Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.
The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 814-217-0 | CAS number: 353258-35-2
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Biodegradation in soil
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- biodegradation in soil: simulation testing
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 018
- Report date:
- 2018
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 307 (Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 835.4100 (Aerobic Soil Metabolism)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: JMAFF Guideline No. 12-Nousan-8147, 2-5-2 (2000)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: SETAC Document “Procedures for Assessing the Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicology in Pesticides” (March 1995)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Test type:
- laboratory
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- 8-chloro-6-(trifluoromethyl)imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-2-carboxylic acid
- Cas Number:
- 353258-35-2
- Molecular formula:
- C9H4ClF3N2O2
- IUPAC Name:
- 8-chloro-6-(trifluoromethyl)imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-2-carboxylic acid
1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Substance name: [14C]-IN-QEK31
Lot #: 1572460
Specific activity: 69.12 µCi/mg
Radiochemical purity: 97.8% - Radiolabelling:
- yes
Study design
- Oxygen conditions:
- aerobic
- Soil classification:
- USDA (US Department of Agriculture)
- Year:
- 2 018
Soil propertiesopen allclose all
- Soil no.:
- #1
- Soil type:
- silty clay loam
- % Clay:
- 33
- % Silt:
- 52
- % Sand:
- 15
- % Org. C:
- 2.8
- pH:
- 7
- CEC:
- 20.9 meq/100 g soil d.w.
- % Moisture content:
- 33.4
- Soil no.:
- #2
- Soil type:
- sandy loam
- % Clay:
- 5
- % Silt:
- 21
- % Sand:
- 74
- % Org. C:
- 1.4
- pH:
- 5.3
- CEC:
- 6.1 meq/100 g soil d.w.
- % Moisture content:
- 17
- Soil no.:
- #3
- Soil type:
- sandy loam
- % Clay:
- 11
- % Silt:
- 28
- % Sand:
- 61
- % Org. C:
- 1.5
- pH:
- 7.7
- CEC:
- 9.5 meq/100 g soil d.w.
- % Moisture content:
- 16.9
- Soil no.:
- #4
- Soil type:
- loam
- % Clay:
- 9
- % Silt:
- 46
- % Sand:
- 45
- % Org. C:
- 0.8
- pH:
- 7.9
- CEC:
- 10.8 meq/100 g soil d.w.
- % Moisture content:
- 17.5
- Soil no.:
- #5
- Soil type:
- loamy sand
- % Clay:
- 5
- % Silt:
- 12
- % Sand:
- 83
- % Org. C:
- 1.5
- pH:
- 6.4
- CEC:
- 6.8 meq/100 g soil d.w.
- % Moisture content:
- 12.2
Duration of test (contact time)open allclose all
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Duration:
- 119 d
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Duration:
- 119 d
- Soil No.:
- #3
- Duration:
- 119 d
- Soil No.:
- #4
- Duration:
- 119 d
- Soil No.:
- #5
- Duration:
- 119 d
Initial test substance concentrationopen allclose all
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Initial conc.:
- 1 mg/kg soil d.w.
- Based on:
- act. ingr.
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Initial conc.:
- 1 mg/kg soil d.w.
- Based on:
- act. ingr.
- Soil No.:
- #3
- Initial conc.:
- 1 mg/kg soil d.w.
- Based on:
- act. ingr.
- Soil No.:
- #4
- Initial conc.:
- 1 mg/kg soil d.w.
- Based on:
- act. ingr.
- Soil No.:
- #5
- Initial conc.:
- 1 mg/kg soil d.w.
- Based on:
- act. ingr.
- Parameter followed for biodegradation estimation:
- radiochem. meas.
