# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D

. C

., 2 0 46 0

OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY A N D

POLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N



# PC Code: 121301

DP Barcodes: 387946

Date: January 24, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 

# Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of

Cyromazine.

TO: 

# Kelly Ba llard

, Chemical Review Manager

Thomas Mo riart y, Team Leader

Ne il Anderson, BranchChief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch I

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

THROUGH: 

# Dana Spatz, Branch

# C~~~ Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Asse ss ment Proces Leade

Melissa Panger, Ph.D

. , Senior

. Biologist \

_**~ 7-1V.** **':.#-~__;...n** 

# James Hetr ick

, Ph.D., Senior**Advise~** 

# f.,(·

Environmenta l Risk Branch III

Enviro nmental 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 pre li minary assessment presents the conclus ions 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 in vertebrates. Based on the best

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

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

cyromazine (due to drift), based on app lication 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 diffe rence between toxicity

relative endpoints and estimated en vironmental concentrations is la rge, the likelihood of risk to

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

midges as the estimated environmental concentrati ons did exceed the report ed toxicity value for

midges. The RQs using data from the other availabl e aquatic invertebrate t oxicity 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 di rect effects to aquatic invertebrates in the

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

order; effects to aquatic invert ebrates in other Orders not lis ted is also unknown. Therefore,

during the larval stage, as cyromazine targets in vertebrates in the Dipter a order, in which midges

belong to, as well as to beetles (C oleoptera 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, th e potential for risk to aquatic vascular plants is

considered to be low.

The table below summarizes the uses assessed and th e direct risk conclusi ons to listed species.3Listed Plant TaxonPotential Direct EffectsTerrestrial and semiaquatic plants –monocots and dicotsUncertainPhytotoxicity reported (nature of plant injury unknown). Runoff EECs to semi-aquatic areas, butnot to dry areas, greater thanreported toxicity levels, so potential effects may be spatiallylimited. For spray drift exposure, potential direct effects tomonocots(via ground and aerial application) and for ground application todicots the likelihood of effects is anticipated to be low; there maybe potential direct effects to dicots from aerial application ina spatially limited area from aerial application to potatoes (EECs≥toxicity values for≤72 feet off-field)Aquatic plantsNo effectListed Animal TaxonPotential Direct EffectsAcuteNotesChronicNotesTerrestrial invertebrates Yes1Potential direct effects from onion seeduse.Uncertain for foliar application to allcrops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits,potatoes) and ornamentals, as screeninglevel RQ values would not exceed theacute LOC for birds (also surrogate forreptiles and terrestrial amphibians) andmammals if the application scenario weremodified by generallyreducing thesingle maximum rate by up to 30%,and/or increasing the minimumretreatment interval from 7 to 13 days,and/or reducing the total number ofapplications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3 to2 for potatoes).For foliar applications to crops andornamentals, for reptiles and amphibians,RQs did not exceed LOC (except foranimals consuming herbivorousmammals) using model default dietYes2Potential direct effects from onion seeduse.Uncertain for foliar application to allcrops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits,potatoes) and ornamentals, asscreening-level RQ values would notexceed the chronic LOC for birds (alsosurrogate for reptiles and terrestrialamphibians) and mammals if theapplication scenario were modified bygenerallyreducing the singlemaximum rate by up to 30%, andincreasing the minimum retreatmentinterval from 7 to 13 days and/orreducing the total number ofapplications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3to 2 or 1 for potatoes).Chronic exposure not determined forsoil amendment use.3Based on the estimated water concentrationsMammalsSee footnote1See footnote2BirdsSee footnote1See footnote2ReptilesSee footnote1See footnote2AmphibiansSee footnote1See footnote2Freshwater fishNoeffect NoeffectFreshwaterinvertebratesNo effectNoeffect3Molluscs NoeffectNDEstuarine/marine fish No effectNoeffect4Listed Plant TaxonPotential Direct EffectsEstuarine/marineinvertebratesNo effectassumptions; however reptiles andamphibian diets expected to vary betweenspecies and this conclusion may not applyacross all species. If apply modifiedapplication scenarios above, thenscreening-level RQ values would notexceed the acute LOC.No effect for amending soil withcyromazine-treated manure use.No effect3and toxicity values for midges, there maypotentially be direct effects to sedimentdwelling organisms in the Diptera order suchas midges especially during the larval stages.The RQs for the other available aquaticinvertebrate crustacean data did not exceedthe LOC, so effects may be limited. A speciesin the Coleoptera order (beetles) is anothertargeted pest, and while potential directeffects to aquatic invertebrates in theColeoptera order and other orders notmentioned is unknown, there were effectsreported for larvae in terrestrial Coleopterabeetles. At this time, there are no listedaquatic invertebrates in the Diptera order, butthere are other listed aquatic invertebratesincluding Coleoptera beetles and a dragonfly.Based on the reported geographic areas ofcyromazine use, the potential for directeffects to other listed aquatic invertebrates(beetles and dragonfly), exposure may belimited, but this is uncertain.

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

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

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

uses). The risk to listed terrestrial dicot plan ts 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 eff ects on birds (surrogates for te rrestrial-phase amphibians and

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

(surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and re ptiles), 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 furthe r refinements are conducted. In order to make effects

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

detailed, species-specific eco logical 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 designate d critical habitat.

Examples of such refinements are described below.

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

designed to support effects determinations for individual federally list ed species and their

designated critical habitats (whe re applicable). Scientific in formation obtained from the U.S.

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

reliable sources is being co llated 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 info rmation 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 terrestria l 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 speci es-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 list ed 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: bean s, celery, onions, root crops, leafy vegetables,

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

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

cover dataset (NLCD), crop data la yer (CDL)) may be used to suppor t 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 sc reening-level assessme nt, and a more in-depth

exploration of agr onomic practices.

# 6 In addition, a committee of the National Rese arch Council (NRC) has been tasked with

providing advice on ecological risk assessment tools and scientif ic approaches under ESA and

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

review the use of “best available data;” me thods for evaluating subl ethal, indirect, and

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

ingredients; the development, a pplication, and interpretation of re sults from predictive models;

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

the assessment of individual specie s 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 individu al species data; additional, de tailed usage information, when

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

accurately identify potential area s of effect and to better inform effects and habitat

determinations for listed species and any desi gnated 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 dir ect effects to the species may often be precluded.

If LOCs are still exceeded for birds (surrogate s for terrestrial-phase am phibians and reptiles),

mammals, terrestrial invertebra tes 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 cr itical habitat) may be conduc ted. The extent of possible

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

quality of the available s ub-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 Estimate s 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 cyroma zine’s registered uses

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

This risk assessment incorporates the availabl e 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-triami ne) (PC code 121301) is a systemic

insecticide used on a variety of crops incl uding beans, celery, oni ons, 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. Cyrom azine 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 herb icidal qualities, cyromazine is an insect growth

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

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (B EAD) 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 us e rates reported in California w ith 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 hydr olysis and photolysis, and is persistent in aerobic soil (t 1/2 

# > 100

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

soluble (1.36 x 10 5 

# mg/L at 25oC) and is categorized as ‘mobile.’ These characteristics would

suggest that cyromazine has the potential to leach th rough 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 pract ically 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 minnow s) (NOAEC = 73 mg a.i./L); estuarine-marine

invertebrates (mysid shrimp) (effects at the lowe st 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 e ffects to birds and mammals may exist from

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

amphibians and reptiles, a dverse 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 te rrestrial 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 woul d 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 diffe rence between toxicity

relative endpoints and estimated en vironmental concentrations is la rge, the likelihood of risk to

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

midges as the estimated environmental concentrati ons did exceed the report ed toxicity value for

midges. The RQs using data from the other availabl e aquatic invertebrate t oxicity 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 di rect effects to aquatic invertebrates in the

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

Coleoptera order; effects to a quatic invertebrates in other Or ders 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 a nd aquatic beetles, but th ere 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 base d on the taxa evaluated in th is assessment using the data

available. A summary of the risk conclusions to Federally listed species is presented in Table 1.11Table 1. Listed Species Risks Associatedwith Potential Direct Effects Due tothe Applications of CyromazineListed Plant TaxonPotential Direct EffectsTerrestrial and semiaquatic plants –monocots and dicotsUncertainPhytotoxicity reported (nature of plant injury unknown). Runoff EECs to semi-aquatic areas, butnot to dry areas, greater thanreported toxicity levels, so potential effects may be spatiallylimited. For spray drift exposure, potential direct effects tomonocots(via ground and aerial application) and for ground application todicots the likelihood of effects is anticipated to be low; there maybe potential direct effects to dicots from aerial application ina spatially limited area from aerial application to potatoes (EECs≥toxicity values for≤72 feet off-field)Aquatic plantsNo effectListed Animal TaxonPotential Direct EffectsAcuteNotesChronicNotesTerrestrial invertebrates Yes1Potential direct effects from onion seeduse.Uncertain for foliar application to allcrops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits,potatoes) and ornamentals, as screeninglevel RQ values would not exceed theacute LOC for birds (also surrogate forreptiles and terrestrial amphibians) andmammals if the application scenario weremodified by generallyreducing thesingle maximum rate by up to 30%,and/or increasing the minimumretreatment interval from 7 to 13 days,and/or reducing the total number ofapplications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3 to2 for potatoes).For foliar applications to crops andornamentals, for reptiles and amphibians,RQs did not exceed LOC (except forYes2Potential direct effects from onion seeduse.Uncertain for foliar application to allcrops (i.e., bean, leafy veg., cucurbits,potatoes) and ornamentals, asscreening-level RQ values would notexceed the chronic LOC for birds (alsosurrogate for reptiles and terrestrialamphibians) and mammals if theapplication scenario were modified bygenerallyreducing the singlemaximum rate by up to 30%, andincreasing the minimum retreatmentinterval from 7 to 13 days and/orreducing the total number ofapplications from 6 to 4 or 5 (from 3to 2 or 1 for potatoes).Chronic exposure not determined forsoil amendment use.MammalsSee footnote1See footnote2BirdsSee footnote1See footnote2ReptilesSee footnote1See footnote2AmphibiansSee footnote1See footnote2Freshwater fishNoeffect NoeffectFreshwaterinvertebratesNo effectNoeffect3Molluscs NoeffectND12Listed Plant TaxonPotential Direct EffectsEstuarine/marine fish No effectanimals consuming herbivorousmammals) using model default dietassumptions; however, reptiles andamphibian diets expected to vary betweenspecies, and this conclusion may notapply across all species. If applymodified application scenarios above,then screening-level RQ values would notexceed the acute LOC.No effect for amending soil withcyromazine-treated manure use.No effect3Based on the estimated water concentrationsand toxicity values for midges, there maypotentially be direct effects to sedimentdwelling organisms in the Diptera order suchas midges especially during the larval stages.The RQs for the other available aquaticinvertebrate crustacean data did not exceedthe LOC, so effects may be limited. A speciesin the Coleoptera order (beetles) is anothertargeted pest, and while potential directeffects to aquatic invertebrates in theColeoptera order and other orders notmentioned is unknown, there were effectsreported for larvae in terrestrial Coleopterabeetles. At this time, there are no listedaquatic invertebrates in the Diptera order, butthere are other listed aquatic invertebratesincluding Coleoptera beetles and a dragonfly.Based on the reported geographic areas ofcyromazine use, the potential for directeffects to other listed aquatic invertebrates(beetles and dragonfly), exposure may belimited, but this is uncertain.Estuarine/marineinvertebratesNo effectNo effect3

# 13 II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

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

models used to estimate exposur es to nontarget organisms, and th e tools and methods with which

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

Registration Review: Ecological Risk Asse ssment Problem Formulation March 28, 2007

document, which is part of the Cyromazi ne Registration Review Summary Document 1 

# . All

submitted data and other information for cyromazi ne 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 th e 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 sy stemic insecticide used on a variety of

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

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

growth and development and it prevents th e 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. Cyromazi ne is formulated as a wettable powder, soluble

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

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

application, and up to six times per crop season.

