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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 213-979-6 | CAS number: 1070-70-8
- 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
Toxicological Summary
- Administrative data
- Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
- Workers - Hazard via dermal route
- Workers - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - workers
- General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
- General Population - Hazard via dermal route
- General Population - Hazard via oral route
- General Population - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - General Population
Administrative data
Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 4.94 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 50
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 246.8 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
The NOAEL derived from an OECD 422 compliant oral repeated dose toxicity study of 200 mg/kg bw/d was applied as point of departure for derivation of long-term systemic inhalation DNEL. This NOAEL was corrected based on the following formula:
Corrected NOAEC (inhalation) for workers:
= 200 mg/kg bw/day x 0.5 x 1/0.38 m3/kg bw/day x (6.7 m3/10 m3) x 1.4
= 246.8 mg/m3
As worst case, inhalation absorption is assumed to be two times more than oral absorption which results in a modification of the starting point by a factor of 2.
The factor of 1.4 corrects for exposure of 5 days per week for workers compared to 7 days per week in the experimental setup.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 4
- Justification:
- The exposure duration of the OECD TG 422 study performed with the test item up to 63 days for females and 29 days for males. In comparison to a subacute 28-day study the OECD TG 422 study provides additional information on fertility and developmental toxicity, which justifies the assessment factor of 4.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Already included in route to route extrapolation
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 2.5
- Justification:
- The recommended AF for other interspecies differences is applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- The default value for the relatively homogenous group "worker" is used.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The quality of the whole data base is considered to be sufficient and uncritical.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- The approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative. No further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 1.4 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 200
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 280 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Correction for difference between human and experimental exposure conditions: 7 d rat/5 d worker. The same absorption is assumed after dermal and oral exposure.
Corrected NOAEL (dermal) for workers:
= 200 mg/kg bw/day x 1.4
= 280 mg/kg bw/day
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dose response relationship is considered unremarkable, therefore no additional factor is used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 4
- Justification:
- The exposure duration of the OECD TG 422 study performed with the test item up to 63 days for females and 29 days for males. In comparison to a subacute 28-day study the OECD TG 422 study provides additional information on fertility and developmental toxicity, which justifies the assessment factor of 4.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- The default allometric scaling factor for the differences between rats and humans is applied.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 2.5
- Justification:
- The recommended AF for other interspecies differences is applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- The default value for the relatively homogenous group "worker" is used.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The quality of the whole data base is considered to be sufficient and uncritical.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- The approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative. No further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - workers
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.87 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 100
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/m³
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 87 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Corrected NOAEC (inhalation) for general population:
= 200 mg/kg bw/day x 0.5 x 1/1.15 m3/kg bw/day
= 87 mg/m3
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dose response relationship is considered unremarkable, therefore no additional factor is used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 4
- Justification:
- The exposure duration of the OECD TG 422 study performed with the test item up to 63 days for females and 29 days for males. In comparison to a subacute 28-day study the OECD TG 422 study provides additional information on fertility and developmental toxicity, which justifies the assessment factor of 4.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- already included in route to route extrapolation
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 2.5
- Justification:
- The recommended AF for other interspecies differences is applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 10
- Justification:
- The default value for the relatively heterogeneous group "general population" is used
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The quality of the whole data base is considered to be sufficient and uncritical.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- The approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative. No further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.5 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 400
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
The same absoprtion after oral and dermal exposure is assumed.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dose response relationship is considered unremarkable, therefore no additional factor is used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 4
- Justification:
- The exposure duration of the OECD TG 422 study performed with the test item up to 63 days for females and 29 days for males. In comparison to a subacute 28-day study the OECD TG 422 study provides additional information on fertility and developmental toxicity, which justifies the assessment factor of 4.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- The default allometric scaling factor for the differences between rats and humans is applied.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 2.5
- Justification:
- The recommended AF for other interspecies differences is applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 10
- Justification:
- The default value for the relatively heterogeneous group "general population" is used.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The quality of the whole data base is considered to be sufficient and uncritical.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- The approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative. No further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.5 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 400
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dose response relationship is considered unremarkable, therefore no additional factor is used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 4
- Justification:
- The exposure duration of the OECD TG 422 study performed with the test item up to 63 days for females and 29 days for males. In comparison to a subacute 28-day study the OECD TG 422 study provides additional information on fertility and developmental toxicity, which justifies the assessment factor of 4.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- The default allometric scaling factor for the differences between rats and humans is applied.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 2.5
- Justification:
- The recommended AF for other interspecies differences is applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 10
- Justification:
- The default value for the relatively heterogeneous group "general population" is used.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The quality of the whole data base is considered to be sufficient and uncritical.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- The approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative. No further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
An acute oral toxicity study is available for the test item. Based on the results the test item is classified category 4 for acute oral toxicity according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP). Effects seen were mainly due to corrosiveness of the test substance. Since all consumer uses are advised against, no further assessment is required.
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- high hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - General Population
Consumer use is advised against. DNELs were only assessed for man via environment calculations.
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.