Experimental conditionsopen allclose all
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Temp.:
- 20 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- Soil-moisture content: 41.7%
- Microbial biomass:
- Initiation (biomass as % organic carbon): 2.7%
Termination (biomass as % organic carbon): 1.8%
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Temp.:
- 20 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- Soil-moisture content: 20.6%
- Microbial biomass:
- Initiation (biomass as % organic carbon): 1.5%
Termination (biomass as % organic carbon): 1.4%
- Soil No.:
- #3
- Temp.:
- 20 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- Soil-moisture content: 20.8%
- Microbial biomass:
- Initiation (biomass as % organic carbon): 4.0%
Termination (biomass as % organic carbon): 2.6%
- Soil No.:
- #4
- Temp.:
- 20 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- Soil-moisture content: 33.4%
- Microbial biomass:
- Initiation (biomass as % organic carbon): 2.7%
Termination (biomass as % organic carbon): 2.0%
- Soil No.:
- #5
- Temp.:
- 20 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- Soil-moisture content: 10.3%
- Microbial biomass:
- Initiation (biomass as % organic carbon): 1.2%
Termination (biomass as % organic carbon): 2.5%
Results and discussion
Material (mass) balanceopen allclose all
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Sampling day(s):
- 119 d
- % Total extractable:
- 75.3
- % Non extractable:
- 19.5
- % CO2:
- 6.1
- % Other volatiles:
- 4.5
- % Recovery:
- 99.6
- St. dev.:
- 6.1
- Remarks on result:
- other: Tama soil
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Sampling day(s):
- 119 d
- % Total extractable:
- 48.1
- % Non extractable:
- 19.5
- % CO2:
- 19.3
- % Other volatiles:
- 14.3
- % Recovery:
- 94.8
- St. dev.:
- 11
- Remarks on result:
- other: Sassafras soil
- Soil No.:
- #3
- Sampling day(s):
- 119 d
- % Total extractable:
- 56.3
- % Non extractable:
- 17.4
- % CO2:
- 7.4
- % Other volatiles:
- 23.4
- % Recovery:
- 97.9
- St. dev.:
- 11.8
- Remarks on result:
- other: Nambsheim soil
- Soil No.:
- #4
- Sampling day(s):
- 119 d
- % Total extractable:
- 91.6
- % Non extractable:
- 10.1
- % CO2:
- 3.7
- % Other volatiles:
- 0.9
- % Recovery:
- 100
- St. dev.:
- 10.8
- Remarks on result:
- other: Porterville soil
- Soil No.:
- #5
- Sampling day(s):
- 119 d
- % Total extractable:
- 63.7
- % Non extractable:
- 13.4
- % CO2:
- 10.9
- % Other volatiles:
- 15.1
- % Recovery:
- 99.9
- St. dev.:
- 5.5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Speyer 2.2 soil
Half-life / dissipation time of parent compoundopen allclose all
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 182 d
- Type:
- other: SFO kinetics
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Remarks on result:
- other: Tama soil
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #2
- DT50:
- 57.2 d
- Type:
- other: SFO kinetics
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Remarks on result:
- other: Sassafras soil
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #3
- DT50:
- 59.7 d
- Type:
- other: SFO kinetics
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Remarks on result:
- other: Nambsheim soil
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Porterville soil failed to display meaningful decline of parent past the 10 day sampling interval, therefore, DT50 was not calculated.
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #5
- DT50:
- 99.1 d
- Type:
- other: SFO kinetics
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Remarks on result:
- other: Speyer 2.2 soil
- Transformation products:
- yes
Identity of transformation products
- No.:
- #1
Reference
- Reference substance name:
- Unnamed
- Volatile metabolites:
- yes
- Remarks:
- CO2
- Residues:
- yes
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- Based on the
results of this study, IN-QEK31 would degrade to IN-VM862 which would volatilise or become incorporated in soil residues where it may be mineralised to CO2. IN-QEK31 would become less prone to movement with water in aerobic soils over time. - Executive summary:
The rate of degradation and time dependent sorption of [14C]-IN-QEK31 was studied in five aerobic soils in the dark under aerobic conditions at 20 ± 2°C for 119 days. The soils named as Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville (cajon) and Speyer 2.2 were collected from Stark County, Illinois, USA; Kent, Maryland, USA; Alsace, France; Tulare, California, USA and Hanhofen, Germany respectively. All soils were incubated under non sterile conditions. The Tama soil was classified (USDA Textural Class) as a Silty Clay Loam, Sassafras and Nambsheim as Sandy Loam, Porterville as a Loam and Speyer 2.2 as a Loamy Sand. The organic carbon content (Walkley-Black method) of the Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils was 2.8, 1.4, 1.5, 0.8 and 1.5%, respectively. The pH (in water) of the Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils was 7.0, 5.3, 7.7, 7.9 and 6.4, respectively. The soil systems were allowed to acclimatize for up to 13 days prior to test item application.
A radiolabelled form of the test item with 14C in the imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-5,8a (IP) label was used as the test substance. The radiolabelled test item was applied to the soil at a nominal rate of 1.0 μg/g oven dry soil which corresponded to a 1000 g a.i./ha application assuming 10 cm incorporation and 1.0 g/cm3 soil density. Treated vessels were incubated for up to 119 days under aerobic conditions in the dark at 20 ± 2°C.
This study was conducted under GLP and in accordance with the OECD Guideline 307 (2002), US EPA Guidelines, OPPTS 835.4100-Aerobic Soil Metabolism.
The test systems consisted of glass incubation vessels (one set for each soil type) containing a sample of soil. The vessels were connected to air flow-through systems which are typical for soil degradation studies, with polyurethane plugs (PU plug) inserted into the necks of soil flasks and safety traps for retention of a volatile metabolite IN-VM862, in addition to ethanediol and sodium hydroxide traps for the collection of non-specific volatile organic compounds and 14CO2, respectively. Samples were analysed immediately following test item application (zero time) and after the following periods of aerobic incubation: 10, 20, 40, 60, 90 and 119 days.