Cyromazine (Flyzine TM 

# (EPA Reg. No. 75066-1); Larvadex ® 

# (EPA Reg. No. 70585-1 and 2);

and Solitude TM 

# 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 poul try 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 surf ace 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 so il amendment, with up to 4 tons

of manure per acre 3 

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

there are crop rotation restrictions for some cr ops. 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 An alysis Division (BEAD) provi ded an analysis of nationallevel usage information using state-level usage da ta 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 a nnually on agricultural cr ops with the highest

usage, in terms of percent crop trea ted, 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 Departme nt of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)



# Figure 2 is a Crop Reporting Di strict (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 in clude 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. Farmla nd acreage was obtained from USDA (2007).

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

survey data are limited to the stat es 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 us e in the region or non-participation in the agricultural

surveys. In addition, across the year s, there may be variations in th e 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./A 1 

# 1 NA ground

100-656,

Armor,

(Syngenta) Mushroom compost 5 mg/kg (Direct

application)

0.05 lb a.i./A 2 

# (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./A 2 

# (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./A 3 

# (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 ra te 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 ‘a s excreted’ per acre or after removing water content (based on

ASAE, 2005) and applying 4 tons of manure/A as dry manure. Al though the label does not specifical ly state that manure can be

used as a soil amendment (in an email correspondence, the registra nt indicated that it could be us ed 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; howeve r 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 ch icken manure at the label rate

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

4 

# Based on EFED’s revised risk assessmen t: D338467, May 16, 2007. U.S.EPA. EFED's review of the Novartis Response to 1)

EFED's Ecological Risk A ssessment (D317886, July 14, 2006), and 2) Subm ission of Updated Labeling (MRIDs 470841-00,-

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

‘as excreted’ with no further manipulation pr ior 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 resul ting concentration of

cyromazine in the amended soil can vary, due to the varying applicati on 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 ‘a s excreted,’ and considering information on

available livestock handling practic es (the calculated cyromazine concentrations in manure for

hogs and cattle use are very similar). The calculati on 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 re present 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 cont ent 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 w ith cyromazine-treated manure is expected to

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

method used. Therefore, there is uncertainty in the application rates chos en 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 a nd drift from direct ap plications 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 manur e is distributed for fer tilizer or for disposal.

1. Assessment Endpoints

Generally, assessment endpoints include surviv al, growth, and reproductive success of the

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

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

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

not induce reproductive or grow th effects (No Observable A dverse Effect Concentration:

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

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

surrogate species and toxi city 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 pr ovide 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 wild life. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by

the USEPA, Office of Research and Developmen t, and the National Health and Environmental

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

obtained in September 2007 and July 2011. For a dditional 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 basi s, and practically non-toxic to birds

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

Cyromazine is practically non-toxic to estuarin e-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 mi nnows) 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 test ed, therefore, the NOAEC is < 0.131 mg a.i./L).

Chronic exposure in freshwater invertebrate s resulted in reduced gr owth (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 nu mber of normal hatchling at 75 mg a.i./kg-diet.

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

a.i./kg-bw).

Table 4. Summary of Cyromazine Toxicity Da ta 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 LC 50 

# >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 EC 50 

# >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 EC 50 

# > 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 IC 50 

# = 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 LD 50 

# = 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 LC 50 

# >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 LD 50 

# = 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 LD 50 

# > 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 cyro mazine exposures in aquatic and te rrestrial environments in this

preliminary assessment, all exposure modeling an d 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 gr eatest potential for off-s ite transport of the

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

concentrations (EEC) are the GEN eric E stimated E nvironmental C oncentration model

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

Exposure Analysis Modeling System (E XAMS 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/pestic ides/science/models_db.htm

. The maximum label application rates were select ed for modeling environmental concentrations

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

species are used to estimate trea tment-related effects on growth, re production 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 an imal manure that was treated with cyromazine

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

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

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

# 22 and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, am phibians, 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 fair ly generic and assumes th at as an insecticide,

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

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

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

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

considered are exposure from soil amendment w ith 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 th e environment. EPA presumes the following risk hypothesis for

this preliminary assessment:

Based on the use patterns only, the uses of cyromazine have th e 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-ta rget aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate

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

and/or growth in terrestrial and aquatic inver tebrate species thr ough direct application,

spray drift and/or runoff.

In order for a chemical to pose an ecologica l 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)

.23Figure 3. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential Effects to Aquatic Organisms from theUses of Cyromazine (Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological risk).StressorSourceReceptorsAttributeChangePesticide applied to use siteSpray driftAquatic animalsInvertebratesVertebratesIndividual organismsReduced survivalReduced growthReduced reproductionFood chainReduction in algae andvascular plantsReduction in preyModification of PCEsrelated to prey availabilityHabitat integrityReduction in primary productivityReduced coverCommunity changeModification of PCEs related tohabitatSurface water/SedimentRunoffAquatic AnimalsInvertebratesVertebratesExposureMediaUptake/gillsor integumentIngestionIngestionAtmospherictransportWet/dry depositionSoilLeaching toGroundwaterUptake/gillsor integumentAquatic PlantsNon-vascularVascularUptake/cell,roots, leavesRiparian plantsterrestrialexposurepathways seeFigure 424Figure 4.Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential Effects to Terrestrial Organisms from the Uses ofCyromazine (Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihoodof contributing toecological risk).

# 25 III. ANALYSIS

A. Use and Exposure Characterization

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

vegetables, cucurbits, potatoes, pepp ers 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 fe ed-through system to manage target insects that

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

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

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

amendments.

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

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

animals as information suggests that seed s are planted about one-half inch deep 4 

# . 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-targ et terrestrial and aquatic an imals. 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 th e seed and available via off-site transport.

The rate of desorption of cyromazine from oni on 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, tw o 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 fo r consumption. In the runoff exposure scenario,

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

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

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

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

If needed, the route of exposur e was further evaluated and disc ussed in the Risk Description

Section (V).

4 

# http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropP rofiles/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 se veral lines of evidence, exposure to manure at

these facilities (manure within th e facilities perimeters) for non-ta rget organisms (terrestrial and

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

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

encounter in the livestock facility.

Based on available information for manure handli ng 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 Operati ons. Appendix B: Animal sector descriptions,

hhtp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/info.cfm). Therefore, if the manure is mana ged 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 spille d feed near or on a manure pile treated with

cyromazine in which terrestrial birds and mamma ls 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 a pproximately 4 tons of

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

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

to terrestrial animals is anticip ated 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 concentrati ons 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 typica lly based on the nutrient re quirements 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 assess ment, a maximum of approximately 4 tons (4.5

tons/acre/year) was used. Ther efore, 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 cy romazine and it is

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

exposure via treated manure at th e livestock facility site.

B. Environmental Fate Characterizatio n and Modeling Input Parameters

Cyromazine is stable to hydr olysis and photolysis, and is persistent in aerobic soil (t 1/2 

# > 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 (t 1⁄2 

# ) 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 f ound to degrade slowly and in chicken manure,

cyromazine had a half-life of 439 days.

Cyromazine is highly water soluble (1.36 x 10 5 

# mg/L at 25oC). The Freundlich adsorption

coefficients (K ads 

# ) for the mineral soils are less than 5 mL/g, and for the organic soil the K ads 

# 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 desc ribed by the Food and Agricultural Organization

(FAO) Standardized Soil Mobility Classification Guidance 5 

# . These characteristics would

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

loamy sands, or to be transporte d in solution in runoff water.

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

relatively low vapor pressure.

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

and has potential to move in soil or be tran sported 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 o 

# C) 5.65 x 10 -14 

# atm-m 3 

# / 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 o 

# C) 1.36 x 10 5 

# mg/L 

# MRID 43061200

Hydrolysis Half-life (t 1/2 

# at pH 7) Stable at pH 5, 7, and 9 MRID 103148

Aquatic Photolysis Half-life (days; t 1/2 

# at

pH 7) Stable in water at pH 7 MRID 103149

Aerobic Soil Metabolism [upper 90 th



# percentile confidence bound on the mean

half-life value (t 1/2 

# ; days)] ~150 1 

# days

150 x 3 = 450 days (EFED

Guidance) MRIDs 157458, 470168-02

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life

[water column; upper 90 th 

# percentile

confidence bound on the mean half-life

value (t 1/2 

# ; days)] No Data

150 2 

# days x 2 = 300 days EFED Input Parameter Guidance

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life

(t 1/2 

# ; days) *PE5 only Stable EFED Input Parameter Guidance

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (t 1/2 

# ;

days) *PE5 only No Data No Data

Average Adsorption Rate Coefficient

(K ads 

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

Average Organic Carbon-Water

Partitioning Coefficient (K

oc 

# ; 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 90 th 

# 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 

# K ads 

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

*The cells shaded above were not used as inputs fo r GENEEC2, but are physical/c hemical 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 th e 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

μ g/L (ppb) 21-day μ g/L (ppb) 60-day

μ g/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 / 131 1 

# 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 chic ken, cattle, hog and horse

manure 2 

# 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 (PE5 3 

# )

Potatoes (Colorado potato

beetle and leafminer)

Scenario: MEpotatoSTD 4



# Application Date: June 1 st 

# 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 represen t potential seeding rates in the field as presen ted in the OPP/BEAD memo. The first value is

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

TREX 1.5). The conservative assumption in th ese two values is that all of the available cyromazine on the seed was available f or

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 conduc ted where leaching was unlikely due to a

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

water, after irrigation was discont inued. Irrigation water was applie d at this study site to mimic

potential water that may move off-site by running off the treat ed 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 μ g/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 gr ound water at the time that the

Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base was pub lished, 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 ar eas 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=ScienceandLa boratories&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 Terre strial Exposure

a) Terrestrial Exposure Modeling- dietary

Terrestrial exposure estimates for avian and mamma lian 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 fo r 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 evaluati on into a potential foliar dissipa tion half-life rate was conducted.

Based on the available informati on, it appears that cyromazine ma y 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 no t readily dissipate during the course of the study

( i.e., ca . 14 or 21 days for tomatoes, cucurbit s; 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 si ngle application of Tr igard 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 condu cted as data were not

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

groups, of which short grass re sults 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 plan t) or those that were transpor ted 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 expos ure. 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 fo r all dietary groups, in an effort to be reasonably

conservative for the grass dietary group, the default foliar dissipati on 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 PA RAMETERS 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 PA RAMETERS 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 LD 50 

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

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

Mammal LD 50 

# 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 LD 50 

# 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 LD 50 

# values (mg/kg-bw): 15 g – 2305; 35 g – 1865; 1000 g – 806.8; LD 50 

# 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 di scussed in the revised risk assessments for manure (DP317886),

the range of application rates eq uivalent of cyromazine residu es remaining in manure modeled

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

LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# concept as a broadcast spray with no incorporat ion. 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 LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# 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 LD 50 

# s/ft 2 

# increases. The LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# is calculated using a toxicity value (adjusted LD 50 

# ) and the

EEC (mg a.i. ft -2 

# ), which was calculated to be 2.81 mg a.i./ft 2 

# for the soil amendment rate of 0.27

lb a.i./A, and was 28.1 mg a.i./ft 2 

# 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 II I.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 cal culated using the adjusted LD 50 

# 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/LD 50 

# method) : Acute RQ = (mg a.i./kg -1 

# day -1 

# )/adjusted LD 50



# Method 2 (analogous to the LD 50 

# ft -2 

# method) : Acute RQ = (mg/kg -1 

# a.i. ft -2 

# )/ (adjusted

LD 50 

# x body weight (kg))

Chronic RQs are calculated us ing 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 applicati on rate is 4.95 lb a.i./100 lb see d. 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 LD 50 

# , LC 50 

# and NOAEC for birds (bobwhite quail and mallard duck) and LD 50 

# 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 Seeds 1



# 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

38.74 Medium 7144 7248

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 ma mmals is a potential route of

exposure. STIR (v. 1.0) was used to calcu late an upper bound estim ate of exposure using

cyromazine’s vapor pressure and molecular weig ht for vapor phase exposure as well as the

maximum application rate and method of applicati on for spray drift. STIR incorporates results

from several toxicity studies including acute or al and inhalation rat t oxicity endpoints [rat ( R.

