2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol

Monitoring data

Administrative data

Endpoint:

monitoring data

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment

Cross-reference

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

reference to same study

Reference

Endpoint:

endocrine system modulation

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

documentation insufficient for assessment

Qualifier:

no guideline available

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Measurement of potential for endocrine disrupting activity for five nuclear receptors using a reporter gene assay in human endometrial cancer cells. The hypothesis was that the chemicals used in oil and natural gas operations (including this substance) would exhibit antagonist activities for nuclear hormone receptors.

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

in vitro

Endpoint addressed:

toxicity to reproduction / fertility

Specific details on test material used for the study:

Source: Sigma Aldrich. No purity information.

The results as interpreted from the graphical information presented are as follows:

	POSITIVE CONTROL			DEGME
Concentrations in molar	EC10	EC50	EC50/EC10	EC10	EC50	EC50/EC10
Anti-oestrogenic	3x10^-11	3x10^-10	10	1x10^-7	not reached	>1000
Anti-progestogenic	8x10^-10	5x10^-9	6.3	5x10^-5	not reached	>1000
Anti-androgenic	2x10^-7	2x10^-6	10	4x10^-6	not reached	>25
Anti-androgenic*	9x10^-8	2x10^-6	22	2x10^-6	~1x10^-4	~50
Anti-glucocorticogenic	2x10^-10	7x10^-9	35	5x10^-5	not reached
Anti-thyroidogenic	1x10^-7	1x10^-6	10	No effects seen

*HepG-2 liver cancer cell line. All others Ishikawa cell lines

For DEGME, the EC50 was not seen for most end points up to the maximum tested concentration.

Conclusions:

For a number of reasons, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this study. There are a number of shortcomings, which may be due to deficiencies in the reporting rather than inherent deficiencies in the method, although it is not a validated one, but it means that these results cannot be relied upon as evidence of endocrine effects.

Executive summary:

In an in vitro study using cells transfected with gene reporters, 24 chemicals found in fracking formulations were individually assessed for possible endocrine antagonism effects. DEGME was found to have some activity towards androgen, estrogen, progesterone and thyroid receptors but not thyroid. However, the effects were weak and the dose response curves shallow. IC50 values were not reached for the any of the tests using the Ishikawa cell line up to the maximum tested concentration of 0.1mM and only just seen (IC50 ~0.1mM) for the anti-androgenic activity of the reporter transfected into HepG-2 liver cancer cell line. Overall, the reliability of this study as reported cannot be assessed for a number of reasons, but particularly because no information is provided on the number of replicates or concentrations tested and a complete lack of statistical information.

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Endocrine-disrupting activity of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and adverse health outcomes after prenatal exposure in male mice

Author:

Kassotis CD, Klemp KC, Vu DC, Chung-Ho L, Meng CX, Besch-Willliford CL, Pinatti L, Zoeller T, Drobnis EZ, Balise VD, Isiguzo CJ, Williams MA, Tillit DE, Nagel SC.

Year:

2015

Bibliographic source:

Endocrinology 156(12), 4458-73

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

no guideline required

Type of measurement:

concentration at contaminated site

Media:

other: waste water

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol

EC Number:

203-906-6

EC Name:

2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol

Cas Number:

111-77-3

Molecular formula:

C5H12O3

IUPAC Name:

2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol

Study design

Details on sampling:

- Geographic coordinates:
- Known emission sources near sampling site: Three oil and gas wastewater samples from fracking operations were collected in Garfield County, Colorado, USA either directly from the source or from immediate spills of these fluids into the environment.
- Period of sampling: no data
- Sampling: Sample 1 was collected from a ruptured waste water pipeline that was actively leaking. This sample separated into organic and aqueous layers after collection, and these phases were analyzed separately. Samples 2 and 3 were collected from recovered fluids stored in collection tanks. Sample 1 was collected from an open WW storage tank, and sample 2 was collected from a closed WW storage tank.
- Sample storage before analysis: samples were shipped in glass containers on ice to and stored at 4°C until processing. Aliquots for analytical investigation were stored in volatile organic chemical (VOC)-certified vials at 20°C.

Results and discussion

Concentration

Remarks on result:

other: substance below LOD in all samples tested

Any other information on results incl. tables

The LOD for this substance for the method used seems quite high which rather minimises the value of the information provided.