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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 273-744-9 | CAS number: 69012-45-9 By-product produced in the rolling of copper wire either in a conventional rod mill or a continuous cast rod mill. Consists of metallic copper, cuprous oxide and cupric oxide.
- 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
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Additional information
-
Type I: from cable producer 1: scale (coating)
-
Type I: from cable producer 2 (=downstream user): copper scale
-
Type II: from cable producer 1: slag as produced from a melting furnace (= dross)
-
Type II: from cable producer 2 (downstream user): copper dross, from copper melting (a mix of copper dross and slags, with pieces up to 5cm diam)
-
Type II: from (secondary) smelter: fines and parts were collected separately, resulting in two samples of copper dross (= two extremes); (sample 1) more oxidic fines, (sample 2) more metallic particulates
REACH Copper Consortium
Environmental classification of B10 Scale, copper
1. Introduction and approach
The copper intermediate is identified as follows
Intermediate B10 - Scale (coating), Copper
“Residue produced by melting or treating at a high temperature metallic copper (metal, alloy, scrap). The intermediate consist mainly of copper metal and oxides from copper (I) or zinc. It may contain silicates.”
|
|
||
EC names |
EC number/ EINECS No. |
CAS No. |
|
Scale (coating), copper* |
273-744-9 |
69012-45-9 |
|
Waste solids, copper-refinery* |
273-718-7 |
679012-18-6 |
|
Waste solids, copper-casting* |
273-717-1 |
69012-17-5 |
|
Copper, dross* |
305-408-5 |
94551-59-4 |
|
Scale (coating), mill, copper* |
305-427-9 |
94551-81-2 |
Copper scale is considered as a complex metal bearing material.
For complex metal bearing substance, the self-classification of the UVCB substance (in accordance to the EU hazard classification system (CLP, 2009) was performed based on below outline:
Characterization: the material is accurately described from its elemental composition (typical concentrations and concentration ranges across production sites), and the specific speciation data (mineralogical information) obtained from representative samples. This information is enough to initiate the classification process.
Classification by the Mixture Approach
The UVCB is treated as a complex metal containing substance with a number of discrete constituting compounds (metals, metal compounds, non-metal inorganic compounds). The hazard classifications of each compound is then factored into a combined classification of the UVCB as a whole. For environmental endpoints, additivity and/or summation algorithms are applied to quantitatively estimate the mixture’s toxicity to aquatic organisms. These concepts and rules are incorporated in easy to use IT tools, which can be used to classify the UVCB (i.e. MeClas).
Bridging or Read-Across: (Eco)-toxicological data are not available for all the specific UVCBs being evaluated. Considering the knowledge and variability in composition, read-across and bridging is done by using a "representative" mineralogical/speciation analysis combined with the "worst case" metal concentration (across companies) as a basis for the classification of the UVCB substance (chemical and mineralogical surrogates with similar origin/production process and physical/chemical properties).
Eventual correction:correction for (bio)availability was made on basis of Transformation/dissolution test results available.
2. Summary of the chemistry and metal releases
The chemistry and mineralogy of Scale, copper B10 intermediate was assessed by Liippo et al, 2010 (see IUCLID Section 1.4 Analytical information & Section 4.23). In this assessment, samples of scales corresponding to different types of materials were characterized. Samples were selected as representative for the production processes, and the origin of the raw material (e.g. scale coating and dross-like materials). Sampling and sample preparation was performed according to the “ECI sampling protocol REACH B10” (see IUCLID Section 1.4 Analytical information):
Representative samples analysed:
The studied six (6) copper scale and dross samples contains between 23.6 and 86.8% copper. Zinc and lead contents ranges from below detection limits to 19.1 and 1.6%, correspondingly. The chemistry and mineralogical data demonstrated that all tested samples correspond to the identity described above, although the mineralogical composition of the UVCB may vary slightly (see composition IUCLID Section 1.2). Most samples consist mainly of copper ( in some samples alloyed by zinc or aluminium), and copper oxides (cuprite and tenorite forms). Zincite (Zn oxides and Zn alloy) is present in two samples. In lead –bearing samples, lead is carried completely by metallic lead or mainly by metallic lead (61.5%), amorphous lead glass (32.1%) and lead oxides (6.3%).