Norvegicus ) LD 50 

# (oral) and LD 50 

# (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 ) LD 50 

# of

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

exposure alone was determined not to be a poten tial 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 cyrom azine 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 LC 50 

# values

(MRID 00070912) for rainbow trout LC 50 

# >84 mg a.i./L; bluegill sunfish LC 50 

# > 85.8 mg a.i./L

(MRID 00070912); and channel catfish LC 50 

# > 88.3 mg a.i./L (MRID 00070912). No mortality

# 36 or sublethal effects were observe d in the bluegill a nd catfish studies; surfacing, rapid irregular

respiration and irritated behavior were reported at the highest con centration 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 dura tion of the test or at test initiation. In

addition, the reviewer adjusted th e reported values for purity of cy romazine. An acute toxicity

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

life-stage study (MRID 00073085) a nd the resulting 96 hour LC 50 

# 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 an alyzed after the addition of ae ration (measured on Day 0 only).

Given the drop in dissolved oxygen, this LC 50 

# value for the fathead minnow will only be used

qualitatively. Acute toxicity data were not available for estu arine-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 chr onic fish data available for cy romazine). As part of the

registration review process, th is study was re-evaluated. Pr eviously, the NOAEC was reported

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

individual fish as an independe nt replicate. Therefore, leng th 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 wa s the percent of eggs that produ ced 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 aq uatic invertebrates resulted in the following:

freshwater invertebrate ( D. magna ) EC 50 

# value >88.7 mg a.i./L (MRID 00070912) and

estuarine/marine invertebrate (mollusk) [Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica )] EC 50 

# (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 result ed in a NOAEC of 104 mg

a.i./L as no adverse e ffects were observed.

A chronic study was available for cyrom azine 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 reproduc tion (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 concentra tions 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-chr onic toxicity value for Chironomus riparius was reported in the 2008

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

hour LC/EC 50 

# value, under semi-static conditions, wa s 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 li mit 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), a nd 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 IC 50 

# 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 LD 50 

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

cyromazine is characterized as slightly toxic to avian specie s 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 LD 50 

# value of >956 mg a.i./kg-bw (MRID

00108822). There was regurgitation noted at the two highest dos es 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, th ere 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 presente d which precluded the ability to conduct

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

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

Cyromazine is also classified as practically non-toxi c to avian species on a sub-acute dietaryexposure basis, with LC 50 

# values of >5,373 mg a.i./kg-diet reported for northern bobwhite quail

and mallard ducks (MRID 00070912). In the bobwh ite 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 th e lowest concentration te sted and a reduction in

body weight for the two highest te st concentrations. In the malla rd study, there was only one

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

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

(additionally, as body weight was presented as av erage 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, base d 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 availabl e 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 ba sed on a reduction of the number of normal

hatchlings at 300 mg a.i./kg-diet. Effects on egg production and hatchabi lity 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 availa ble for several mammal species: mouse LD 50 

# = 2029 mg/kgbw; rat LD 50 

# = 3,387 mg/kg-bw; and rabbit LD 50 

# = 1,467 mg/kg-bw (MRID 00082837,

00082836 and 00082838, respectively). Based on the acute oral LD 50 

# values cyromazine is

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

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

estimates and as such, is used in the asse ssment. 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 w ith 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 cyromazi ne 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 chro nic 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 LD 50 

# 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 co mpost label (Reg No. 100-656). As the mushroom

compost is anticipated to be an indoor use, exposure to non-target an imals 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 th an what the rats were exposed to in the acute

oral study. Other acute oral toxicity tests were av ailable with various form ulations, but either the

LD 50 

# value was greater than the technical LD 50 

# 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

LD 50 

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

dose. Based on the acute contac t honeybee study, cyromazine is cl assified 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 pr edictive of toxicity to other

honeybee life-stages or other terr estrial invertebrates. Additi onal 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 numb er of fertile eggs/female at 0.8 lb a.i./A for

# 39 the lady bird beetle (MRID 48608301). Acute toxi city studies using ot her adult terrestrial

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

There are open literature papers that evaluate te rrestrial invertebrate t oxicity 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; a nd Weintraub 1999). An open l iterature paper evaluated the

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

number of eggs/female after adult female s 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 ev aluated 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 fiel d 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 ca re, egg hatching, the numb er of males in the

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

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

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

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



# and 2 nd 

# instar larvae per nest was si gnificantly greater when worker bees were exposed to pollen

with cyromazine. Multi-concentrat ion studies were conducted and LC 50 

# values (based on the

number of males produced) were reported for the three exposure ro utes. The reported LC 50 

# 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 Da ta 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 di d submit phytotoxicity profiling data for the

formulation CGA 72662 75 WP (75%) for six plant species (three m onocots 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 sp ecific details on the type of

phytotoxicity observed was not repo rted. For the seedling emerge nce test, some phytotoxicity

was observed for Glycine max (ratings of 7.5 and 8.5 at conc entrations 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 degradat e as it was observed at 33% in the aerobic soil

metabolism studies ( Figure 5 ). Toxicity data are available fo r melamine and presented below in

Table 13 . Based on the available aqua tic toxicity data, melamine does not appear to be more

toxic than cyromazine, except for acute toxicity to Daphnia magna . The acute LD 50 

# melamine

value for the rat (mammals) is similar to the acute LD 50 

# value reported for technical cyromazine,

LD 50 

# = 3,387 mg/kg (95% Confidence Interv al 2,524-4,547) (MRID 00082836). As the

confidence intervals overlap, ther e is a lesser likeli hood that one chemical would pose greater

toxicity than the other. Avian toxicity data for melamine ar e 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 organi sms, 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 LD 50 

# = 3,161 mg/kg (1,344-

4,722); single dose acute study NTP 1983 1



# Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 96-hr LC 50 

# >120 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008 2



# Guppy ( Poecilia reticulata ) 96-hr LC 50 

# >3,000 mg/L OECD SIDS 3



# 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 EC 50 

# = 60 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008

Waterflea ( Daphnia magna ) 48-hr EC 50 

# >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 IC 50 

# > 100 mg/L EFSA Scientific Report 2008

Green algae ( Scenedesmus pannonicus ) 4-d EC 50 

# = 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 pote ntial 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 lowe r than the observed toxicity for either parent

cyromazine or melamine. The reported 48 hour EC 50 

# 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 co ncentrations up to 33%, and including it in a

calculation of total toxic residue should increase th e estimated environmental concentrations, it is

not expected to influence the concentrations to su ch a degree that risk to aquatic invertebrates

would be expected. While melamine is anticipat ed to also be persiste nt 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), sinc e 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 antici pated to be protective for melamine exposure for

terrestrial animals. Therefore, based on this evaluation of th e data, melamine will not be

considered further in this assessment.

# 43 IV. RISK ESTIMATION

For this preliminary assessment of cyromazine, th e deterministic risk quoti ent 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 th e 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 cau se adverse effects to non-target organisms.

1. Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants

The RQ values for the use with highest EECs an d 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 freshwat er fish and invertebrates and

estuarine/marine mollusks on an acute exposure basi s. 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/EC 50 

# values, RQs are not calculated. Potential acute risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates is discussed

in the Risk Description section. When comp aring the 21 and 60-day EECs to the chronic

NOAECs for freshwater invertebra te and freshwater fish, respec tively, 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 chroni c 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 estuarin e-marine invertebrates are al so discussed in the Risk

Characterization section.

# 44 Table 14. RQ Values for Aquatic Animals fo r Cyromazine from Foliar Application,

Treated Onion Seeds and Soil Amendment

Taxa Organism/Endpoint Used 21 or 60 day EEC

(μg/L) 1,2 

# Chronic RQ 3



# 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 /89.1 4 

# <0.01 / <0.01

Freshwater Invertebrates Daphnia magna / NOAEC = 310 9.35 / 93.5 4 

# <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 EC 50 

# 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 list ed aquatic plants is discussed in the Risk

Description section.

# 45 Table 15. RQ Values for Aquatic Plants for Cy romazine from Foliar Application, Treated

Onion Seeds and Soil Amendment

Taxa Organism/Endpoint Used Peak EEC (μg/L) 1 

# Non-listed RQ 2



# EC 50 

# (μg/L)

Foliar Application

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC 50 

# = 124,000 30.3 <0.01

Treated Onion Seeds

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC 50 

# = 124,000 6.53 / 131 <0.01 / <0.01

Soil Amendment

Aquatic Non-vascular Plant Green Algae / EC 50 

# = 124,000 9.59 / 95.9 3 

# <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 / EC 50 

# ; 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 slig htly toxic to birds on an acute or al basis and practically non-toxic

on a sub-acute dietary exposure basis. The non-li sted 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 passer ines are not available,

and as such there is uncertainty about the effect s to these species. This uncertainty will be

discussed in the Risk Descripti on section. Since the endpoints from the sub-acute avian toxicity

studies are non- definitive ( i.e ., they are ‘greater than’ values), th ey will not be used to calculate

RQs. Table 16 is a summary of the acute avian dose-ba sed 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

Acute 1 

# Acute 1 

# Acute 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 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 <0.0 1 <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 <0.0 1 <0.01

Bolded RQ values exceed the acute listed LOC of 0.1;

1 

# Acute RQ = (upper bound dose-based EEC, mg/kg-bw) / (LD 50 

# ; mg/kg-bw).



# The RQs calculated for chronic exposure exceed th e chronic LOC (1) for short grass for all foliar

uses applied at 0.125 lb a.i./A. The avian chroni c 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 th e 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 consum ing onion seeds coated with cyromazine is determined via two

methods. As previously discussed, the assumption used in this preliminary an alysis is that all the

applied cyromazine to the onion s eed 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 pestic ide that birds are likely to ingest on a daily

basis), the RQ value for all bird weight classe s exceed the acute listed and non-listed LOC. For

method #2 (similar to LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# method), the RQ value for sma ll birds exceed the listed and nonlisted LOC; for medium birds the RQ value exce eded the acute listed LOC. The RQ for large

birds did not exceed either LOC. The chroni c 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) / LD 50 

# mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw)

mg kg-1 seed / NOEC



# Soil Amending with Manure containing Cyromazine

Manure that is treated with cyrom azine may be used as a soil amen dment, and, therefore, there is

the potential for exposure to birds. The assumpti on is that while the bird is foraging, it comes

into contact with all di fferent 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 LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# approach as a broad cast 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 wh ether 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 ap plied ‘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 LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# method . Table 19 summarizes the acute RQs for birds

that may be exposed to cyromazine when tr eated manure is used as a soil amendment.

Table 19. Acute RQ values for Birds from Soil Amendment with Cyromazine

LD 50 

# ft-2 1 

# 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 a pplication rate of 2.7 lb a.i./A (dry

manure)

Bolded values exceed the acute listed LO C of 0.1; bolded and italicized values

exceed the non-listed LOC of 0.5

# 49 b) Mammals

Foliar Uses

Cyromazine is classified as pr actically 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

Acute 1 

# Acute 1 

# Acute 1



# 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) / (LD 50 

# ; mg/kg-bw).



# The dose-based chronic RQ for mammals exceed ed the chronic LOC for all uses at an

application rate of 0.125 lb a.i. /A (crops and ornamentals) fo r small mammals ingesting short

grasses. The LOC was also exceeded for sma ll 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

Chronic 1 

# Chronic 1 

# Chronic 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 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 th e 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 fr om 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 LD 50 

# /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 list ed 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) / LD 50 

# mg ai ft-2 /(LD 50 

# *bw)

mg kg-1 seed / NOEC



# Soil Amending with Manure containing Cyromazine

As with the birds, the RQ values range dependi ng on the assumptions ma de 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-lis ted LOC. However, for the higher application

rate, the RQ values exceed th e 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 Descri ption section. Only acute risk is evaluated using the LD 50 

# /ft 2



# method.

Table 24. Acute RQ values for Mammals fr om Soil Amendment with Cyromazine

LD 50 

# ft-2 1 

# 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 va lues exceed the non-listed LOC



# c) Terrestrial Invertebrates

Cyromazine is classified as ‘p ractically nontoxic’ to non-target terrestrial invertebrates on an

acute contact exposure basis (LD 50 

# >25 μg a.i./bee). Toxicity info rmation for beneficial insects is

used to develop precautionary label language wher e necessary in screening-level assessments.

