2-hydroxy-3-phenoxypropyl methacrylate

Partition coefficient

Administrative data

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

The study was conducted between 27 December 2017 and 03 January 2018

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2018

Report date:

2018

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 107 (Partition Coefficient (n-octanol / water), Shake Flask Method)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

no

Remarks:

The report states that the date contained in the report was generated in a laboratory holding a current statement of GLP compliance but not as part of a formal GLP study

Type of method:

flask method

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

2-hydroxy-3-phenoxypropyl methacrylate

EC Number:

240-994-5

EC Name:

2-hydroxy-3-phenoxypropyl methacrylate

Cas Number:

16926-87-7

Molecular formula:

C13H16O4

IUPAC Name:

2-hydroxy-3-phenoxypropyl 2-methylprop-2-enoate

Test material form:

liquid

Specific details on test material used for the study:

SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: 170740

Study design

Analytical method:

liquid chromatography

Results and discussion

Partition coefficient

Key result

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

2.43

Temp.:

25 °C

pH:

ca. 8.03

Any other information on results incl. tables

System suitablility

1) Diluent Interferences/Blank Injection

The diluent blank immediately preceeding the first standard injection contains no peak co-eluting with PHPM and is therefore acceptable.

2) Repeatability of 6 injections of 10 mg/L STD5 - Peak Area and Peak Retention Time

The % RSD of peak area for six injections of Standard 5 was 0.45% i.e. less than 5% nominal acceptance criteria.

The % RSD of retention time for six injections of Standard 5 was 0.11% i.e. less than 1% nominal acceptance criteria.

3) Standard agreement

The % standard agreement was calculated from the peak area of the check standard solution. Standard recoveries throughout the sequence were all within 100% +/- 20 % and were therefore considered acceptable.

4) Calibration Curve

Shown in the attached report

Results

Results Table for Partition Coefficient solutions

Sample results – Partition Coefficient
Sample Name	RT	Area	Amount (ppm)
Stock 1	6.420	431372	2003.022
Stock 2	6.418	359897	1003.226
Stock 3	6.421	429786	498.910
Octanol 1A	6.428	460339	2137.839
Octanol 1B	6.427	459257	2134.059
Octanol 2A	6.426	371397	1035.371
Octanol 2B	6.423	385166	1073.860
Octanol 3A	6.421	428136	496.991
Octanol 3B	6.415	422228	490.117
Water 1A	6.464	210162	7.788
Water 1B	6.464	209900	7.778
Water 2A	6.463	106568	3.931
Water 2B	6.462	105299	3.884
Water 3A	6.460	52600	1.921
Water 3B	6.463	52521	1.918

Calculation of partition coefficient is detailed on page 17 of the attached report.

Test solution recoveries (Total number of mg recovered/ Weight of sample (mg) * 100) were between 83.9 and 91.3%.

Note: dilution factor has already been accounted for in this table of calculation therefore the n-octanol layers were treated as analysed undiluted.

The stability of Stock Solutions 1,2 and 3 from which the test solutions were prepared was checked alongside the test solution analysis.

The values obtained were compared with the theoretical concentrations of the solutions adjusted for the area % of the specific component.

A value of 2003.0 mg/L was determined for Stock Solutions 1. Comparison of this value with the theoretical concentrations of the solution (2356 mg/L) indicated an 85 % recovery.

A value of 1003.2 mg/L was determined for Stock Solutions 2. Comparison of this value with the theoretical concentrations of the solution (1178 mg/L) indicated an 85.1% recovery.

A value of 498.9 mg/L was determined for Stock Solutions 3. Comparison of this value with the theoretical concentrations of the solution (589 mg/L) indicated an 84.7% recovery.

During review, it was noted that the Stock Solution recovery values were comparable to the Check Standard recovery. This indicates a difference between the Calibration Standard and the Check Standard and suggests that the Calibration Standard was incorrectly weighed/prepared, and was the source of the variation in recovery observed. This is not critical as log P determination is a ratio calculation and not quantitative. However the Stock Solution recovery values are more likely to be approximately 100%. This is also applicable to the Test Solution recoveries calculated from the test solution results.

For the Stock Solution, the recoveries obtained show good replication with the test solution recoveries indicating that no significant loss of test material has occurred during testing in the stock solutions, and therefore indicating that the test solutions were stable throughout the analysis.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:

A logP mean value of 2.43 was calculated, the individual values obtained were within +/- 0.3 log units of the mean value and therefore considered acceptable.

Executive summary:

The partition coefficient of the substance was assessed in accordance with the Shake Flask Method (OECD 107) and analysed with LC-UV. A partition coefficient (log P) of 2.43 was calculated.