For each type of scale, a characteristic distribution pattern for each constituting element was observed:
For type I (Scale-type materials):
Copper is in the form of Cu metal/alloys (massive, 46.09% from Total Cu) + oxides (WC Cu2O/Cu(I), 53.91% from total Cu)
Lead, if present, is in the form of Pb metal (massive, 100% from total Pb)
Iron, if present, is mainly in the form of amorphous glass
Other minor metal elements are, if present, following the same distribution pattern than Copper (= assumed Worst Case), i.e. metal/alloys (massive, 46.09% from Total Element) + oxides (WC , 53.91% from total Element)
For type II (Dross-type materials):
Copper is in the form of Cu metal/alloys (WC powder, 85.23% from Total Cu) + oxides (WC Cu2O/Cu(I), 14.77% from total Cu)
Lead is in the form of Pb metal/alloys (WC powder, 61.54% from Total Pb) + Pb compounds (38.46% from Total Pb)
Zinc is in the form of oxides (WC ZnO, 93.82% from total Zn) + metal/alloy (WC powder, 6.08% from Total Zn)
Nickel is in the form of oxides (WC NiO, 14.77% from total Ni) + Ni metal/alloy (WC powder, 85.23% from total Ni)
Iron is present mainly in the form of intermetallic inclusion, alloys, silicates, and/or amorphous glass.
Other minor metal elements are, if present, following the same distribution pattern than Cu , i.e. in the form of oxides (14.77% from total element) + metal/alloy forms (WC powder, 85.23% from Total element)
For classification purposes, these two distribution patterns were retained as Reasonable Worst Case (RWC). The two types of materials are mainly differentiated from each other based on their respective Fe content, closely linked to their Cu oxide content (i.e. higher % Fe( as in dross) = high %Cu metal/alloy forms and thus low %CuO content)
Considering the chemical compositions across industry, 4 grades were derived in order to cover the worst cases for key drivers of the classification:
|
Grade 1 |
Grade 2 |
Grade 3 |
Grade 4 |
RWC pattern |
Type I: scale(coating)-like materials |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni max <1%, Pb max <2%) |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni ≥1%, Pb max <2%) |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni max <1%, Pb > 2%) |
Cu |
70 ≤ Cu < 90 % (typ: ca 75%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
Pb |
Max ≤0.15% |
Max < 2% |
Max < 2% |
Max < 10% |
Ni |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 1% |
1 ≤ Ni < 10% |
Max < 1% |
Co |
Max < 0.1 % |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Zn |
Max ≤1% |
Max < 40% |
Max < 40% |
Max < 40% |
Cd |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Sn |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 10% |
Max < 10% |
Max < 10% |
Fe |
max ≤ca. 0.3% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
SiO2, Al2O3, etc |
Max < 15% |
Max < 30% |
Max < 30% |
Max < 30% |
3. Environmental classification
For complex metal bearing substance, for Lower Tier hazard classification in accordance to the EU hazard classification system (, 2009), the classification is based on the summation of classified components, as summarised in Table below.
Classification for acute hazards, based on summation of classified components
Sum of components classified as: |
Mixture is classified as: |
Acute Category 1´xM (a)≥25 % |
Acute Category 1 |
For Higher Tier hazard classification in accordance to the EU hazard classification system (, 2009), ecotoxicity data obtained from tests carried out with soluble metal species and expressed as metal ions (µg Cu/L) are compared to metal ions released (µg Cu/L) during the transformation/dissolution (T/D) tests.
Considering that the intermediate contains several metals, releases from a broad range of metals were assessed during T/D tests. The acute hazard assessment was subsequently assessed using the additive mixture toxicity rule.
Toxic Units (TU) were thus calculated for each sample, assuming additive metal toxicity as:
|
A TU >1 indicates toxicity and may mead to classification
Whereby
- Ci corresponds to the respective metal concentrations measured after Transformation/dissolution of the material, in accordance to the OECD 2001.
- L(E)C50i corresponds to the acute ecotoxicity reference values
The assessment ofacutehazard classification is based on a 7 days transformation/Dissolution test (T/D test) with 100 mg/l loading.
