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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 266-257-8 | CAS number: 66215-27-8
- 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
Monitoring data
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- monitoring data
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Study period:
- 1990/05/24 to 1992/03/04
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- test procedure in accordance with national standard methods
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 992
- Report date:
- 1992
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Environmental Fate: 166-1 Ground water monitoring. US Environmental Protection Agency
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of measurement:
- background concentration
- Media:
- ground water
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine
- EC Number:
- 266-257-8
- EC Name:
- N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine
- Cas Number:
- 66215-27-8
- Molecular formula:
- C6H10N6
- IUPAC Name:
- N2-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine
Constituent 1
Study design
- Details on sampling:
- Samples of soil and ground water were collected before and after spraying at regular intervals up to 307 days after the last treatment.
Results and discussion
Concentrationopen allclose all
- Key result
- Country:
- United States (the)
- Location:
- South Florida
- Substance or metabolite:
- metabolite
- Remarks:
- Melamine
- Conc.:
- 0.1 other: µg/kg
- Remarks on result:
- other: following day 176
- Key result
- Country:
- United States (the)
- Location:
- South Florida
- Substance or metabolite:
- substance
- Remarks:
- Cyromazine
- Conc.:
- 0.1 other: µg/kg
- Remarks on result:
- other: following day 176
- Details on results:
- Movement of cyromazine in soil was not detected below a 0-15 cm soil depth. In the 0-15 cm soil layer residues were as high as 47 µg/kg (subplot B) after the fourth application but decreased significantly from day 61 after the last (sixth) application. The great variability of cyromazine residues in the 0-15 cm soil samples was attributed to the foliar treatment and to the agricultural practices (plastic covered bedded-up rows). Melamine did exhibit some intermittent movement to the 15-30 cm soil depth. Residues of cyromazine and of melamine were below the detection limit of 0.1 µg/kg in all soil samples after day 176.
Actual breakthrough of bromide into ground water was inconclusive due to the limited amount of detections in the well samples. Analyses of the water samples from the 10 monitoring wells taken at 29 time intervals during the treatment period and up to 307 days after the last treatment showed no detectable residues of cyromazine at the screening level of 0.10 µg/L. Only sporadic trace levels in the range of 0.10 to 0.21 µg/L of the metabolite melamine were detected in 6 out of 290 water samples.
During the first three months of the study duration the field was drastically irrigated. Therefore the conditions can be considered as a worst-case scenario regarding leaching. It was concluded that due to lack of detection of cyromazine and the degradate melamine in the monitoring wells following typical agronomic practices for tomato production in southern Florida the use of cyromazine results in no potential impact on ground water resources.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Table 2: Florida ground water monitoring study, results of soil residue analysis
Days after last application$ | Cyromazine (mg/kg)* | Melamine (mg/kg)* | ||||
0 - 15 cm | 15 - 30 cm | 30 - 46 cm | 0 - 15 cm | 15 - 30 cm | 30 - 46 cm | |
-1 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
0 (1) | 0.0109 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
-1 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0133 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
0 (2) | 0.0143 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0159 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
+6 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0118 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
-1 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0139 | < 0.010 | ** |
0 (3) | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0177 | < 0.010 | ** |
+6 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0118 | < 0.010 | ** |
-1 | 0.0139 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0378 | 0.0192 | ** |
0 (4) | 0.0216 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0472 | < 0.010 | ** |
+6 | 0.0312 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0276 | 0.0140 | ** |
-1 | 0.0111 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0194 | < 0.010 | ** |
0 (5) | 0.0191 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0447 | 0.0107 | ** |
-1 | 0.0149 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0210 | < 0.010 | ** |
0 (6) | 0.0145 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0232 | < 0.010 | ** |
1 | 0.0115 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0202 | 0.0138 | ** |
3 |
| < 0.010 | ** | 0.0464 | < 0.010 | ** |
7 | 0.0159 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0152 | < 0.010 | ** |
14 | 0.0307 | < 0.010 | ** | 0.0252 | < 0.010 | ** |
30 | 0.0340 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0446 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
61 | 0.0138 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0293 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
91 | 0.0119 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0252 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
120 | 0.0253 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0414 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
152 | 0.0203 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
| < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
176 | 0.0111 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0295 | 0.0149 | < 0.010 |
216 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0174 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
246 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0198 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
273 | 0.0106 | < 0.010 |
| 0.0265 | < 0.010 | ** |
307 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 | 0.0298 | < 0.010 | < 0.010 |
$: number of application in brackets; negative values: days before next application
*Average from three subplots
** samples not taken due to water table depth of 46 cm
Table 3: Florida ground water monitoring study, precipitation during study duration
Month | Monthly precipitation 1976 - 1986 * | Irrigation and precipitation for study duration | ||
(mm) | Cumulative (mm) | (mm) | Cumulative (mm) | |
September | 176.3 | 176.3 | 1609.3 | 1609.3 |
October | 46.5 | 222.8 | 1393.7 | 3028.4 |
November | 49.3 | 272.0 | 494.0 | 3522.5 |
December | 58.7 | 330.7 | 11.7 | 3534.2 |
January | 69.1 | 399.8 | 79.0 | 3613.2 |
February | 87.4 | 487.2 | 23.9 | 3637.0 |
March | 80.3 | 567.4 | 138.7 | 3775.7 |
April | 37.6 | 605.0 | 97.0 | 3873.0 |
May | 96.0 | 701.0 | 217.2 | 4090.2 |
June | 160.0 | 861.1 | 105.4 | 4195.6 |
July | 191.8 | 1052.8 | 257.3 | 4452.9 |
August | 198.9 | 1251.7 | 169.9 | 4622.8 |
September | 176.3 | 1428.0 | 97.3 | 4720.1 |
*Source: National Weather Service, Ruskin, Florida
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- During the first three months of the study duration the field was drastically irrigated. Therefore the conditions can be considered as a worst-case scenario regarding leaching. It was concluded that due to lack of detection of cyromazine and the degradate melamine in the monitoring wells following typical agronomic practices for tomato production in southern Florida the use of cyromazine results in no potential impact on ground water resources.
- Executive summary:
A small-scale prospective ground water monitoring study was conducted in a worst-case hydrogeologically vulnerable area in South Florida. It represents typical practices for tomato production and for use of the test substance in an extreme worst-case environment with respect to potential for ground water contamination associated with the use of agricultural chemicals.
Ten monitoring wells were installed at the test site prior to application of cyromazine with a ground boom sprayer at a rate of six times 140 g a.s./ha over a period of 8 weeks beginning September 12, 1990. Sodium bromide was applied as the reference substance to monitor chemical movement.
During the first three months of the study duration the field was drastically irrigated. Therefore the conditions can be considered as a worst-case scenario regarding leaching. It was concluded that due to lack of detection of cyromazine and the degradate melamine in the monitoring wells following typical agronomic practices for tomato production in southern Florida the use of cyromazine results in no potential impact on ground water resources.
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.