However, the acute contact toxicity study is base d on toxicity to adult honeybees and cyromazine

is used to target the larvae st age of terrestrial invertebrates ( e.g., flies and Colorado potato

beetle). Therefore, the potential for e ffects to other life stages of honeybees ( i.e ., bee

larvae/pupae (brood)) and other te rrestrial invertebrates is not determined based on the acute

contact study. Therefore, base d on the acute contact study, the pot ential effects to other life

stages of the honeybee, surrogate for benefi cial invertebrates, are unknown. Additional

terrestrial invertebrate studies were available a nd risk to terrestrial invertebrates is discussed

further in the Risk Description section.

3. Non-target Terrestrial a nd Semi-aquatic Plants

Since quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity da ta 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 estimati on, the odds of an individual eff ect (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 IE CV1.1 (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 calcu late a probit dose-respons e slope. In these cases

the odds of mortality were only calculated for th e listed acute LOC using the default slope of 4.5

(95% CL 2, 9). A probit slope for the acute oral toxicity study with bobw hite quail was available

(slope = 5.76; 95% CL of 2.55, 8.98). A probit sl ope 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 terres trial and aquatic animals based

on the slopes discussed in the prev ious paragraph ar e 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 10 8 

# 1 in 4.18 x 10 8



# 95% CL 1 in 56, 1 in 1.5 x

10 13 

# (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 10 31 

# 1 in 216; 1 in

1.75 x 10 31



# *As the study resulted in a non-definitive value (LC 50 

# > highest concentration tested) the use of a probit model was not

appropriate, therefore, defaul t 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 freshwat er fish and freshwater invertebrates. As

acceptable acute freshwater fish and invertebra te studies resulted in non-definitive values

(greater than values), RQ values were not calcu lated. No mortalities or sublethal effects were

observed in the bluegill study. Sublethal effects were obser ved in the rainbow trout study

(MRID 00070912) at 84 mg a.i./L with an obser ved 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 LC 50 

# value of 715 mg a.i./L was determined for fathead

minnow, and although was not used quantitatively due to decrease d 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 EC 50 

# 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 th an the peak EECs. The

Daphnia chronic study (MRID 00073085) reported a 48-hr EC 50 

# value of 9.1 mg/L (authors

stated that value were provided by the study sponsor and no additional details were available).

This EC 50 

# value is at least 69 times greater than th e peak EECs. The acute estuarine-marine

oyster study also resulted in a non-definitive acute EC 50 

# value. The EC 50 

# value was > 104 mg

a.i./L, with no adverse effects obser ved 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-mari ne mollusks are expected to be low.

Acute toxicity data were not available for estuarin e-marine fish. Given that for freshwater fish a

definitive acute LC 50 

# value appears to be greater than 80 mg a.i./L based on th e results of four

species, the calculated EECs, as well as no inform ation that estuarine-marine fish would be any

more sensitive than freshwater fish, the likeli hood 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 avai lable. While there is only one chronic freshwater fish study

available, based on the NOAEC from that study a nd 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. Th erefore, the likelihood of adverse effects from

chronic exposure of cyromazine to estuarine-ma rine fish is also predicted to be low.

Acute toxicity data for estuarine-marine mollu sks were available; however, data were not

available for an additional estuarine-marine invert ebrate (a crustacean, usua lly a shrimp). In the

mysid chronic study (MRID 48691501), the 7-day LC 50 

# was 1.94 mg a.i./L. A comparison of

this sub-chronic LC 50 

# to the peak EECs indicates that this sub-chronic value is 64 times greater

than the peak EEC for foliar uses, 200 to 20 tim es greater for the soil amendment use, and 297

and 14 times greater for the treated onion seed us e. For the treated onion use, in deriving the

EEC, it was assumed that all the available cyro mazine on the treated se ed was available for

runoff and this is expected to be a highly conservative assumption a nd the actual amount of

cyromazine available is expected to be lowe r. 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 du ration for estuarine-marine invertebrates is 96

hours. Based on the toxicity value observed for the 7 day duration, an LC 50 

# value for a 96 hour

duration is anticipated to be greater than the 7 day LC 50 

# or greater than 1.94 mg a.i./L.

Therefore, acute risk to estuarin e-marine crustaceans (mysid shrimp as surrogate) is predicted to

be low.

The chronic toxicity data for es tuarine-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 le ngth observed were slight and ranged from 4-8%; no significant

differences in length were observe d at test termination with a re ported 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 comparis on is approximately 14 times using the lower

incorporation rate and th e EEC for the higher incorporation rate is 1.3 times lower. While for the

higher soil amendment rate the EEC is very simila r 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 acu te toxicity for the mysid shrimp, the treated

onion seed EEC assumes that all the available cyromazine is av ailable and the default seeding

rate may not be reflective of all planting scen arios. Given that the observed effect, while

statistically significant, was slight and the diffe rence 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 be low 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 i nvertebrates such as sedimentdwelling midges may exist. Both an acute a nd 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/EC 50 

# value, under semi-static

conditions, was reported as >120 mg a.i./L, which is similar to the acute t oxicity 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 wa s tested at concentrations of 6.3 to 100 μg/L.

Based on the reported results, th ere 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 an d 203 μg/kg (1480 and 4060 μg/kg normalized for

organic carbon) on Day 26, respectiv ely. 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 wh ich the organisms may be e xposed. Overlying water EECs

were calculated using the model PRZM-EXAMS fo r the registered use on potatoes (highest

foliar application). It was observed that the overlying water concen trations 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 ti me-weighted average). In the study, the pore

water concentrations were reported to be belo w the limit of detection; the calculated 21-d pore

water EEC was 23 μg/L, which would be anticipate d given that cyromazine is not expected to

bind to the sediment. Additionally, the calculate d 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 gr eater than the NOAEC, there is a potential for

adverse chronic effects to sediment-d welling organisms such as midges.

As mentioned, while, cyromazine is also target ed for controlling on pot atoes the Colorado potato

beetle which belongs to the Co leopteran 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 terres trial invertebrates in the Coleoptera order.

Additionally, it was reported that the lady beetle (Coleoptera) was not susc eptible 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 info rmation on other Orders of aquatic

invertebrates is not available a nd 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-dwellin g 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 Dipter a order, but there are other listed aquatic

invertebrates including Coleopter a beetles and a dragonfly (exist s 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 terr estrial beetles in the

Coleoptera order, in which effects to larvae we re 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 locati on of agricultural uses of

cyromazine, the location of these springs may be ju st above areas with reported cyromazine use,

however, it is still relatively near and the ma p may not capture all cyromazine use and so

exposure is uncertain. Anothe r beetle, the Hungerford’s craw ling 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 ecosystem s 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 e xposed as well as the effects of

cyromazine exposure.

Based on the reported geographic areas of cyromazine use, the potentia l for direct effects to other

listed aquatic invertebrates (beetles and dra gonfly), exposure may be limited, but this is

uncertain.

Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to fi sh (acute or chronic exposure), are considered

low from the cyromazine uses based on the availabl e toxicity data. For a quatic 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. Effect s to other orders of a quatic invertebrates not

mentioned are uncertain.

b) Plants

One toxicity study with green alg ae was available for cyromazine. Using the available data, the

RQ value for non-listed plants did not exceed th e 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 f our species of non-vascul ar 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 a quatic vascular plants are not av ailable. 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 regul ator, 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 l east 763 times is needed for non-vasc ular plants to exceed the LOC;

therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to non-listed aquati c 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 effect s to listed aquatic vascular plants, but this is

considered unlikely.

2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

a) Animals

Birds (surrogates for reptiles and terre strial-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-base d). 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 s ub-acute dietary toxicity studies at the highest

treatment levels tested ( i.e ., LC 50 

# endpoints are ‘greater than’ values); ther efore, 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 se cond to lowest test concentration. In addition,

there was also one bird reported as lethargic on Day 6 of 8 at th e 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 fr om 16-24% and was fairly consistent among

affected treatment groups; however, the revi ewer 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 highe st concentrations tested (pot atoes: 157 < (0.1)(5373); other

crops: 131 < (0.1)(5373)). Additionally, when the sa me 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-liste d LOC of 0.5), the EECs are not greater than the adjusted

# 59 adverse effect concentrations (potatoes: 157 < (0.5)(5373); ot her crops: 131 < (0.5)(5373)).

Nevertheless, a reduction in body we ight gain of 16-24% compared to the control was visually

observed at all test concentrati ons, with the highest EECs approximately 4 times lower than the

lowest dose tested in which reductions in wei ght gain were observe d. This response was

relatively monotonic among the treatment groups w ith a 10-fold difference between the highest

and lowest concentration tested, but the obser ved 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 comparis on suggests that the likel ihood of potential risk

to non-listed birds from acute e xposure 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 br oadleaf plants from use on potatoes (RQs 1.18-

2.09). A reduction in the number of normal hatch lings was observed at 300 mg/kg-diet in the

mallard duck study, which may impact avian po pulations. 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% re duction). Effects on egg producti on (26% reduction in eggs laid)

and hatchability (16% reduction) were observe d 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; ther eby, cyromazine may potentially

impact two different generations of birds. Ho wever, 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 te stes was observed at 1200 mg a.i./kg. The

concentration where no-adverse effect may occu r 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 obser ved at both 300 and 1200 mg/kg. Cyromazine is

used as a feed-through for poultry at a rate of 5 pp m (mg/kg) daily to contro l flies, however, this

rate is substantially lower th an where the effects were obser ved in the mallard study, 300 mg/kg.

Additional studies examining eff ects 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 a nd appeared to stay at a cons istent concentration until test

termination (MRID 00103210). Effects on egg produc tion, hatchability for several different

poultry species were also reported at con centrations 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 concentratio ns of 500 mg/kg and higher (Brake et al. 1985 (E96667).

For the 2-generation rat study, changes in body we ight 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, d ecreases 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 (t he highest concentration tested) and greater (MRID 00150471;

00027488); a discussion about the chr onic mammalian toxicity value used in the RQ calculation

# 60 is presented in the Uncertainty se ction (5). In one study (Brake et al. 1984 (E35937)), the effects

on reproduction were observed in the init ial 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 L OAEC 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 consum ing dietary-items containing the

chemical before effects on reproduction are obser ved. 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 tr ansfer of the chemical to the eggs. For chronic

reproduction testing in mammals, these studies ar e also not designed to determine how long an

animal needs to consume contaminated feed. Cy romazine is highly wate r soluble, and the log

octanol-water co-efficient (Kow) for cyromazine is reported as 0.06 (Haz ardous Substance Data

Bank) 6 

# . This information suggests that cyromazine should equilibrate relatively quickly within

an animal. Based on a metabolism study in poultr y 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 cyro mazine concentrations in the

excreta were below detection limits by Da y 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 su rrogates for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians.

The T-HERPS model (v1.1, 2010) calculates RQs fo r 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, includi ng prey size and water

content in diet. Using the default diet assumpti ons 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 gra ss and herbivorous mammals, as we ll as for broadleaf plants and

small insects for the potato use. As the mode l 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 cal culations for birds and mammals were based on

the single maximum application rate using the minimum applica tion interval between successive

applications. As the RQ values are slightly a bove the LOC in most scenarios, an exercise is

conducted to determine if reducing the singl e maximum application rate or number of

applications and/or increasing the application in terval 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 (T able 26). For the foliar uses, except potato, it

appears that reducing the si ngle maximum rate by about 30% or increasing the minimum

application interval would result in RQs < LO C. For potatoes, it appe ars that reducing the

number of applications would reduce the RQs < LOC. Also, so me combination of lowering the

single maximum application rate , along with increasing the mini mum retreatment interval or

reducing the number of applica tions, 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 num ber of applications or

increases in application interval are re quired 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 m odeling (Section III.B.2.a). Revi ew 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, informati on 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 scen arios, for all the foliar uses, except potato, the

use of a foliar dissipation half-lif e of 18 days or less results in RQ s < 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 da ta do not generally suppo rt. 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 Applic ation 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 exhausti ve, and other combinations may occur. Therefore,

it appears that potentiall y modifying the current maximum app lication scenarios, may reduce the

RQs to below the LOCs.

