Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: - | CAS number: -
- 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
Link to relevant study record(s)
- Endpoint:
- biodegradation in soil: simulation testing
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2008 and 2010
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 307 (Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil)
- Version / remarks:
- 2002
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Two experiments were performed:
1. 2008 with Soil 1, 15 days
2. 2010 with Soil 1 and Soil 2, 28 days - GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Remarks:
- Study was performed for inclusion of substance 2-(3,4-dimethyl-pyrazol-1-yl)-succinic acid in Regulation (EC) 2003/2003, Table F.2-Nitrification Inhibitors. It was intentionally not performed to be used for registration under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.
- Test type:
- laboratory
- Radiolabelling:
- no
- Oxygen conditions:
- aerobic
- Soil classification:
- other: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
- Soil no.:
- #1
- Soil type:
- sandy loam
- % Clay:
- 4
- % Silt:
- 23
- % Sand:
- 73
- % Org. C:
- 1.37
- pH:
- 6.8
- Soil no.:
- #2
- Soil type:
- sandy loam
- % Clay:
- 3
- % Silt:
- 22
- % Sand:
- 75
- % Org. C:
- 0.99
- pH:
- 6.1
- Details on soil characteristics:
- SOIL COLLECTION AND STORAGE
- Geographic location: Soil 1: Limburgerhof, Germany; Soil 2: Kaldenkirchen, Germany
- Collection procedures: About 3 weeks before the beginning of the tests Soil 2 was taken out of the uppermost layer of soil from lysimeters filled at the Jülich research centre and provided to the test facility. - Soil No.:
- #1
- Duration:
- 15 d
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Duration:
- 28 d
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Duration:
- 28 d
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Initial conc.:
- 33.1 other: µg test substance in 50 g soil
- Based on:
- test mat.
- Soil No.:
- #2
- Initial conc.:
- 33.1 other: µg test substance in 50 g soil
- Based on:
- test mat.
- Parameter followed for biodegradation estimation:
- test mat. analysis
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Humidity:
- 50%
- Soil No.:
- #1
- % Degr.:
- 100
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 15 d
- Soil No.:
- #1
- % Degr.:
- 99.9
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 28 d
- Soil No.:
- #2
- % Degr.:
- 100
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 28 d
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 3.3 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 2.9 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Soil No.:
- #2
- DT50:
- 1.5 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Transformation products:
- yes
- No.:
- #1
- Details on transformation products:
- - Formation and decline of each transformation product during test:
DMP formation:
Soil 1
30% of applied 1A after 15 days (2008 experiment)
99.4% of applied 1A after 28 days (2010 experiment)
Soil 2
93.4% of applied 1A after 28 days (2010 experiment) - Details on results:
- Normalised half-lives for DMP(P):
Soil #1, 15 d sampling: 7.6 d (DMP(P) application)
Soil #1, 28 d sampling: 7.2 d (DMP(P) application)
Soil #2, 28 d sampling: 3.8 d (DMP(P) application)
Soil #1, 15 d sampling: T-test for k-rate not significant; DegT50 was excluded from obtained modelling endpoints (pathway fit)
Soil #1, 28 d sampling: 8.1 d (pathway fit)
Soil #2, 28 d sampling: 8.9 d (pathway fit) - Endpoint:
- biodegradation in soil: simulation testing
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Justification for type of information:
- Please refer to the analogue justification attached to chapter 13.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Soil No.:
- #1
- % Degr.:
- 100
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 15 d
- Remarks on result:
- other: key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Soil No.:
- #1
- % Degr.:
- 99.9
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 28 d
- Remarks on result:
- other: key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Soil No.:
- #2
- % Degr.:
- 100
- Parameter:
- test mat. analysis
- Sampling time:
- 28 d
- Remarks on result:
- other: key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 3.3 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Remarks:
- key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 2.9 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Remarks:
- key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Soil No.:
- #2
- DT50:
- 1.5 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SFO model
- Remarks:
- key, Source, Wissemeier, 2012, Transformation in soil
- Transformation products:
- yes
- No.:
- #1
Referenceopen allclose all
Table: Detection of 1A in % after application of 1A or DMP(P) to Soil 1 following extraction with K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the experiment of 2008.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
92.0 |
0.7 |
2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
83.1 |
2.4 |
5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
53.9 |
7.1 |
7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
33.0 |
1.9 |
9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
13.2 |
2.8 |
12 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
0.9 |
15 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Table: Detection of DMP in % after application of DMP(P) or 1A to Soil 1 following extraction with 1% K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the experiment of 2008.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
