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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Hazard for aquatic organisms

Hazard for air

Hazard for terrestrial organisms

Hazard for predators

Additional information

Data for C.I. Pigment Green 50 are not available. The pigment belongs to a family of spinel and rutile pigments. Therefore, a read across from C.I. Pigment Yellow 53 to the rutile C.I. Pigment Green 50 was conducted regarding the possible impact of C.I. Pigment Green 50 on aquatic organisms. Based on short-term tests from three trophic levels, C.I. Pigment Yellow 53 is assumed to be acutely not harmful to aquatic organisms. C.I. Pigment Yellow 53 has no toxic effects on aquatic organisms in the range of its water solubility. Furthermore a chronic test on Daphnia magna detected no effect of the substance on reproduction. Therefore, C.I. Pigment Green 50 has not to be classified under the GHS.

However, some substances contain nickel and/or the impurity nickel titanate, which is obviously more toxic compared to the pigment itself.  Furthermore,C.I. Pigment Green 50 contains cobalt and zinc. As for nickel, these metal cations could be transformed/diluted from the pigment as well. However, the transformation/dissolution concentrations of nickel were higher compared to cobalt (see transformation/dissolution protocol, section 1.4, attached) and the ERVs for zinc are much higher compared to the data for nickel and thus the endpoints derived for the nickel species were considered as relevant for the pigment. Thus, the classification of the pigment is based on nickel transformation/dissolution from the pigment only, whereas the risk assessment was conducted for Ni, Co and Zn separately. The data basis for the derivation of the PNEC is summarised below:

PNECs for Ni:

The approach for deriving PNEC values for Nickel titanate was used in the 2008/2009 European Union Existing Substances Risk Assessment of Nickel (EU RAR) (EEC 793/93). The EU RAR was jointly prepared by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA), which served as the Rapporteur of the Existing Substances Risk Assessment of Nickel, and the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association (NiPERA), which represented the Nickel Industry in this process. The complete Environment section of the EU RAR can be found in the pdf linked to the following URL:

http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/cefda8bc-2952-4c11-885f-342aacf769b3

 

All of the approaches described were discussed by the Technical Committee for New and Existing Substances (TC NES), and received final approval at the TC NES I meeting in April, 2008.

PNECs for Co:

The PNECfreshwater of 0.51 µg/L for Cobalt was taken from the Echa disseminated dossier (March 2016) of Cobalt Oxide CAS 1307 -96 -6. The PNECs for the other environmental compartments were not presented here since they were not taken into account in the risk assessment conducted (see chapter 9 and 10 for details).

PNECs for Zn:

The PNECfreshwater of 20.6 µg/L for Zinc was taken from the Echa disseminated dossier (March 2016) of Zinc Oxide CAS 1314 -13 -2. The PNECs for the other environmental compartments were not presented here since they were not taken into account in the risk assessment conducted (see chapter 9 and 10 for details)

Common effects assessment basis:

 

The ecotoxicity databases on the effects of soluble nickel, cobalt an zinc compounds to aquatic, soil- and sediment-dwelling organisms are extensive. It should be noted that the effect assessments ofNickel, Cobalt and Zincis based on the assumption that adverse effects to aquatic, soil- and sediment-dwelling organisms are a consequence of exposure to the bioavailable metal-ions, as opposed to the parent substances. The result of this assumption is that the ecotoxicology will be similar for all soluble Ni, Co and Zn substances used in the ecotoxicity experiments. Therefore, data from soluble nickel, Cobalt and Zinc substances are used in the derivation of ecotoxicological endpoints.

Conclusion on classification

Based on the read across from C.I. Pigment Yellow 53 to the rutile C.I. Pigment Green 50 (without impurity nickel titanate), the substance itself is with a high probability not acutely harmful to aquatic organisms and has thus not to be classified under the GHS.

However, the some substances contain nickel and/or the impurity nickel titanate, which is obviously more toxic compared to the pigment itself. Thus, classification derived for the nickel species is relevant for the pigment:

The transformation and dissolution of Ni from C.I. Pigment Green 50 including the impurity Nickel titanate was evaluated according to the T/D Protocol (OECD 29) (transformation/dissolution protocol, see section 1.4 attached). The results of the study indicate that the concentration of total dissolved Ni at pH 6 (40 µg Ni/L) and at pH 8.5 (17 µg Ni/L) at 100 mg/L loading for a seven-day test was less than the acute Ecotoxicity Reference Values (ERVs) for Ni (120 µg Ni/L at pH 6 and 68 µg Ni/L at pH 8 for the acute 7 day test).

Thus, the compound has not to be acutely classified under GHS.

The chronic ERV for Ni was estimated to be 2.4 µg/L according to OECD 29.The dissolved Ni concentrations were 4 µg Ni/L and < 1 µg Ni/L at pH 5.5 and pH 8.5 for the 28 day test, respectively and for a loading rate of 1 mg/L. Thus, the dissolved Ni concentration exceeds the chronic ERV at acidic conditions, whereas at alkaline conditions the dissolved Ni were well below the ERV.

Thus, the compound has to be classfied as chronic 3 according to GHS.

The acute and chronic Ecotoxicity Reference Values (ERVs) were taken from a document of the Nickel Consortia, 2010: Environmental Read-across approach. Please see attachment.

The possible transformation/dilution of cobalt and zinc from the pigment was not considered for classification purposes due to following: The transformation/dissolution concentrations of nickel were higher compared to cobalt (see transformation/dissolution protocol, section 1.4, attached) and the ERVs for zinc are much higher compared to the data for nickel and thus the endpoints derived for the nickel species were considered as relevant for the pigment.