Based on the usage data in Tabl e 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 cyro mazine use are in California, southern Texas and Florida and

part of New York (Figure 2). Based on informa tion, Florida produces less than 2% of the annual

# 63 potato supply, but one-third of the winter/spring crop 7 

# . 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 state 8 

# . Other information reported that in 2011, 36,900, 36,400, 19,100 and

16,500 acres were planted in California, Fl orida, Texas and New York, respectively 9



# .

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 in corporation 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 liste d 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, app lication using hog (swine) manure was assumed to

represent a high end-use scenario. The differenc e between the low and hi gh 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 th at was land applied (4.5 tons), the mass of

water present in the manure at the time of a pplication will have a la rge 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 th e soil and this scenario is expected to be

conservative. Data indicate th at the percent moisture in excr eta manure for different livestock

animals range from 75 to 90% (ASAE 2005). In reviewing available data on manure

management practices, especially land applica tion of manure, the met hods of application vary 10



# . 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 ma y contain a substantial am ount of water. Manure

applied as a liquid, is done for da iry cattle as well as swine manur e, and is expected to contain

the most water of the listed manure states. Addi tionally, to reduce potential runoff of nutrients or

other pollutants off-field, the manure may be inco rporated 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 drie d manure as anticipated being conservative.

This exposure route includes dietary consumpti on of contaminated feed and soil as well as

dermal exposure. One route of the dietary expos ure 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_append ixb.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 othe r non-shoreline terrest rial birds and mammals of 11% (USEPA

1993). If the cyromazine is only present in th e soil and using a soil i ngestion 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 th at all of the applied cyromazine was taken up

by the plants, then this rate was used to calcu late 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 applie d 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 fo liage, 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 applic ation 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 exam ined using the draft

Terrestrial Investigation Model (TIM; v2.2). Th e 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 th e material is available, with no sorption to

the soil or incorporation; addi tionally, the dry manure applica tion rate is expected to be

conservative.

These analyses are based on application rates fo r one year using the la beled maximum allowable

mass of manure that can be used for soil amendmen t. Based on the fate data for cyromazine, it is

stable with reported field dissipa tion half-lives of up to 250 days . In laboratory aerobic soil

metabolism studies, repo rted half-lives (t 1⁄2 

# ) were 107 and 142 days. As it is persistent, if a field

is routinely amended with manure containing cy romazine, there may be residual cyromazine

remaining from a previous appli cation. Additionally, ther e 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 am ount can be applied.

For birds, the applicatio n 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 br oadcast application over foliage) to exceed the

acute listed LOC and chronic LOC for small bi rds 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 lis ted and non-listed and

chronic LOCs were exceeded for all bird a nd mammal size classes. The acute LOCs were

exceeded for all size classes for birds and mamm als when assessing it on a dietary basis but not

for large birds and mammals when assessed using the LD 50 

# /ft 2 

# methodology. As there was a

large difference in the RQ values for these tw o methodologies, the potential for exposure from

consuming onion seeds needs to be evaluated further.

The reported RQs were based on the lowest report ed 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 ba sis 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 chroni c LOC for both birds and mammals. However,

for the other RQ calculation method, which is depe ndent on seeding rate, none of the RQ values

exceed either the non-listed or listed LOC.

In the memo provided by BEAD, the seeding ra tes 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 seed ing rate of 4 lbs/A wa s used. Again, the RQ

values that are based on the LD50/ft2 me thodology do not exceed acute LOCs.

An effort was undertaken to determine the numbe r of seeds a bird or mammal would need to

consume to reach either one-half the LD 50 

# (corresponding to the acute non-listed LOC of 0.5) or

one-tenth the LD50 (corresponding to the acute list ed LOC of 0.1) for each of the three weight

classes. According to the BEAD memo, th ere 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, respect ively. 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 th at seeds are planted about one-half inch deep 11



# and the seeds being uniformly dist ributed within an acre. Using the seeding rate of 4 lbs seed/A,

the seeding rate presented for bulb onions, the nece ssary area appears to be within a plausible

foraging range for a bird or mammal. Other f actors 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 55 1 

# 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 10 0,000 seeds/lb seed at a seedin g rate of 0.38 lb seed/A, a

small bird would have to consume 55 treated seeds in th at area to consume enough cy romazine to reach the nonlisted level of concern (LOC).



# Based on the available information, it appears that there is generally one onion crop per 12

months 12 

# . 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 neces sary foraging time on treated feed to elicit the

reported effects is not known, one. One study, how ever, reported effects within the first 2

weeks. Additionally, based on the available data, cy romazine is anticipated to equilibrate rather

quickly in the animal and its eggs. Cyromazi ne 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 e xposure 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/CropP rofiles/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 pract ically 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 pr edictive of toxicity to other

honeybee life-stages or other terres trial invertebrates. In addition, based on the fate and residue

data, cyromazine has been shown to be persiste nt in the environment. Laboratory studies were

conducted using various terrestrial inverteb rates, 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 app lied 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 a pplications, respectively, fo r a total mass of 0.75 lb

a.i./A. Acute toxicity studies using other adult terrestrial inve rtebrates (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 phytot oxicity) for six species (3 monoc ots 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 sp ecies 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 vege tative vigor and seedling emergence, six

species of dicots and four species of monocot s are tested. Therefore, evaluations on the

recommended number of species are not available with the toxicity prof iling data. Not knowing

the type of phytotoxicity observe d 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 co mplete 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 repo rted phytotoxicity to two of the six species

tested (one monocot and one dicot) at concentrations at or belo w the maximum application rates,

visual signs of phytotoxicity to terrestrial plants in th e environment may occur.

As discussed in the section above fo r terrestrial invertebra tes, there are open literature papers that

examined the efficacy of cyrom azine 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 contro l of a target pest by a pestic ide generally in the field under

typical cultivation practices. Occasionally, in ad dition to reporting the number of pests observed

on the plants treated with the pesticides compared to an untreated contro l, these studies report

information on observed plant damage or crop yi elds. These studies ge nerally 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 c oncurrent control that is not

exposed to the pesticides or the pest, it is difficu lt 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 deposi tion and persistence of cyromazi ne 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 cyromazi ne residue concentrations on three

species of mature Brassica sp. plants (bok choy, Napa cabbage , and Chinese mustard) under

field conditions reported no observe d 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 fr om January 23 – April 20), and there were no

significant differences in celery growth (fresh wt , dry wt, number of petiole s and leaf area) when

compared to the untreated control. The applica tion rate in these two studies are the same as

maximum single rate applications for the regist ered crops or is highe r (0.249 lb a.i./A for

potatoes only). While this study is only on celer y, and the plants were exposed as established

plants, not during seedling emergen ce, it does provide data on poten tial 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 whic h overlaps with the concentrations were some

level of phytotoxicity was observe d in the qualitative study (0.033-0.27 lb a.i./A), but is the same

as the quantitative study on celery where no adve rse effects were observed. Additionally, the

EECs for dry areas are below the reported phyto toxicity values. If using the maximum single

application rate for all the ot her crops, the semi-aquatic EEC is greater than the reported

phytotoxicity for one concentration of one speci es 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, AgDr ift (v2.01) was used. Using the highest single

maximum use rate (0.249 lb a.i./A for potatoes; a nd using the default drople t sizes in AgDrift), a

distance of just over 6 feet off-field is necessa ry to get below a spray drift concentration for

monocots for both ground and aeria l applications. For dicots, using ground application, the

EECs overlap the reported phytot oxicity concentrations at ≤ 20 ft; for aerial application the

overlapping distance is ≤ 72 ft. Using the application rate fo r the other crops (0.125 lb a.i./A) and

an aerial application, the overlappi ng 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 re gistered crops except potatoes. Based on these

calculated distances, except for dicots exposed fro m aerial application to pot atoes, 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 a nd several atrazine de gradates. While these studies were not for

terrestrial plants, a comparison of the parent toxi city 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 EC 50 

# values (i.e.,

50% effect was not observed at the highest test concentrations) at co ncentrations that are at least

700 times higher than the lowest reported aquatic plant EC 50 

# 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 ha logenated. Other degradates have retained the

chloro- group but have lost a portion of a side-cha in group which is also similar to cyromazine.

This evaluation is an additional line of evid ence that phytotoxicity from cyromazine exposure

may be limited.

Given the reported visual phytotoxicity for two species in the registra nt-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 likel y rise to a level of

toxicity to adversely aff ect 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 lis ted dicots from ground

# 70 application is also anticipated to be low. Howeve r, 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 ma gnitude, there is uncertainty in

whether effects would occur.

3. Review of Incident Data

Reviews of the Ecological Incide nt Information System (EIIS, ve rsion 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 incident s 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 th e 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 repor ts for non-target organisms typically provide

information only on mortality events and plant dama ge. Sublethal effects in organisms such as

abnormal behavior, reduced growth and /or impair ed reproduction are rarely reported, except for

phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants.

4. Re-evaluation of the Risk Hypothesis

The results of this preliminary risk assessmen t indicate that the folia r 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). Th e 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 su rvival, reproduction, and/or growth in

terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and pl ants through direct app lication, spray drift

and/or runoff. Additionally, based on the know n mode of action for the target pest and

the sensitivity of non-target aquatic and terrest rial invertebrate species, the uses of

cyromazine also have the potential to redu ce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in

terrestrial and aquatic invertebr ate species through direct app lication, spray drift and/or

runoff. ] is partially supported

.

5. Assumptions and Limitations

a) There are a number of uncertainties rega rding the soil amendment use with manure

containing cyromazine. It is recognized th at 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 assessm ent, 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 incorp orated into the soil; and 3) since many of

the registered labels indicate not to apply mo re than 3 or 4 tons of manure per acre, the

use rate was calculated using 4 tons of manur e both as ‘as excreted’ and as dry manure.

There are several references that discuss livestock manur e production rates as well as

manure management practices (e .g., ASAE 2005 – Manure production and

Characteristics; USDA NRCS – Agricu ltural Waste Management Field Handbook,

chapter 9). Also, the EFED risk assessment for the Neoprex 2SG label (D338467)

completed in 2006 discussed the different me thods 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 in to bedding material. These techniques will

likely affect the actual concen tration of cyromazine that is being applied. Furthermore,

while the label has restrictions on the amount of manure that can be in corporated into the

soil, typically manure is incorporated into so il for nutrient requirements. While the label

indicates a maximum amount of manure th at 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 cyrom azine that may end up being used on an

acre basis could likely be ba sed on nutrient needs rather than the 4 tons per acre

restriction on the label 14



# .

b) An evaluation into the potential foliar dissipat ion rate for dietary items that were exposed

to cyromazine was conducted for this assessment. Based on the available information, it

appears that cyromazine may dissi pate 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 dissi pate during the course of the study ( i.e., ca . 14 or

21 days for tomatoes, cucurbits; MR ID 42255101, 42116001). For all the foliar uses,

except potato, the use of a folia r dissipation half-life of 18 da ys or less results in RQs <

LOC. For potatoes, a foliar dissipation half-lif e 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. Additionall y, an evaluation of potential di ssipation 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 potenti al dissipation rate for these other dietary

groups. Cyromazine has been shown to be pe rsistent 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 conservativ e for the grass dietary group, the default foliar

dissipation rate was used. However, this ap proach 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 am ount available ranges from 0.02, 0.2 and 3.71

lb a.i./A. An evaluation of risk to bird s and mammals from consuming onion seeds was

conducted. However, those risks are from bi rds and mammals consuming seeds that have

been treated with cyromazine (on the fiel d 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 exposur e 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 a nd mammals may be possible. For terrestrial

invertebrates and plants, exposure to this dus t and its potential impact also remains an

uncertainty. If all the cyromazine were rem oved during planting and re leased as dust into

the air available for re-depos iting into the aquatic envir onment, 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 wate r concentration, for the 0.02 and 0.2 , the concentrations was 11 μg/L

or less, therefore. Therefore, risk to aqua tic animals and plants from this exposure are

anticipated to be low. However, if 3.71 lb a.i./A is available fo r 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. Comp arison 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 IC 50 

# value. The lowest non-definitive acute

LC/EC 50 

# 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 to xicity value (0.131 mg a.i./L, mysid shrimp

chronic) and is approximately 1.5 times lowe r 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 cons ervative, the likelihood of chronic adverse

effect to aquatic organisms from abra ded dust is considered to be low.

d) Toxicity data were not available for terrest rial plants, non-adult li fe-stages of honeybees,

or estuarine-marine organisms. Risk conclu sions 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 th e 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; decreas es in pup body weight (10-20%) at 3000 mg/kg-diet were

also reported. Moderate d ecreases in food consumption we re 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 repor ted decrease of about 7.5%; a slight decrease in food

consumption was also reported. No effect s on reproduction were reported in the study.

