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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 500-007-3 | CAS number: 9003-50-3
- 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
Hydrolysis
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
- Endpoint:
- hydrolysis
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 22 July 2016 to 03 November 2016
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 111 (Hydrolysis as a Function of pH)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method C.7 (Degradation: Abiotic Degradation: Hydrolysis as a Function of pH)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 835.2120 (Hydrolysis of Parent and Degradates as a Function of pH at 25°C)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Radiolabelling:
- no
- Analytical monitoring:
- no
- Details on sampling:
- Calibration solutions were injected in duplicate. Test samples were analysed by single injection.
- Buffers:
- Acetate buffer pH 4, 0.01 M
A solution of 16.7% 0.01 M sodium acetate in water
and 83.3% 0.01 M acetic acid in water. The buffer contained 0.0009% (w/v) sodium azide.
Phosphate buffer pH 7, 0.01 M
A solution of 0.01 M potassium di-hydrogenphosphate in water adjusted to pH 7 using 1 N sodium hydroxide.The buffer contained 0.0009% (w/v) sodium azide.
Borate buffer pH 9, 0.01 M
A solution of 0.01 M boric acid in water and 0.01 M potassium chloride in water adjusted to pH 9 using 1 N sodium hydroxide. The buffer contained 0.0009% (w/v) sodium azide. - Details on test conditions:
- Performance of the study
The rate of hydrolysis of the test item as a function of pH was determined at pH values normally found in the environment (pH 4-9).
Preliminary test - Tier 1
The buffer solutions were filter-sterilised through a 0.2 μm FP 30/0.2 CA-S filter (Whatman, Dassel, Germany) and transferred into a sterile vessel. To exclude oxygen, nitrogen gas was purged through the solution for 5 minutes. The test item was spiked to the solutions at a target concentration of 200 μg/L using a spiking solution in acetonitrile. For each sampling time, duplicate sterile vessels under vacuum were filled with 6 mL test solution and placed in the dark in a temperature controlled environment at 50.2°C +/- 0.3°C.
Note: the spiking volume was < 1% of the sample volume. Nominal concentrations were not corrected for the spiking volume.
The concentration of the test item in the test samples was determined immediately after preparation (t=0) and after 5 days. The samples taken at t=5 days were cooled to room temperature using running tap water. The samples were diluted in a 1:1 (v:v) ratio with acetonitrile, if necessary diluted with 50:50 (v:v) acetonitrile:buffer and analysed.
Blank buffer solutions containing a similar content of blank spiking solution were treated similarly as the test samples and analysed at t=0. The pH of each of the test solutions (except for the blanks) was determined at each sampling time.
Main study - Tier 2
Test samples were prepared and treated similarly as during the preliminary test.
The concentrations of the test item were determined immediately after preparation (t=0) and after 25 hours (t=1).
Blank buffer solutions were treated similarly as the test samples and analysed at t=0.
The pH of each of the test solutions (except for the blanks) was determined.
The study was performed at the following temperature: 19.9°C +/- 0.2°C - Duration:
- 5 d
- pH:
- 4
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Preliminary test - Tier 1
- Duration:
- 5 d
- pH:
- 7
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Preliminary test - Tier 1
- Duration:
- 5 d
- pH:
- 9
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Preliminary test - Tier 1
- Duration:
- 25 h
- pH:
- 4
- Temp.:
- 19.9 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Main study - Tier 2
- Duration:
- 25 h
- pH:
- 7
- Temp.:
- 19.9 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Main study - Tier 2
- Duration:
- 25 h
- pH:
- 9
- Temp.:
- 19.9 °C
- Initial conc. measured:
- 200 µg/L
- Remarks:
- Main study - Tier 2
- Number of replicates:
- Not specified
- Positive controls:
- no
- Negative controls:
- no
- Statistical methods:
- Quadratic regression analysis was performed using the least squares method with a 1/concentration weighting factor.
- Preliminary study:
- A degree of hydrolysis of ≥ 10% was observed at pH 7 and pH 9 after 5 days. According to the guideline, the higher Tier test was required to determine the half-life time of the test item. At pH 4, the test-item concentration had increased. As this result was unexpected, it was decided to include this pH in the main study, too.
Small responses were detected in the blank buffer solutions. These responses were considered to not to derive from the blank buffer solutions as similar responses were observed in the analytical blanks. This did not impact the study.