86.0 |
2.7 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
1 |
75.8 |
3.1 |
4.5 |
0.3 |
2 |
69.8 |
2.2 |
9.8 |
0.5 |
5 |
53.1 |
2.1 |
22.0 |
1.5 |
7 |
46.9 |
1.3 |
28.0 |
0.7 |
9 |
42.2 |
0.8 |
35.1 |
0.5 |
12 |
37.8 |
0.4 |
38.4 |
1.8 |
15 |
31.1 |
1.1 |
31.7 |
0.6 |
Table: Detection of 1A in % after application of DMP(P) or 1A to Soil 1 following extraction with 1% K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the 2010 experiment.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
106.2 |
3.6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
85.5 |
0.2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
54.3 |
4.8 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
9.3 |
1.3 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
28 |
0 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
Table: Detection of 1A in % after application of DMP(P) or 1A to Soil 2 following extraction with 1% K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the 2010 experiment.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
94.6 |
1.1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
41.8 |
2.3 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
19.5 |
4.1 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
1.8 |
0.6 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
28 |
0 |
0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Table: Detection of DMP(P) in % after application of DMP(P) or 1A to Soil 1 following extraction with 1% K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the 2010 experiment.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
sample lost |
n.a. |
0.7 |
0.2 |
2 |
37.6 |
2.5 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
5 |
29.3 |
1.2 |
13.4 |
4.6 |
9 |
22.4 |
1.3 |
33.1 |
1.4 |
14 |
15.7 |
0.6 |
21.4 |
1.9 |
21 |
7.1 |
1.6 |
8.9 |
1.9 |
28 |
6.3 |
5.2 |
5.9 |
4.6 |
Table: Detection of DMP(P) in % after application of DMP(P) or 1A to Soil 2 following extraction with 1% K2SO4 solution (mean of three replicates) during the 2010 experiment.
|
Application of DMP(P) |
Application of 1A |
||
Incubation time (days) |
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
0 |
88.7 |
3.2 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
2 |
51.1 |
4.5 |
13.2 |
2.2 |
5 |
37.4 |
3.4 |
18.5 |
2.9 |
9 |
24.6 |
0.9 |
23.9 |
0.6 |
14 |
16.8 |
0.5 |
17.5 |
1.2 |
21 |
4.3 |
1.4 |
5.5 |
0.8 |
28 |
7.6 |
1.1 |
7.4 |
0.2 |
Description of key information
The substance is rapidly degraded in soil.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
Experimental data on biodegradation of Reaction mass of dipotassium 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl) succinate and dipotassium 2-(4,5-dimethy-1H-pyrazol-1-yl) succinate in soil are not available.The assessment was therefore based on a study conducted with the conjugate acid Reaction mass of 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid (CAS 2241455-89-8). The read across approach is in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006, Annex XI, 1.5. Please refer to the analogue justification attached to IUCLID section 13 for a detailed justification.
Data from two independent microcosm studies are available on the biodegradation of the source substance Reaction mass of 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and its metabolite 3,4- dimethylpyrazole (DMP) in soil. The studies were conducted under aerobic conditions at 20 °C and ca. 50% of maximum water holding capacity (MWHC), following the OECD Guideline 307. The first degradation study was carried out in 2008 with Limburgerhof soil, Germany (15 days) and the second in 2010 with soils from Limburgerhof and Kaldenkirchen, Germany (28 days). In total 6 independent data sets were available. In three of these data sets Reaction mass of 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid was applied as test substance, while in 3 further data sets the metabolite DMP was applied as formulated DMP(P) to the test soils. For each individual test 50 g soil was weighed and dosed with either 33.1 μg Reaction mass of 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid or DMP(P). For the test in 2008, samples were taken after 0, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 15 days and for the soils tested in 2010 sampling after 0, 2, 5, 9, 14, 21 and 28 days was considered. Extraction data from 2008 demonstrated a tendency towards higher extractability when 1% K2SO4 solution is used as extraction agent compared to 0.01 mol/L CaCl2. Therefore, samples in 2010 were only extracted with K2SO4. Samples were stored frozen (-18 to -20 °C) until analysis (1 to 5 weeks later). Subsequent measurements of soil extracts were carried out using LC-MS/MS. Fast transformation of Reaction mass of 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid to DMP was observed. In a separate kinetics evaluation conducted with data from this study, normalised half-lives of 1.5 - 3.3 days and formation fractions of 0.32 - 0.45 were determined for the transfomation of the test substance to DMP. The normalised half-life of DMP in soil, tested in parallel, was determined to be 3.8 - 8.9 days.
Based on the results for the source substance Reaction mass of dipotassium 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl) succinate and dipotassium 2-(4,5-dimethy-1H-pyrazol-1-yl) succinate is considered to be rapidly degraded in soil with a half-life < 4 days.
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.