Based on the study report, it appears that a d ecrease in mean body weight started to occur

on about the 7 th 

# or 8 th 

# 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 materi al 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 statis tically significant; a

significant effect on body weight gain was obs erved at 60 mg/kg/da y. 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 ra ts 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 un certainty in whether adequate cyromazine

residue concentrations in the environment will be present for that period of time.

However, there are other factors that may infl uence at what residue concentration a toxic

response in animals in the environment is obs erved compared to laboratory animals such

as nutrient differences in food items, predati on 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 RQ s for the foliar uses are above the LOC

and are about twice that of th e RQs for the avian chronic RQs. If 500 mg/kg-diet is used,

the chronic dose-based RQs are si milar to the avian chronic RQs. In the Risk Description

section, a discussion about the necessary modifi cations to the foliar application scenarios

was presented. After reviewing the ma mmalian 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 o ccur to reduce the RQs values, a chronic

mammalian value around this level should be us ed which this correlates with the avian

RQs and effects observed.

f) A definitive NOAEC value was not determined fo r the chronic mysid toxicity test. A 4%

decrease in total length in males was observed at Day 14 that was stat istically 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 cy romazine 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-t arget organism s. However,

# 74 labels include language regard ing the development of resist ance by the target pests and

recommend resistance manageme nt 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 i nvertebrates as a food

source. However, exposure to terrestrial birds and mammals is also evaluated from

consuming dietary items direc tly 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 F ood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA

reviews numerous studies to assess poten tial 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, in cluding effects on endoc rine target organ

histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual ma turation, 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 group s. 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 requi red by FFDCA section 408 (p), cyromazine is

subject to the endocrine scr eening 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 subs tance 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 intera ct 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 avai lable 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 ingredient s and 9 inert ingredients.

# 75 Cyromazine is not among the group of 58 pesticid e 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 th e status of the EDSP, the policies and

procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, futu re lists, the test guide lines 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, treatm ent method and rearing

temperature on the Southern cowpea weevil (Callo sobruchus 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 mucula tus reared on chickpeas by different applicable

conditions of the insect grow th regulator, cyromazine. Sci. Res. Essays . 7(1) : 55-60.

American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASA E). Manure Production and Characteristics. ASAE

D384.2 March 2005.



# Bel, Y., Wiesner, P. and Kayser, H. (2000), Candida te 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 Campbe ll, W. R. (1984). Effect of the insect growth

regulator CGA-72662 (Larvadex) on broiler breeder production, ha tchability, 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 gr owth on body weight, feed cons umption, livability, production,

and egg quality of single co mb 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. Eff ects 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: Ch emistry, 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. To th. 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 ja lapeno pepper, 2004.

Liu, T.-X. 2005b. Efficacy of Selected Insecticid es 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 Ca ntaloupe, 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 Assessm ent. 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 Effect s Division. Office of Pesticide Programs.

USEPA, 2009a. Guidance for Selecting Input Parame ters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and

Transport of Pesticides. Version 2.1 October 22, 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/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 st udy received Jun 10, 198 2 under 100-6 31; 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. (1 980) 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., subm itted 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 W ildlife 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- publishe d 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. (U npublished study receive d Jun 10, 1982 under

100-631; prepared by W ildlife 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- publishe d 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 Proj ect 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. (Unpublishe d 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 Toxi city 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- publishe d 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 Pr oject 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 Toxi city 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. (U npublished study received Jul 10, 19 79 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. (Unpublis hed 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: Pr oject No. 1116-79. (Unpublished stud y received Jul 10, 1979 under 100-EX65; prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc., submitte d 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., submitte d 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 pr epared by Stillmeadow , Inc. 10 p. {OPPTS

870.1100}



# 81-3 Acute inhalation toxicity in rats

MRID Citation Reference

43799901 Holbert, M. (1994) Acute Inhalation Toxi city 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 Ju n 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 Acut e 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% Prem ix 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) Photol ysis of CGA 72 662 on Soil Su rfaces 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 Ju n 10, 1982 under 100 -631; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,

Greensboro, NC; CDL:070914-K)

142191 Honeycutt, R.; Ballantine, L. (1982) App lication 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 Ju n 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 5S C 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/M anure 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 5S C 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/M anure 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 receive d 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., s ubmitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, NC;

CDL:070914-H)

103165 Guth, J. (1980) Leaching Model Study with the Insec ticide/Larvacide CGA 72662 in Four

Different Soils: Project Report 13/80. (Un- published study r eceived 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) App lication 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 5S C 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- publishe d study received Jun 10 , 1982 under 100-631;

submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:070912-A)

142191 Honeycutt, R.; Ballantine, L. (1982) App lication 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. Jo urnal of Economic Entomology

73(4): 564-569. (Also in unpublished submissi on received Oct 28, 198 1 under 100-EX-65;

submitted by Ciba Geigy Corp., Gr eensboro, N.C.; CDL:246154-B)

86009 Williams, R.E.; Berry, J.G. (1980) Evaluatio n 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 (1 981) (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 und er 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 Tr eatment to Animal Manure: R & D Objective 652001, 652002,

652003. (Com- pilation; unpub lished 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 st udy received Jul 10,

1979 under 100-EX-65; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 098381-D)

# 86135422 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-Gei gy 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 Assess ment of Groundwater Vulnerability Associated with

Potential Market Areas for Trigard/Citation (C yromazine) 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. Pr oject 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. Pr oject 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 F acilities. 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, TerrP lant Inputs and Out puts for Cyromazine

Acute and Chronic RQs are based on the Upp e

Kenaga Residues.

Chemical Name: 

# The maximum single day residue estimation i s

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 b e

Half-life 35 days 

# <0.01 in your assessment. This is due to r o

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 2 3 114 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

0 00 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 A p Maximum Seed A p 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 (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./se e 0.2245 mg a.i./seed

130,000 seeds/lb

4.95 lb ai/100 lb seed 3.81E-07 lb a.i./se e 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 us e

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 belo w

Half-life 35 days 

# <0.01 in your assessment. This is due to rou n

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 A djusted 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 2 0 200

S h o r t G r a s s 0

. 0 1 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0

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

Large Species (grams) 

# Dose-based RQs (Dose-

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 e qui valent 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

Solubilit y 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 sw itch 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 a dult 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 manur e 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 chic ken 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 manur e 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 us er 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 poultr y 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 Larv adex 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 imme diately 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 a pply 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 ra tes at a concentration of 5 parts

per million (ppm) of active ingredient.

100-632

[Cyromzine

Technical] 97 Technical Crops = Abyssinian cabbage, Brassica leafy ve getables, bulb vegetables, cucurbits, dry

beans, Hanover salad, leafy vegetables, toma toes, peppers; seakale cabbage, and turnip

greens. Ornamentals = Chrysanthemums; container-g rown 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 wi ll treat one acre of leafy vegetables, lima

beans, peppers, cucurbits, toma toes, Chinese mustard (Flori da Use Only), or Chinese

cabbage (Florida Use Only). Continue agitati on 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 Tr igard 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 pe r 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), Chin ese 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 Tr igard 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 pe r 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, dande lion, dock, endive, fennel, lettuce, orach,

parsley, purslane, radicchio, rhubarb, spinach, and Swiss chard.

For leafminer control , apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Tr igard 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 pe r 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 mo re 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 Tr igard 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 pe r 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 ha rvest or illegal residues may occur

Peppers For leafminer control , apply 2.66 oz. (one packet) of Tr igard 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 pe r 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 applicati ons 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 Tr igard 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 pe r 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 activ e and continue treatment as prescribed

through the fly season.

# 101 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A GENC Y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

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

Maps

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Cyromazine Usage Map by Cr op 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 An alysis Division (7503P)

TO: Tiffany Dowen, Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Below is the map showing the average a nnual usage for cyromazine from 2006-2010, as

requested.

# 102 Cyromazine Usage by Crop Re porting District (2006-2010).

This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at th e 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. Farmla nd acreage was obtained from USDA (2007).

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

survey data are limited to the stat es 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 us e in the region or non-participation in the agricultural

surveys. In addition, across the year s, there may be variations in th e 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/res ourceregions/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 Ag ricultural 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 Depart ment 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 LC 50 

# >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 LC 50 

# >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 LC 50 

# = 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 LC 50



# >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 EC 50 

# >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 EC 50 

# >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%) 4 8691501 Acceptable Based on male length at 14

days

TERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS

Acute Oral

Bobwhite quail

( Colinus

virginianus ) 14-day LD 50 

# = 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 LD 50 

# >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 LD 50 

# value

reported as highest dose with

no observed regurgitation

Sub-Acute Dietary

Bobwhite quail

( Colinus

virginianus ) 8-day LC 50 

# >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 LC 50 

# >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%) 4 4743801 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 LD 50 

# = 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 LD 50 

# = 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 LD 50 

# = 1,467

mg/kg-bw TGAI (% not

reported) 00082838 Acceptable Acute oral; Within 1 hour all

rabbit showed sedation transiet

effects

Rat

( Rattus

norvegicus ) LC 50 

# >0.744

mg/L (acute

inhalation) TGAI (96.5%) 4 3799901 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 LD 50 

# of >25 μg

a.i./bee (MRID 43152601); there were no mortalities or sublethal effects at this dose. Therefore,

cyromazine is classified as practically nontoxi c to non-target terrestr ial insects on an acute

contact exposure basis.

Additional non-guideline terrestrial invertebrate st udies 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 di d submit phytotoxicity profiling data for the

formulation CGA 72662 75 WP (75%) for six plant species (three m onocots 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; how ever, the specific details on the type of

phytotoxicity observed was not repo rted. For the seedling emerge nce 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 ma ys (7.5 rating at 400 g CGA 75 WP/ha [0.27 lb

a.i./A]). In the vegetative vigor study, phytotoxi city was reported for Zea mays (8.5 rating at

200-400 g CGA 75 WP/ha [0.13 – 0.27 lb a.i./A]). A ll 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 LD 50 

# (mg/kg bw) 1706

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 

# (mg/kg bw) 3387

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 

# (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/m 3 

# ) 3.01E- 05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.78E-06

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

# 2.09E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

# 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 LD 50 

# 1.14E-02 Exposure not Likely Significant



# Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 

# ) 3.01E- 05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.75E-06

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

# 4.43E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

# 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 LD 50 

# 6.79E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant **NOTE**: When entering values, pre s

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 Agai nst 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 Effect s 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 th e 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, Ha tchability, 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. (2 006). 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). Effect s 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). Eff ects 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., Tu py, A., and Sclar, C. (1997). Contro l 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 Ko larik, 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 Cyro mazine (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 an d Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza

trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Cele ry 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 Co ntrol 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, Entomol ogical 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). Simulati on 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 Dr osophila 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. (20 01). 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. (20 00). Evaluation of Non-Organ ophosphorus 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). Eff ects of Chitin Synthesis Inhib itors on Germ an 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., Grafiu s, E., Bishop, B., Nelson, N., Hoffman, H., Ay otte, 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 So me 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 Test s, 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 Test s, 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 Test s, 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 Test s, 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 Test s, 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 Ins ecticides 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 Ins ecticides 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. (1 984). Effect of Larvadex Feed-Through on Cool-Season

Development of Filth Flies and Beneficial Coleopte ra 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-T hrough 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). Feedin g 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). Compatib ility of Insect Growth Regulators and Beauveria bassiana

(Balsamo) Vuillemin in Controlling Green Peach Aphid (Homoptera: Aphidi dae) 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 Bi ological 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 Re sistance 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),TA RGET(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., Schr oder, I., Turberg, A., and Fuchs, R. (1996). Multiple

Resistance in the Larger House Fl y 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., Fl anders, 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., Di fonzo, 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 St orage 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 Ta rget 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., He ssney, 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 Test s, 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., an d Mccrate, S. (1989). Insec ticide 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-S tage 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),TAR GET(TDC,MTM,FNV,CYR).