Considering the composition of this complex test material, the following experimental design was used:
- The test was carried out at pH of 6, maximizing the releases of the relevant metal ions in the material (Cu, Pb, Ni).
- For this massive to fine material, the test was therefore carried out at a particle size of below 1mm, in view to cover a worst-case sample of type I
- The tests were carried out at a maximum loading of 100 mg/L to enhance the reproducibility of the results for this complex material and to ensure that the metal releases are measurable (above detection limit).
- In view of deriving an acute classification endpoint, the test duration was set at 7 days.
- Following the transformation/dissolution, a broad range of metals releases are considered.
The assessment of thechronichazard follows the same Toxic Unit approach. In this case, Ci corresponds to the metal releases after 28 days transformation/dissolution tests at pH 6 and a loading of 1 mg/L. Chronic releases (28 days, 1mg/L) were calculated by linear extrapolation from the 100mg/L loadings and 7 days tests.
The acute and chronic ecotoxicity data from the ARCHE database (i.e. MeClas) are used for the classification (Lower Tier and Higher Tier).
A worst case sample from Type I ((high Cu oxide content; D80 of 64µm and D50 of 29µm) was carried forward for Transformation/dissolution tests, performed by P. Rodriguez et al., 2010 (see IUCLID Section 5.6 Aditional information on environmental fate end behaviour). This worst-case sample, because of its granulometry and its high Cu oxide content can be considered also worst-case for type II material, except for Zn
The results from the chemistry (From Liipo et al, 2010) and transformation/dissolution tests (Rodriguez et al, 2010) are summarized in the table below
Table 1.Summary of metals released for the B10 sample after 7 days of transformation/dissolution test, 100 mg/L loading and pH 6. Metal releases were calculated as the difference between the mean sample release and the mean blanks release at 168 hours BDL= Below Detection Limit; SD= Standard Deviation
CIMM, 2010 |
Outotec, 2010 |
|||||||
Metal |
T/D Metal release |
Chemistry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3897 Bulk |
3897 Bulk |
T/D Relative release |
Reference values at pH6 |
calculated Toxic Units |
||||
|
|
|
acute |
chronic |
acute |
chronic |
||
7 days – 100 mg/L |
Mean |
SD |
% |
In % |
|
|
|
|
Copper, mg/L |
978.80 |
78.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86.1 |
1.14% |
25 |
20 |
39.2 |
2.0 |
|||
Nickel, mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arsenic, mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lead, mg/L |
1.63 |
0.33 |
0.04 |
4.08% |
73.6 |
17.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Zinc, mg/L |
BDL |
|
<0.004 |
|
||||
Aluminium, mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
Conclusion |
|||
Cobalt,mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
acute |
chronic |
||
Molybdenum, mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Barium, mg/L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Strontium, mg/L |
|
|
|
|
Cat 2 |
Cat 2 |
||
Chromium,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Iron,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
||||
Manganese, mg/L |
|
|
|
|
||||
Selenium, mg/L |
|
|
|
|
||||
Cadmium, mg/L |
BDL |
|
|
|
SHAKER |
|
|
|
Silver,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
Copper Intermediate |
|||
Tellurium,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
Contact method: orbital shaker 100 RPM |
|||
Tin,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
target loading: 100 mg/L |
|||
Antimony,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
pH 6 |
|
|
|
Silicon,mg/L |
|
|
|
|
3897 (B10) |
|
|
The soluble metals concentrations (T/D-100mg/L), were subsequently divided by the metal-specific acute ecotox reference values[1]. Acute Toxic Units (TU) were calculated for each sample, assuming additive metal toxicity (in accordance to theguidance for preparations) as described above. Relevant reference values for Copper and lead were known, the former being the major contribution to the toxicity.
From this assessment, the calculated toxic unit at a loading of 100 mg/L and pH 6 was for this sample was32 and may thus lead to an Acute 2 classification.
For the Chronic classification, acute transformation/dissolution is to be assessed at a loading of 1 mg/L. The acute transformation/dissolution were therefore linearly extrapolated (to 28 days and 1 mg/L loading = divided by 100 and multiplied by 4) and compared to the chronic ecotox reference values1. Considering that copper releases are linearly related to surface area, and time, (see reference Rodiguez et al, 2007), such linear extrapolation is considered as a good approximation. For Pb and Ni concentrations, the concentrations levels are very low (no saturation effect) and the concentrations level off as a function of time (likely passivation of the material) and therefore, this is expected to be a conservative approach.