The mean recovery of the of the test item containing buffer pH4 solutions at t=0 fell within the criterion range of 90-110%.
The mean recoveries of the of the test item containing buffer pH7 and pH9 solutions at t=0 exceeded the criterion range of 90-110%. This was considered acceptable, as a main study was going to be carried out under these conditions. There was no impact on the study. - Transformation products:
- not specified
- Details on hydrolysis and appearance of transformation product(s):
- Under the conditions of the main study the test item did not degrade hydrolytically at pH 4, 7 and 9
- % Recovery:
- >= 88 - <= 93
- pH:
- 4
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Duration:
- 5 d
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- preliminary test
- % Recovery:
- 125
- pH:
- 7.1
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Duration:
- 5 d
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- preliminary test
- % Recovery:
- 117
- pH:
- 9
- Temp.:
- 50.2 °C
- Duration:
- 5 d
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- preliminary test
- % Recovery:
- >= 85 - <= 90
- pH:
- 4
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Duration:
- 25 h
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- Main test
- % Recovery:
- >= 88 - <= 93
- pH:
- 8
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Duration:
- 5 h
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- Main test
- % Recovery:
- >= 91 - <= 93
- pH:
- 9
- Temp.:
- 20 °C
- Duration:
- 5 h
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- Main test
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Other kinetic parameters:
- Not specified
- Details on results:
- Main Study - Tier 2
pH 4
Small responses were detected in the blank buffer solutions. These responses were considered to not to derive from the blank buffer solutions as similar responses were observed in the analytical blanks. This did not impact the study.
The mean recoveries of the buffer solutions at t=0 fell within the acceptable range of 70-110% for non-labelled chemicals. It demonstrated that the analytical method was adequate to support the hydrolysis study on the test item.
After a testing time of 25 hours, the test-item concentration had increased significantly (i.e. 16% and 20%). Quantifying the test-item concentration based on the transition m/z 380.3 → m/z 252.1 at a retention time of approximately 1.5 min, the test item did obviously not degrade hydrolytically. Accordingly Tier 2 testing at pH 4 was discontinued. The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity.
pH 7
Small responses were detected in the blank buffer solutions. These responses were considered to not to derive from the blank buffer solutions as similar responses were observed in the analytical blanks. This did not impact the study.
The mean recoveries of the test item containing buffer solutions at t=0 fell within the criterion range of 90-110%. It demonstrated that the analytical method was adequate to support the hydrolysis study on the test item.
After a testing time of 25 hours, the test-item concentration had increased significantly (i.e. 15% and 22%). Quantifying the test-item concentration based on the transition m/z 380.3 → m/z 252.1 at a retention time of approximately 1.5 min, the test item did obviously not degrade hydrolytically. Accordingly Tier 2 testing at pH 7 was discontinued.
The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity
pH 9
Small responses were detected in the blank buffer solutions. These responses were considered to not to derive from the blank buffer solutions as similar responses were observed in the analytical blanks. This did not impact the study.
The mean recoveries of the test item containing buffer solutions at t=0 fell within the criterion range of 90-110%. It demonstrated that the analytical method was adequate to support the hydrolysis study on the test item.
After a testing time of 25 hours, the test-item concentration had increased significantly (i.e. 22% and 26%). Quantifying the test-item concentration based on the transition m/z 380.3 → m/z 252.1 at a retention time of approximately 1.5 min, the test item did obviously not degrade hydrolytically. Accordingly Tier 2 testing at pH 9 was discontinued.
The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity - Validity criteria fulfilled:
- yes
- Conclusions:
- No hydrolytic degradation for the monitored component for Hepteen Base (R) when tested at 20°C for 25 hours at pH 4,7 and 9.
The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular-weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity. - Executive summary:
The preliminary test (Tier 1) and main study (Tier 2) were performed for the determination of the rate of hydrolysis of Hepteen Base® at pH values normally found in the environment (pH 4-9).
After a testing time of 25 hours, the test-item concentration had increased significantly (i.e. 22% and 26%) at all pHs. Based on the monitored component, the test item did obviously not degrade hydrolytically. Accordingly Tier 2 testing was discontinued.
The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity.