108. Schuster, D. J. and Everett, P. H. (198 3). 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). Inse cticide 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). Iris h Potato Control of Colorado Potato Beetle, 1993. In:

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Test s, 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 Cuprin a 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. (1 992). 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). Colora do Potato Beetle Control with Traditional Insecticides,

1991. In: A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaric ide 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 Test s, 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, Entomol ogical 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 Socie ty 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: CY R,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 Ac aricide 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). Colo rado 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). Co lorado 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). Co lorado Potato Beetle Cont rol with Trigard, 1993. In:

A.K.Burditt Jr, (Ed.), Insecticide and Acaricide Test s, 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 Manage ment 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 hete ropeza 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 Lettu ce 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 Socie ty 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 Test s, 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 Ac aricide 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., an d 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: Agro myzidae) and Its Parasitoid Diglyphu s 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 Test s, 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 Charudatta n, R. (2006). Effect of Selected

Pesticides on Conidial Germination and Mycelia l 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). Cyromazi ne 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 Ch emical 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). Differentia l 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 Sima nek, 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 Cy romazine 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 To xicity 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., Hugh es, L. A., and Downing, D. J. (1988). Mutagen-Induced

Fetal Anomalies and Death Following Treatmen t 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-Resis tant 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. (2 006). 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., Shul er, 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). B ee 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: AZ D,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 St able 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 In sect Growth Regulators and

Pesticides on Dugesia dorotocephala and D ugesia 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., Tard iff, R. G., and Borzelleca, J. F. (1979). Failure of Hexach lorobenzene 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., Do yle, V. E., Fairlamb, A. H., Weaver, R., and Gilbert, I.

H. (1998). An Approach to Use an Unusual Adenos ine 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 Velsic ol 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., Jo hnston-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 Co ntrol 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,EF X,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., an d 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., Lop ez, G. D., and Chisti, Y. (2001). Toxic ity 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 Syne rgistic Interactions Between the Colorado Potato Beetle

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Pathogen Beauveri a 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., Li u, 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 Cont rol of Onion Maggot (Delia antiqua) and Onion Smut

(Urocystis cepulae) in Ontario. In: The BCPC Conference - Pests & Di seases 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,C YR,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 Asse ssment 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., Mats uno, 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 Examina tion 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). Co lorado 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,CY R,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: Aphidi dae) 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,M OM,NMX,SS), NO EFED CHEM (SS).

Parrella, M. P., Christie, G. D., and Robb, K. L. (1 983). 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 De pletion 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., He ller, 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,MO M,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 Mollu scicides on the Rove Beetle Aleochara

bilineata (Col.: Staphylinid ae) 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 Po tato, 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 Cyromazi ne 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 Pota to 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 Efficaci es 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., an d Mandeville, J. D. (1990). Effects of Pestic ides 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. (200 6). Effect of Selected Pesticides on