Prior to soil extractions, an aged desorption step was carried out by extracting the soil samples with 0.01M CaCl2 (50 mL). Extraction was facilitated by shaking on and end-over-end shaker overnight. Phases were separated by centrifugation followed by decanting of the supernatant. Each soil sample was then extracted using a series of organic solvents as follows: acetonitrile: 2% formic acid (aq) (9:1 v/v); followed by acetonitrile: 2% formic acid (aq) (4:1 v/v); and then twice with acetonitrile: 2% formic acid (aq) (1:1 v/v), all at 50°C in an ultrasonic bath. Extractable soil radioactivity was quantified by LSC. The two polyurethane plugs (per sample) were replaced at each sampling interval and were extracted with 20 mL acetonitrile. Radioactivity extracted from polyurethane plugs was quantified by LSC. Non-extractable 14C-residues were quantified by combustion analysis. Each CaCl2 extract was analysed by reverse phase HPLC with online radiodetection. Organic extracts for each sample were combined prior to analysis by reverse phase HPLC with fraction collection. PU plug extracts common for each timepoint were combined and analysed by reverse phase HPLC with fraction collection.
The material balance for all samples was quantitative with the exception of Sassafras Day 40 (replicate 1, 86% AR), Sassafras Day 90 [mean 87% AR] and Porterville Day 119 (replicate 2, 111% AR) samples. The amount of extractable residue declined gradually over the study period due to degradation of the applied material, IN-QEK31, and its partial incorporation into the soil organic matter. Non-extractable residue increased to nearly 20% in three of the five soils (Sassafras, Nambsheim and Speyer 2.2). The decreased extractability was clearly due to more extensive degradation of IN-QEK31 in these soils because a corresponding increased amount of 14CO2 and volatilised IN-VM862 from these soils was observed concomitantly over the duration of the study. Exact percentages of 19.3, 7.4, 10.9 % AR evolved as 14CO2 and 14.3, 23.4, 15.1 % AR captured as volatilised INVM862 in the Sassafras, Nambsheim and Speyer 2.2 soils, respectively, were noted at the final sampling interval.
The degradation of IN-QEK31 in all soils resulted in the formation of one major metabolite, IN-VM862, which was observed in the CaCl2 desorption extracts (quantities <4 % AR) as well as organic solvent extracts and PU plug extracts indicating that IN-VM862 had volatilised from the soil. The formation of INVM862 increased throughout the duration of the study in all 5 soils reaching mean maximum values of 21.5, 27.4, 48.8, 11.4 and 32.1% AR in the Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils at Day 119 (Tama Day 90), respectively.
IN-VM862 was tentatively identified initially by matching the HPLC retention time with the respective reference standard, and then confirmed by LC/MS analysis.
Tama and Porterville soils displayed lower non-extractable residue, as well as lower levels of 14CO2 and volatilised IN-VM862. Levels of 14CO2 and volatilised IN-VM862 observed in these soil reached a mean maximum of 6.1 and 3.7% for 14CO2 and 4.5 and 0.9% for IN-VM862 at the final sampling interval.
Non-extractable residues in all soils were characterised using organic matter fractionation. After extractions with NaOH solutions, the non-extractable residue of select samples from each soil type was fractionated into humin, fulvic acid and humic acid fractions. In four of the soils (Tama, Sassafras, Porterville and Speyer 2.2) the majority of the radioactivity was characterised as being associated with the humin and fulvic acid fractions of the soil organic matter, in nearly equal quantities, while the balance was found in the humic acid fractions. In the Nambsheim soil the majority of the radioactivity was characterised as being associated with the humin fraction (>64%) with the balance found in the humicand fulvic acid fractions.
The decline of IN-QEK31 was plotted against sampling intervals and the degradation rates (DT50 and DT90) determined using SFO kinetics. IN-QEK31 degrades under aerobic conditions in five soils examined in this study with a DT50 of 182, 57.2, 59.7 and 99.1 days and DT90 of 605, 190, 198 and 239 days in the Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim and Speyer soils, respectively. Porterville degradation data did not display a consistent pattern and was therefore not modelled.
The desorption coefficient, Kd,des, of IN-QEK31 was calculated for each soil at each sampling interval based on the concentrations found in soil and in CaCl2 extracts. At zero time the mean Kd,des values for Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils were 2.50, 2.26, 0.86, 2.84 and 1.25, respectively. The corresponding Day 119 values were 5.67, 7.15, 2.61, 7.82 and 3.63 respectively.
The desorption coefficients were normalised to the organic matter and organic carbon contents for each soil to calculate the coefficients Kom,des and Koc,des, respectively. At zero time the mean Kom,des values for Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils were 51, 94, 34, 219 and 50, respectively. The corresponding Day 119 values were 116, 298, 105, 601 and 145, respectively. At zero time the mean Koc,des values for Tama, Sassafras, Nambsheim, Porterville and Speyer 2.2 soils were 89, 162, 57, 355 and 83, respectively. The corresponding Day 119 values were 202, 511, 174, 977 and 242, respectively.
These results demonstrate a clear increase in time dependent sorption for INQEK31 and hence a decreasing potential for mobility with time. Based on the results of this study, IN-QEK31 would degrade to IN-VM862 which would volatilise or become incorporated in soil residues where it may be mineralised to CO2. IN-QEK31 would become less prone to movement with water in aerobic soils over time.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.