(Also known as: tepraloxydim metabolite DP-1; tepraloxydim imine)
SUMMARY
Data alerts
The following alerts are based on the data in the tables below. An absence of an alert does not imply the substance has no implications for human health, biodiversity or the environment but just that we do not have the data to form a judgement.
A5 A = EU regulatory and evaluation data as published by EC, EFSA (RAR, DAR & Conclusion dossiers), EMA (e.g. EU Annex III PIC DGD) (EU - Pesticides database; EFSA Scientific Publications ) 5 = Verified data used for regulatory purposes
Slightly mobile
Kfoc
578
1/n
0.912
Notes and range
EU dossier Kf range 0.47-3.87 mL g⁻¹; Kfoc range 48-1107 mL g⁻¹; 1/n range 0.872-0.936; Soils=6
pH sensitivity
No
Fate indices
Property
Value
Source; quality score; and other information
Interpretation
GUS leaching potential index
2.23
Calculated
Transition state
SCI-GROW groundwater index (μg l⁻¹) for a 1 kg ha⁻¹ or 1 l ha⁻¹ application rate
Value
1.09 X 10-01
Calculated
-
Note
-
Potential for particle bound transport index
-
-
-
Potential for loss via drain flow
-
-
-
Bio-concentration factor
BCF (l kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
CT₅₀ (days)
-
-
Known metabolites
None
ECOTOXICOLOGY
Terrestrial ecotoxicology
Property
Value
Source; quality score; and other information
Interpretation
Mammals - Acute oral LD₅₀ (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Mammals - Short term dietary NOEL
(mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
(ppm diet)
-
-
Mammals - Chronic 21d NOAEL (mg kg⁻¹ bw d⁻¹)
-
-
-
Birds - Acute LD₅₀ (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Birds - Short term dietary (LC₅₀/LD₅₀)
-
-
-
Birds - Chronic 21d NOEL (mg kg⁻¹ bw d⁻¹)
-
-
-
Earthworms - Acute 14 day LC₅₀ (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Earthworms - Chronic NOEC, reproduction (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Soil micro-organisms
-
-
-
Collembola
Acute LC₅₀ (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Chronic NOEC (mg kg⁻¹)
-
-
-
Non-target plants
-
-
-
-
-
-
Honeybees (Apis spp.)
Contact acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
Oral acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
Unknown mode acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
Chronic
-
-
-
Bumblebees (Bombus spp.)
Contact acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
-
Oral acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
-
Mason bees (Osmia spp.)
Contact acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
Oral acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg bee⁻¹)
-
-
-
Other bee species (1)
Acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg insect⁻¹)
-
-
-
Mode of exposure
-
Other bee species (2)
Acute LD₅₀ (worst case from 24, 48 and 72 hour values - μg insect⁻¹)
-
-
-
Mode of exposure
-
Beneficial insects (Ladybirds)
-
-
-
Beneficial insects (Lacewings)
-
-
-
Beneficial insects (Parasitic wasps)
-
-
-
Beneficial insects (Predatory mites)
-
-
-
Beneficial insects (Ground beetles)
-
-
-
Aquatic ecotoxicology
Property
Value
Source; quality score; and other information
Interpretation
Fish - Acute 96 hour LC₅₀ (mg l⁻¹)
> 100
A5 A = EU regulatory and evaluation data as published by EC, EFSA (RAR, DAR & Conclusion dossiers), EMA (e.g. EU Annex III PIC DGD) (EU - Pesticides database; EFSA Scientific Publications ) 5 = Verified data used for regulatory purposes
A5 A = EU regulatory and evaluation data as published by EC, EFSA (RAR, DAR & Conclusion dossiers), EMA (e.g. EU Annex III PIC DGD) (EU - Pesticides database; EFSA Scientific Publications ) 5 = Verified data used for regulatory purposes
Daphnia magna
Low
Aquatic invertebrates - Chronic 21 day NOEC (mg l⁻¹)
Aquatic plants - Acute 7 day EC₅₀, biomass (mg l⁻¹)
-
-
-
Algae - Acute 72 hour EC₅₀, growth (mg l⁻¹)
> 100
A5 A = EU regulatory and evaluation data as published by EC, EFSA (RAR, DAR & Conclusion dossiers), EMA (e.g. EU Annex III PIC DGD) (EU - Pesticides database; EFSA Scientific Publications ) 5 = Verified data used for regulatory purposes
Lewis, K.A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. and Green, A. (2016) An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 22(4), 1050-1064. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2015.1133242