Conidial Germination and Mycelial Growth of Dactyl aria 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).138APPENDIX I. ECOTOX Open Literature That Passed Initial ScreenAccepted ECOTOX DATA Table – CyromazineThe code list for ECOTOX can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdfChemicalNameGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1Endpt2DurPreferredDurUnitPreferredConcValue1PreferredConcValue2PreferredConcUnitsPreferred%PurityRef#CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspGRODVPEMRGLOAELem0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspGRODVPEMRGNOAELem0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspGRODVPEMRGLOAELem0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspREPREPSEXRLOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspREPREPSEXRNOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspREPREPSEXRNOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspMORMORLFSPLOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspMORMORLFSPLOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticwaspMORMORLFSPNOAEL>2d0.11aig/L10082682MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTLD5014d3066.17mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTLD5014d3713.16mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTLD5014d3197.12mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTLD5014d6803.58mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d11640mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d17460mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d11640mg/kgbdwt9794269139MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d17460ppm9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORSURVNOAELLOAEL735d2182.54365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORSURVNOAEL735d8730mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratBEHFDBFCNSNOAEL644d4365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratBEHFDBFCNSNOAEL644d8730mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratCELHISLESINOAELLOAEL700d2182.54365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratCELHISLESILOAEL700d2182.5mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORSURVNOAELLOAEL735d2182.54365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORSURVNOAEL735d8730mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseBEHFDBFCNSNOAEL700d4365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseBEHFDBFCNSNOAEL700d8730mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseCELHISLESINOAEL721d4365mg/kgbdwt9794269MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseCELHISLESINOAEL721d8730mg/kgbdwt9794269CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowfevermosquitoMORMORMORTLOAELNAlvp0.25mg/L10094261CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernhousemosquitoMORMORMORTLOAELNAlvp0.25mg/L10094261CyromazineDaphniamagnaWaterfleaBEHBEHMOTLEC502d5.08mg/L10074540CyromazineAlliumcepaCommononionGROGROBMASNOAEL75d2.5AIg/100gsd10094235CyromazineThripstabaciOnionthripPOPPOPABNDNOAEL67d2.5AIg/100gsd10094235CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPBDEPNOAELLOAEL280d30300ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSNOAEL280d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORMORTNOAELLOAEL280d3001000ppm10035937Cyromazin GallusdomesticusDomesticMORMO MO NOA LOA 280d3001000ppm100359140eChickenRRTEL EL37CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROGAINNOAEL280d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROGAINNOAEL280d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL175d3001000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL245d30300ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPAEGFERTNOAEL252d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORHTCHNOAEL273d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL35d3001000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFEFFNOAEL259d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d300ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORMORTNOAEL259d1000ppm10035937CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPHDEPNOAELLOAEL28d5001000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSNOAELLOAEL28d10002000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPHDEPNOAELLOAEL56d10002000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPHDEPLOAEL56d2000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL56d10002000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTLOAEL56d2000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORHTCHNOAELLOAEL27d10002000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORHTCHNOAEL27d2000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSNOAELLOAEL56d5001000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSLOAEL56d2000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROMPHWGHTNOAEL77d2000ppm10039406CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORMORTNOAEL77d2000ppm10039406141CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPMOTLNOAEL77d2000ppm10039406CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO77d100aig/L10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeREPREPPROGNOAEL77d100aig/L10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTNOAEL77d100aig/L10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTLC5077d636(591TO685)AImg/L10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeREPREPPROGLOAEL77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTNOAEL77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTLC5077d1.3(1.0TO1.5)AImg/L10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeREPREPPROGLOAEL77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTLOAEL77d100000ppm10094221CyromazineBombusterrestrisBuffTailedBumblebeeMORMORMORTLC5077d17(6.6TO40)AImg/L10094221MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO14d30000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO14d30000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d15000ppm>9594197142MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d18000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d12000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO91d12000ppm>9594197MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO14d30000ppm>9594197MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO14d30000ppm>9594197MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO14d18000ppm>9594197CyromazineGambusiaaffinisWesternmosquitofishMORMORMORTLC503d0.037mg/L100184CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidGROGROLGTHLOEC~30d0.05mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTLC504d100TO400mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTLC504d1000TO10000mg/L97.515768CyromazineDeleatidiumsp.MayflyMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2d0.1mg/L10015768CyromazineDeleatidiumsp.MayflyMORMORMORTLC502d300TO400mg/L10015768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidGROGROLGTHNOEC~30d0.01TO0.011mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidGRODVPEMRGMATC120d0.0175mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidGROGROLGTHMATC~30d0.03mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d10mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTLC50~30d0.064mg/L97.515768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d1mg/L97.515768143CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTLC504d10000mg/L97.515768CyromazineLuciliacuprinaCeaser'sgreenbottleflyMORMORMORTLC502d0.8mg/kgbdwt10035435CyromazineLuciliacuprinaCeaser'sgreenbottleflyMORMORMORTLC502d0.8mg/kgbdwt10035435MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNOAELLOAEL730d22504500ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratMORMORMORTNOAEL730d9000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratCELHISIFLMLOAEL730d9000ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratCELHISLESINOAELLOAEL730d22504500ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratPHYINJMTMRNOAELLOAEL730d22504500ppm>9594197MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratPHYINJMTMRNOAEL730d9000ppm>9594197MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNOAELLOAEL730d22504500ppm>9594197MelamineMusmusculusHousemouseMORMORMORTNOAEL730d4500ppm>9594197MelamineReithrodontomyshumulisEasternharvestmousePHYINJADNMNOAEL730d4500ppm>9594197MelamineReithrodontomyshumulisEasternharvestmousePHYINJADNMNOAEL730d4500ppm>9594197CyromazineColpodaasperaProtozoaPHYITXGITXEC101d2.7312mg/L270277CyromazineColpodaasperaProtozoaPHYITXGITXEC501d6.8458mg/L270277CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineleafminerPOPPOPABNDLOAELnaem6AIg/100L0.494800CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineleafminerPOPPOPABNDLOAELnaem6AIg/100L0.494800MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratGROGROWGHTLOAELNOAEL28d1.29350.995%>=99.595024MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratBEHFDBWCONLOAEL2d0.199%>=99.595024MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratCELHISHYPLNOAELLOAEL28d0.9951.2935%>=99.595024144MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratBCMBCMNACONOAELLOAEL28d0.3980.6965%>=99.595024MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratPHYPHYVOLUNOAELLOAEL28d1.5921.8905%>=99.595024MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayratPHYINJGINJNOAELLOAEL28d0.3980.6965%>=99.595024ChemicalNameGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1Endpt2DurPreferredMeanDurUnitPreferredConc#1PurityAdjustedinPreferredUnitMeanConc#2PurityAdjustedinPreferredUnitMeanConcUnitsPreferred%PurityRef#CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoMORMORMORTNOELlva1.5mg/L10094261CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoMORMORMORTNOELlva1.5mg/L10094261CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoMORMORMORTLC50lvp0.45mg/L10094261CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoMORMORMORTLC50lvp0.84mg/L10094261CyromazineGambusiaaffinisWesternMosquitofishMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO5d1mg/L10094261CyromazineMacromiamagnificaWesternRiverCruiserMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d1mg/L10094261CyromazineArgiafumipennisVariableDancerMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d1mg/L10094261CyromazineDugesiadorotocephalaTurbellarian,FlatwormMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d1mg/L10094261CyromazineSpodopterafrugiperdaFallArmywormGROGROWGHTLOEL12d50ppm>9590474CyromazineSpodopterafrugiperdaFallArmywormGROGROWGHTLOEL6d50ppm>9590474CyromazineDaphniamagnaWaterFleaBEHBEHMOTLEC501d23.59mg/L10074540CyromazineDeliaantiquaOnionMaggotPOPPOPABNDLOAEL69d50aig/kgsd10097443CyromazineUrocystiscepulaeOnionSmutPOPPOPABNDNOAEL141d50aig/kgsd10097443CyromazineAlliumcepaCommonOnionPOPPOPBMASNOAEL141d50aig/kgsd10097443CyromazineDiglyphusisaeaParasitoidWaspMORMORMORTNOAELht0.011AImg/cm275103776145CyromazineAleocharabilineataRoveBeetleMORMORHTCHNOAEL15d0.0503AI%10063489CyromazineAleocharabilineataRoveBeetleREPREPPROGNOAEL5d0.0503AI%10063489CyromazineAleocharabilineataRoveBeetleMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO5d0.0503AI%10063489CyromazineBeauveriabassianaFungusPOPPOPABNDNOEL1d110ppm10097535CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL13d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL41d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineOstrinianubilalisEuropeanCornBorerPOPPOPABNDNOEL41d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOEL41d0.16lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL13d0.33lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL13d0.33lb/acre10099780146CyromazineOstrinianubilalisEuropeanCornBorerPOPPOPABNDNOELLOEL13d0.330.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOEL13d0.66lb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL13dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL6dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL13dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL13dlb/acre10099780CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOEL41dlb/acre10099780CyromazineOstrinianubilalisEuropeanCornBorerPOPPOPABNDLOEL41dlb/acre10099780CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPABNDNOEL41dlb/acre10099780CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTLC504d10000mg/L10015768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d1mg/L10015768CyromazineChironomuszealandicusChironomidMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO4d100mg/L10015768CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGNOEL13.1d110ppm10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGNOEL13.1d110ppm10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGLOEL13.7d110ppm10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGLOEL13.7d110ppm10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGLOEL14d110ppm10082682CyromazineTrichogrammapretiosumParasiticWaspREPREPPROGLOEL14d110ppm10082682CyromazineAedesepactiusMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC501d0.09mg/L100104036147CyromazineAedesepactiusMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC501d0.17mg/L100104036CyromazineAedesepactiusMosquitoREPREPNFOLNOEC2d0.17mg/L100104036CyromazineAedesepactiusMosquitoMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO1d0.03mg/L100104036MelamineOncorhynchusmykissRainbowTroutACCACCRSDELOAEL1d20.6mg/kgbdwt100152274MelamineIctaluruspunctatusChannelCatfishACCACCRSDELOAEL1d21.9mg/kgbdwt100152274CyromazineAgaricusbisporusChampignonMushroomPOPPOPBMASNOAELhv1.95ppm10097536CyromazineAgaricusbisporusChampignonMushroomGROGROWGHTNOAELhv1.95ppm10097536CyromazineTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDNOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineBelonolaimuslongicaudatusStingNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineMeloidogyneincognitaRoot‐KnotNematodePOPPOPABNDLOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineHoplolaimusgaleatusNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineParatrichodoruschristieiStubbyRootNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhvAIkg/ha10099385CyromazineChrysanthemumXmorifoliumFlorist'sDaisyGROGROWGHTNOELhvlb/acre10099385CyromazineTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDNOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineBelonolaimuslongicaudatusStingNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineMeloidogyneincognitaRoot‐KnotNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineHoplolaimusgaleatusNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineParatrichodoruschristieiStubbyRootNematodePOPPOPABNDNOELhv0.14AIkg/ha7599385CyromazineChrysanthemumXmorifoliumFlorist'sDaisyGROGROWGHTNOELhv0.12488lb/acre7599385CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerGRODVPPUPALOELlvp3000ppm100113400CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOELlva3000ppm100113400148CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL3dAIlb/acre10097444MelamineTetrahymenapyriformisCiliatePOPPOPABNDNOAELLOAEL1.083333d50250mg/L100152940MelamineTetrahymenapyriformisCiliatePOPPOPGENTIC502.166667d820mg/L100152940CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL21d250500ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSLOAEL7d25ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL28d25250ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORSURVNOAEL224d1000ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBEHFDBFCNSNOAELLOAEL112d2501000ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPAEGWGHTNOAEL224d1000ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenBCMBCMSGRVNOAEL224d1000ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenGROMPHWGHTNOAEL224d1000ppm10096667CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenREPREPHHEPNOAEL224d1000ppm10096667MelamineOreochromissp.BlueTilapiaMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO10dmg/kgbdwt100152942MelamineIctaluruspunctatusChannelCatfishMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO10dmg/kgbdwt100152942MelamineOncorhynchusmykissRainbowTroutMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO10dmg/kgbdwt100152942MelamineSalmosalarAtlanticSalmonMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO10dmg/kgbdwt100152942MelamineSusscrofaPigMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO1d400ppm100152942CyromazineLiriomyzasativaeVegetableLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOAELd0.17AIlb/acre100150684CyromazineBelonolaimuslongicaudatusStingNematodePOPPOPABNDNOAEL60d6.7AIkg/ha7599384CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOAELd0.17AIlb/acre100150684CyromazineCriconemoidessp.RingNematodePOPPOPABNDNOAEL60d6.7AIkg/ha7599384CyromazineHelicotylenchusdishysteraSteiner'SSpiralNematodePOPPOPABNDLOAEL60d6.7AIkg/ha7599384CyromazineNRHymenopteraBeeOrderPOPPOPABNDLOAELd0.17AIlb/acre100150684149CyromazineParatrichodoruschristieiStubbyRootNematodePOPPOPABNDNOAEL60d6.7AIkg/ha7599384CyromazineNRNemataNematodePhylumPOPPOPABNDNOAEL60d6.7AIkg/ha7599384CyromazineCynodondactylonBermudagrassPOPPOPBMASNOAEL60d5.9764lb/acre7599384CyromazineCynodondactylonBermudagrassPHYPHYTNSTNOAEL180d5.9764lb/acre7599384CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL112d1000ppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyGROGROWGHTNOAELLOAEL35d1000ppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyBEHFDBFCNSLOAEL112dppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyMORMORMORTNOAEL280d2000ppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyMORMORMORTNOAEL280d2000ppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyREPAEGFERTNOAELLOAEL245d10002000ppm10097534CyromazineMeleagrisgallopavoWildTurkeyREPREPPROGNOAEL266d2000ppm10097534MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOAEL15d600mg/kgbdwt100152941MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOAEL15d600mg/kgbdwt100152941MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURICNOAELLOAEL15d100300mg/kgbdwt100152941CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTLC903d628ppm75152927CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTLC503d69.6ppm75152927CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMGLUCLOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMGLUCLOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMGLUCNOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMLIPDNOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMLIPDNOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMLIPDNOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMPRCOLOEL7d0.15ppm10096075150CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMPRCOLOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMBCMPRCONOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZALPHLOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZALPHLOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZALPHLOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOTRLOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOTRLOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOTRLOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGPTRNOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGPTRLOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGPTRNOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOPGNOEL7d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOPGNOEL14d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineGallussp.ChickenBCMENZGOPGNOEL21d0.15ppm10096075CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL14dAIlb/acre10097444CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL28dAIlb/acre10097444CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOELLOEL5d0.1250.25AIlb/acre7597476CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL11d0.125AIlb/acre7597476CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL21d0.125AIlb/acre7597476CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOEL77d0.5AIlb/acre7597476CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL8d0.125AIlb/acre7597475CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOEL8dAIlb/acre7597475CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.17mg/L96.3152935151CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.39mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.093mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAedesaegyptiYellowFeverMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.26mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAnophelesgambiaeMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.031mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAnophelesgambiaeMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.35mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAnophelesgambiaeMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.073mg/L96.3152935CyromazineAnophelesgambiaeMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.42mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.033mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.14mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.053mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.075mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC50em0.028mg/L96.3152935CyromazineCulexquinquefasciatusSouthernHouseMosquitoGRODVPEMRGIC90em0.12mg/L96.3152935MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckREPAEGWGHTNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckREPREPPROGNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBEHFDBFCNSNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckPHYPHYFDCVNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMBCMURENNOELLOEL21d24.87549.75ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMENZGPTRNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckGROMPHSMIXNOELLOEL21d49.7599.5ppm>=99.5152936152MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL21d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTLOAEL14d24mg/kgbdwt100152928MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOAEL14d24mg/kgbdwt100152928MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMCRCONOAEL14d240mg/kgbdwt100152928MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatPHYPHYEXCRNOAEL14d240mg/kgbdwt100152928CyromazineLiriomyzatrifoliiSerpentineLeafminerPOPPOPABNDLOEL3d75AIg/ha100152921CyromazineHelicoverpaarmigeraOldWorldBollwormPOPPOPABNDLOELhv75AIg/ha100152921CyromazineBemisiatabaciSweetpotatoWhiteflyPOPPOPABNDNOELhv225AIg/ha100152921CyromazineSolanumlycopersicumTomatoPOPPOPBMASNOELhv0.20025lb/acre100152921CyromazineDactylariahigginsiiFungusREPREPGERMNOEL1.041667d1990ppm10088572CyromazineDactylariahigginsiiFungusPOPPOPDMTRLOEL28d1990ppm10088572MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatREPREPPROGNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatACCACCRSDENOELLOEL8d39.6396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatACCACCRSDENOELLOEL8d39.6396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMENZGOTRNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMENZGPTRNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMENZGGTRNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMCREANOELLOEL8d39.6396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURENNOELLOEL8d39.6396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURICNOELLOEL8d39.6396mg/kgbdwt>99152926153MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatCELHISGHISNOEL8d396mg/kgbdwt>99152926MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURENNOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURENNOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMCREANOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMCREANOEL7d122.463ppm99152925MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOEL4d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOEL6d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROGROWGHTNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHWGHTNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHSMIXNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatGROMPHSMIXNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMTLBLNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMURENNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatBCMBCMCREANOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatCELCELTWBCNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatCELCELLMPHNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatCELCELNEUTNOEL7d315mg/kgbdwt100152923MelamineRattusnorvegicusNorwayRatMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO7d122.463ppm99152925CyromazineAgaricusbisporusChampignonMushroomPOPPOPBMASLOAELhv3g/m10097536CyromazineAgaricusbisporusChampignonMushroomGROGROWGHTNOAELhv9g/m10097536154MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMBCMCREANOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMBCMURICNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMENZGOTRNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMENZALPHNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckBCMENZGGTPNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckGROMPHSMIXNOEL21d99.5ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL1d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL2d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL3d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL7d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936MelamineAnasplatyrhynchosMallardDuckACCACCRSDENOELLOEL14d4.97524.875ppm>=99.5152936CyromazineGallusdomesticusDomesticChickenMORMORSURVNOAEL28d10000ppm10096667CyromazineNRHisteridaeHisterBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRHisteridaeHisterBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRHisteridaeHisterBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRHisteridaeHisterBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRStaphylinidaeRoveBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRStaphylinidaeRoveBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRStaphylinidaeRoveBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRStaphylinidaeRoveBeetleFamilyPOPPOPABNDLOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTLC5010d92.25ppm100100704CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTLC2010d12.75ppm100100704CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOELhv0.125lb/acre10097424155CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOELhv0.25lb/acre10097424CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleGRODVPMOLTLOAELd12.75ppm100100704CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleBEHFDBFCNSLOAEL1d12.75ppm100100704CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleGROGROWGHTLOAEL1d12.75ppm100100704CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleGROGROWGHTLOAEL3d12.75ppm100100704CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleBEHFDBFCNSLOAEL3d12.75ppm100100704CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothBCMBCMCHTNNOAEL0.270833d47ppm100100668CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothBCMBCMWTCOLOAEL1d47ppm100100668CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothBCMBCMPRCOLOAEL1d47ppm100100668CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothBCMBCMPRCONOAEL1d47ppm100100668CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTNR‐LETH6d750ppm7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORMORTNR‐LETH10d750ppm7594811CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothBCMBCMPRCONOAEL0.541667d47ppm100100668CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleMORMORSURVNOAEL25d2250ppm7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetleGRODVPEMRGLOAELem750ppm7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL20d0.14AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL7d0.125AIlb/acre7597486CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAELhv0.25AIlb/acre7597486CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOAEL25d0.42AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOAEL25d0.42AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL6d0.14AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothGROGROWGHTLOAEL0.166667d100ppm93.7112619CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothGROGROWGHTLOAEL0.166667d100ppm93.7112619156CyromazineManducasextaHawkMothGROGROWGHTLOAEL0.166667d100ppm93.7112619CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL13d0.14AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineMacrochelesmuscaedomesticaeBeemitePOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineMacrochelesmuscaedomesticaeBeemitePOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineFuscuropodavegetansMitePOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineFuscuropodavegetansMitePOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRNeobisiidaePseudoscorpionFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRNeobisiidaePseudoscorpionFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRAnthocoridaeMinutePirateBugFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRAnthocoridaeMinutePirateBugFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOAEL25d0.42AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineNRFanniidaeNRPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRFanniidaeNRPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOAEL25d0.42AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDNOAELLOAEL25d0.140.27AIkg/ha7594811CyromazineNRMuscidaeTsetse,Stable,HornFlyFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineNRMuscidaeTsetse,Stable,HornFlyFamilyPOPPOPABNDNOAELd0.1%10094754CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAEL25d0.37464lb/acre7594811CyromazineSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAEL25d0.37464lb/acre7594811CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL4d0.25AIlb/acre10097728CyromazineLeptinotarsadecemlineataColoradoPotatoBeetlePOPPOPABNDLOAEL4d0.25AIlb/acre10097728