Reference
Preliminary test–hydrolysis of the test item at pH 4, pH 7 and pH 9
pH |
Sampling time |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Degree of hydrolysis [%] |
Actual pH |
|
Individual |
Mean |
||||
4 |
0 hours |
177 |
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
185 |
|
|
4.0 |
|
5 days |
253 |
-40 |
-39 |
4.1 |
|
|
250 |
-38 |
|
4.1 |
7 |
0 hours |
250 |
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
251 |
|
|
7.1 |
|
5 days |
195 |
22 |
21 |
7.1 |
|
|
199 |
20 |
|
7.1 |
9 |
0 hours |
231 |
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
236 |
|
|
9.0 |
|
5 days |
135 |
42 |
43 |
9.0 |
|
|
129 |
45 |
|
9.0 |
Preliminary test–recoveries
pH |
Nominal concentration [μg/L] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Recovery [%] |
Mean recovery [%] |
4 |
200 |
177 |
88 |
90 |
|
200 |
185 |
93 |
|
7 |
200 |
250 |
125 |
125 |
|
200 |
251 |
125 |
|
9 |
200 |
231 |
116 |
117 |
|
200 |
236 |
118 |
|
Main test–hydrolysis of the test item at pH 4 and 20°C
Sampling time [hours] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Relative concentration [%] |
Logarithm relative concentration |
Actual pH |
0 |
171 |
97 |
1.99 |
4.0 |
0 |
181 |
103 |
2.01 |
4.0 |
25 |
204 |
116 |
2.07 |
4.1 |
25 |
212 |
120 |
2.08 |
4.1 |
Main test–Recoveries (at pH 4 and 20°C)
Temperature (°C) |
Nominal concentration [μg/L] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Recovery [%] |
Mean recovery [%] |
20 |
200 |
171 |
85 |
88 |
|
200 |
181 |
90 |
|
Main test–hydrolysis of the test item at pH 7 and 20°C
Sampling time [hours] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Relative concentration [%] |
Logarithm relative concentration |
Actual pH |
0 |
175 |
97 |
1.99 |
7.0 |
0 |
786 |
103 |
2.01 |
7.0 |
25 |
208 |
115 |
2.06 |
7.0 |
25 |
219 |
122 |
2.08 |
7.0 |
Main test – Recoveries (at pH 7 and 20°C)
Temperature (°C) |
Nominal concentration [μg/L] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Recovery [%] |
Mean recovery [%] |
20 |
200 |
175 |
88 |
90 |
|
200 |
186 |
93 |
|
Main test–hydrolysis of the test item at pH 9 and 20°C
Sampling time [hours] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Relative concentration [%] |
Logarithm relative concentration |
Actual pH |
0 |
182 |
98 |
1.99 |
8.9 |
0 |
189 |
102 |
2.01 |
8.9 |
25 |
227 |
122 |
2.09 |
8.9 |
25 |
234 |
126 |
2.10 |
8.9 |
Main test – Recoveries (at pH 9 and 20°C)
Temperature (°C) |
Nominal concentration [μg/L] |
Analysed concentration [μg/L] |
Recovery [%] |
Mean recovery [%] |
20 |
200 |
182 |
91 |
93 |
|
200 |
189 |
94 |
|
Description of key information
The preliminary test (Tier 1) and main study (Tier 2) were performed for the determination of the rate of hydrolysis of Hepteen Base® at pH values normally found in the environment (pH 4-9).
After a testing time of 25 hours, the test-item concentration had increased significantly (i.e. 22% and 26%) at all pHs. Based on the monitored component, the test item did obviously not degrade hydrolytically. Accordingly Tier 2 testing was discontinued. The concentration of the investigated component may have increased as a higher-molecular-weight component degraded. It was, however, not possible to validate an analytical method for such a higher-molecular-weight component with sufficient sensitivity.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
A study was conducted to determine the hydrolysis rate of Hepteen Base®. The study was conducted in accordance with the following test guidelines:
European Community (EC), EC no. 440/2008, Part C: Methods for the Determinationof Ecotoxicity, Guideline C.7: “Degradation- Abiotic Degradation: Hydrolysis as aFunction of pH”, Official Journal of the European Union no. L142, May 31, 2008.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECDGuidelines for the Testing of Chemicals no. 111: “Hydrolysis as a Function of pH",April 13, 2004.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines no. OPPTS 835.2120: "Hydrolysis", October 2008.
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.