 0.5Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 8 d 0.125

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOEL 8 d

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.17 
Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.39 

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.093 

Cyromazine Aedes aegypti

Yellow FeverMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.26 

Cyromazine Anopheles gambiae Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.031 

Cyromazine Anopheles gambiae Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.35 

Cyromazine Anopheles gambiae Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.073 

Cyromazine Anopheles gambiae Mosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.42 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.033 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.14 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.053 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.075 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC50 em 0.028 

Cyromazine Culex quinquefasciatus

SouthernHouseMosquito GRO DVP

EMRG IC90 em 0.12 

Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck REP AEG

WGHT NOEL 21 d 99.5 

Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck REP REP PROG NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BEH FDB FCNS NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck PHY PHY FDCV NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM BCM UREN NOEL LOEL 21 d 24.875 49.75 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM ENZ GPTR NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck GRO MPH SMIX NOEL LOEL 21 d 49.75 99.5 
Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 21 d 4.975 24.875 Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL 14 d 24

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT

NOAEL 14 d 24

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM CRCO

NOAEL 14 d 240

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat PHY PHY EXCR

NOAEL 14 d 240

Cyromazine Liriomyza trifolii

SerpentineLeafminer POP POP ABND LOEL 3 d 75 

Cyromazine Helicoverpa armigera

Old WorldBollworm POP POP ABND LOEL hv 75 

Cyromazine Bemisia tabaci

SweetpotatoWhitefly POP POP ABND NOEL hv 225 

Cyromazine Solanum lycopersicum Tomato POP POP BMAS NOEL hv 0.20025 Cyromazine Dactylaria higginsii Fungus REP REP

GERM NOEL

1.04166

7 d 1990 

Cyromazine Dactylaria higginsii Fungus POP POP

DMTR LOEL 28 d 1990 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL 8 d 396

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat REP REP PROG NOEL 8 d 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL 8 d 396

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT NOEL 8 d 396

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 8 d 39.6 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 8 d 39.6 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM ENZ GOTR NOEL 8 d 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM ENZ GPTR NOEL 8 d 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM ENZ GGTR NOEL 8 d 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM CREA NOEL LOEL 8 d 39.6 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM UREN NOEL LOEL 8 d 39.6 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM URIC NOEL LOEL 8 d 39.6 396
Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat CEL HIS GHIS NOEL 8 d 396Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT NOEL 7 d 122.463 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT NOEL 7 d 122.463 

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM UREN NOEL 7 d 122.463 Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM UREN NOEL 7 d 122.463 Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM CREA NOEL 7 d 122.463 Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM CREA NOEL 7 d 122.463 Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL 4 d 315

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL 6 d 315

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO GRO

WGHT NOEL 7 d 315

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT NOEL 7 d 315

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH

WGHT NOEL 7 d 315

Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH SMIX NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat GRO MPH SMIX NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM TLBL NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM UREN NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat BCM BCM CREA NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat CEL CEL TWBC NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat CEL CEL LMPH NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat CEL CEL NEUT NOEL 7 d 315Melamine Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐ZERO 7 d 122.463 

Cyromazine Agaricus bisporus

ChampignonMushroom POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv 3 

Cyromazine Agaricus bisporus

ChampignonMushroom GRO GRO

WGHT

NOAEL hv 9 
Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM BCM CREA NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM BCM URIC NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM ENZ GOTR NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM ENZ ALPH NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck BCM ENZ GGTP NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck GRO MPH SMIX NOEL 21 d 99.5 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 1 d 4.975 24.875 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 2 d 4.975 24.875 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 3 d 4.975 24.875 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 7 d 4.975 24.875 Melamine Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck ACC ACC RSDE NOEL LOEL 14 d 4.975 24.875 Cyromazine Gallus domesticus

DomesticChicken MOR MOR SURV

NOAEL 28 d 10000 

Cyromazine NR Histeridae

Hister BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Histeridae

Hister BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Histeridae

Hister BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Histeridae

Hister BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Staphylinidae

Rove BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Staphylinidae

Rove BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Staphylinidae

Rove BeetleFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine NR Staphylinidae

Rove BeetleFamily POP POP ABND LOAEL d 0.1 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT LC50 10 d 92.25 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT LC20 10 d 12.75 

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOEL hv 0.125 
Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOEL hv 0.25 Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle GRO DVP MOLT LOAEL d 12.75 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle BEH FDB FCNS LOAEL 1 d 12.75 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL 1 d 12.75 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL 3 d 12.75 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle BEH FDB FCNS LOAEL 3 d 12.75 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth BCM BCM CHTN

NOAEL

0.27083

3 d 47 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth BCM BCM

WTCO LOAEL 1 d 47 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth BCM BCM PRCO LOAEL 1 d 47 Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth BCM BCM PRCO

NOAEL 1 d 47 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐LETH 6 d 750 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR

MORT

NR‐LETH 10 d 750 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth BCM BCM PRCO

NOAEL

0.54166

7 d 47 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle MOR MOR SURV

NOAEL 25 d 2250 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle GRO DVP

EMRG LOAEL em 750 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 20 d 0.14 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d 0.125

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS

NOAEL hv 0.25

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND

NOAEL 25 d 0.42 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND

NOAEL 25 d 0.42 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 6 d 0.14 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL

0.16666

7 d 100 

Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL

0.16666

7 d 100 
Cyromazine Manduca sexta Hawk Moth GRO GRO

WGHT LOAEL

0.16666

7 d 100 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 13 d 0.14 

Cyromazine Macrocheles

muscaedomesticae Bee mite POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Macrocheles

muscaedomesticae Bee mite POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Fuscuropoda vegetans Mite POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Fuscuropoda vegetans Mite POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Neobisiidae

Pseudoscorpion Family POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Neobisiidae

Pseudoscorpion Family POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Anthocoridae

Minute PirateBug Family POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Anthocoridae

Minute PirateBug Family POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND

NOAEL 25 d 0.42 

Cyromazine NR Fanniidae NR POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Fanniidae NR POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND

NOAEL 25 d 0.42 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND

NOAEL LOAEL 25 d 0.14 0.27 

Cyromazine NR Muscidae

Tsetse, Stable,

Horn FlyFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine NR Muscidae

Tsetse, Stable,

Horn FlyFamily POP POP ABND

NOAEL d 0.1

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS

NOAEL 25 d 0.37464 

Cyromazine Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS

NOAEL 25 d 0.37464 

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 4 d 0.25

Cyromazine Leptinotarsa decemlineata

ColoradoPotato Beetle POP POP ABND LOAEL 4 d 0.25