Chronic Toxic Units (TU) were thus calculated for each sample, assuming additive metal toxicity as:
TU = ∑ (soluble metal concentration / chronic reference NOEC value)
TU>1 indicate toxicity and lead to classification
The resulting toxic unit for this sample was 2 and consequently resulted in a (conservative) Chronic 2 classification.
In view to extrapolate the results to all scale samples across the industry, the relative releases of respectively Cu, and Pb were calculate as % metal released / % metal present (= potential release) at pH 6, during 7 days transformation/dissolution (see Table above).
Extrapolation of these relative releases to the previously defined grade 1 (low Fe content, high Cu oxide content) with a max Cu content of 90 across industry (worst case per Grade 1, max across industry), resulted in the following environmental classifications:
Grade 1 |
|
without T/D |
acute chronic 1 |
With T/D 7d |
acute cat 2 |
with T/D 28d (regression) |
chronic cat 2 |
|
N; R51-53 |
The B10 sample carried forward to T/D did not contain Zn forms, therefore the extrapolation to Grade 2 was made on basis of relative releases from CuZn-alloys and ZnO as determined from T/D test made on similar materials such as copper (refining) slag and copper matte (see reference Liipo et al, 2010 for B2 and B8 copper intermediates). Additional T/D on type II materials with Zn is the forms of CuZn-alloys are likely to confirm the refined environment classification for Grade 2 demonstrating the contribution of other metals except copper is low and negligible. The same conclusion can be drawn for materials with high Nickel and high Pb, in which the mineralogical forms of comparable to those found in B10 copper scale type II (i.e. metal, alloy or glass inclusions). Because the major contribution to the aquatic Toxic Units calculation arise from Copper, the worst-case conclusion for Grade 1 can be extrapolated to Grade 2, 3 and 4, all of them containing Copper in similar mineral forms (i.e. metal + cuprite)
4. Conclusion Environment
|
Grade 1 |
Grade 2 |
Grade 3 |
Grade 4 |
RWC pattern |
Type I: scale(coating)-like materials |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni max <1%, Pb max <2%) |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni ≥1%, Pb max <2%) |
Type II : dross-like materials (Ni max <1%, Pb > 2%) |
Cu |
70 ≤ Cu < 90 % (typ: ca 75%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
20 ≤Cu ≤ 80% (typ: ca 70%) |
Pb |
Max ≤0.15% |
Max < 2% |
Max < 2% |
Max < 10% |
Ni |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 1% |
1 ≤ Ni < 10% |
Max < 1% |
Co |
Max < 0.1 % |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Zn |
Max ≤1% |
Max < 40% |
Max < 40% |
Max < 40% |
Cd |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 0.1% |
Sn |
Max < 0.1% |
Max < 10% |
Max < 10% |
Max < 10% |
Fe |
max ≤ca. 0.3% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
Ca 0.1 ≤ Fe ≤ ca 15% |
SiO2, Al2O3, etc |
Max < 15% |
Max < 30% |
Max < 30% |
Max < 30% |
Aquatic CLP |
Chronic 2 H411 |
Chronic 2 H411 |
Chronic 2 H411 |
Chronic 2 H411 |
Aquatic DSD |
N; R51-53 |
N; R51-53 |
N; R51-53 |
N; R51-53 |
It is expected that additional Transformation/Dissolutions tests (7 and/or 28days) on a type II (dross-like material) would confirm the extrapolation from existing T/D test on B10 copper scale. Furthermore, the chronic classification could be removed based on existing test demonstrating removal of copper ions from the water column and strong binding of copper to sediments (ECI, , Classification and Labelling of Copper and Coated Copper Flakes under REACH and CLP, October 2010)
[1] Reference values at pH 6, from the Arche tool: Acute: 25 Cu µg /L; 73.6 µg Pb/L; 413 µg Zn/L; 120 µg Ni/L; Chronic: 20 µg Cu/L, 17.8 µg Pb/L and 82 µg Zn/L, 20 µg Ni/L.
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.