Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Workers - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.175 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
DNEL value:
5 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEC
DNEL value:
4.4 mg/m³
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

The starting point of the derivation of the DNEL is the NOAEL of 5 mg/kg bw/d that is obtained from the 90-d oral toxicity study on rats. The NOAEL is converted into a corrected inhalatory NOAEC in order to assess human exposure. The REACH Technical guidance document on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R8, introduces the following equation for workers in case of 8h exposure: Corrected inhalatory NOAEC = oral NOAEL x (1/sRVrat) x (ABSoral-rat / ABSinh-human) x sRVhuman/wRV. ABS: absorption; sRV standard respiratory volume; wRV: worker respiratory volume. The inhalation NOAEC = 5mg/kg bw/d x (1/0.38mg/kg bw/d) x (50%/100%) x 6.7m3 (8h)/10m3 (8h) = 4.4 mg/m3. The standard values of 50% oral absorption (substantiated by rat study in the toxicokinetics section (Wu 2002) and 100% absorption upon inhalation (worst-case) have been used.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, for the dose-response relationship, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in the dose descriptor (NOAEL, benchmark dose…) as the surrogate for the true no-adverse-effect-level (NAEL). In this case the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, derived from a study which is of good quality and without uncertainties. Therefore the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 1.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
2
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a subchronic toxicity study is available, a default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure.
AF for other interspecies differences:
2.5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Interspecies differences result from variation in the sensitivity of species due to differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Some of the toxicokinetic differences can be explained by differences in body size (and related differences in basal metabolic rate). As substance-specific data are available, the standard procedure for threshold effects is followed. As a default, an additional factor of 2.5 for interspecies differences (other than allometric scaling), i.e. toxicokinetic differences not related to metabolic rate (small part) and toxicodynamic differences (larger part) is applied.
AF for intraspecies differences:
5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, intraspecies differences in humans result from a multitude of biological factors such as genetic polymorphism affecting e.g. toxicokinetics/metabolism, age, gender, health status and nutritional status. For workers, as standard procedure for threshold effects a default assessment factor of 5 is to be used, based on the fact that this sub population does not cover the very young, the very old, and the very ill.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). The standard information requirements are fulfilled and the database is complete and consist. Therefore, it is recommended to use an assessment factor of 1 for a good quality of the database.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.525 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
Overall assessment factor (AF):
100
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEC

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Workers - Hazard via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.61 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):
100
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
DNEL value:
0.61 mg/kg bw/day
AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, for the dose-response relationship, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in the dose descriptor (NOAEL, benchmark dose…) as the surrogate for the true no-adverse-effect-level (NAEL). In this case the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, derived from a study which is of good quality and without uncertainties. Therefore the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 1.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
2
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a subchronic toxicity study is available, a default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, differences in metabolic rate (allometric scaling) should be accounted for by extrapolation of doses according to an overall assumption that equitoxic doses (when expressed in mg/kg bw/day) scale with body weight to the power of 0.75. This results in different default allometric scaling factors for the different animal species when compared with humans. For rats, the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 4.
AF for other interspecies differences:
2.5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Interspecies differences result from variation in the sensitivity of species due to differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Some of the toxicokinetic differences can be explained by differences in body size (and related differences in basal metabolic rate). As substance-specific data are available, the standard procedure for threshold effects is followed. As a default, an additional factor of 2.5 for interspecies differences (other than allometric scaling), i.e. toxicokinetic differences not related to metabolic rate (small part) and toxicodynamic differences (larger part) is applied.
AF for intraspecies differences:
5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, intraspecies differences in humans result from a multitude of biological factors such as genetic polymorphism affecting e.g. toxicokinetics/metabolism, age, gender, health status and nutritional status. For workers, as standard procedure for threshold effects a default assessment factor of 5 is to be used, based on the fact that this sub population does not cover the very young, the very old, and the very ill.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). The standard information requirements are fulfilled and the database is complete and consist. Therefore, it is recommended to use an assessment factor of 1 for a good quality of the database.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified

Workers - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified

Additional information - workers

Studies revealed that AHTN is not an eye and skin irritant. It is neither a respiratory irritant nor sensitiser. The EU Risk Assessment Report (EU RAR) demonstrated controlled risk by the Margin of Safety (MoS) approach. The internal body burden is in the EU RAR compared to an internal no-effect dose. Conclusions on risk are based by considering the magnitude of the MOS in comparison with a minimal MOS of 100 for workers. The minimal MOS is derived by combining the following assessment factors (specified in the draft version of the TGD-2005): an interspecies factor of 10 (4 for metabolic size differences * 2.5 for sensitivity differences), an intraspecies factor of 5 and a factor of 2 for semichronic to chronic exposure extrapolation).

For reasons of consistency, this has been taken into account in the calculation of the DNEL. As a result, the risk characterisation ratios are aligned with the calculated Margin of Safety reported in the EU RAR. Since the assessment factors are very large compared to the assessment factors proposed by ECETOC, the calculated DNEL's are very conservative.

General Population - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.043 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):
200
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEC
AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, for the dose-response relationship, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in the dose descriptor (NOAEL, benchmark dose…) as the surrogate for the true no-adverse-effect-level (NAEL). In this case the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, derived from a study which is of good quality and without uncertainties. Therefore the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 1.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
2
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a subchronic toxicity study is available, a default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure.
AF for other interspecies differences:
2.5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Interspecies differences result from variation in the sensitivity of species due to differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Some of the toxicokinetic differences can be explained by differences in body size (and related differences in basal metabolic rate). As substance-specific data are available, the standard procedure for threshold effects is followed. As a default, an additional factor of 2.5 for interspecies differences (other than allometric scaling), i.e. toxicokinetic differences not related to metabolic rate (small part) and toxicodynamic differences (larger part) is applied.
AF for intraspecies differences:
10
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, intraspecies differences in human result from a multitude of biological factors such as genetic polymorphism affecting e.g. toxicokinetics/metabolism, age, gender, health status and nutritional status. It is usually assumed that a default assessment factor of 10 for the general population is sufficient to protect the larger part of the population, including e.g. children and the elderly. For threshold effects, this factor of 10 is the standard procedure, as a default, when assessing exposure to the general population.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). The standard information requirements are fulfilled and the database is complete and consist. Therefore, it is recommended to use an assessment factor of 1 for a good quality of the database.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.131 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
Overall assessment factor (AF):
200

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

General Population - Hazard via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.305 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
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, for the dose-response relationship, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in the dose descriptor (NOAEL, benchmark dose…) as the surrogate for the true no-adverse-effect-level (NAEL). In this case the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, derived from a study which is of good quality and without uncertainties. Therefore the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 1.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
2
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a subchronic toxicity study is available, a default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, differences in metabolic rate (allometric scaling) should be accounted for by extrapolation of doses according to an overall assumption that equitoxic doses (when expressed in mg/kg bw/day) scale with body weight to the power of 0.75. This results in different default allometric scaling factors for the different animal species when compared with humans. For rats, the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 4.
AF for other interspecies differences:
2.5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Interspecies differences result from variation in the sensitivity of species due to differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Some of the toxicokinetic differences can be explained by differences in body size (and related differences in basal metabolic rate). As substance-specific data are available, the standard procedure for threshold effects is followed. As a default, an additional factor of 2.5 for interspecies differences (other than allometric scaling), i.e. toxicokinetic differences not related to metabolic rate (small part) and toxicodynamic differences (larger part) is applied.
AF for intraspecies differences:
10
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, intraspecies differences in human result from a multitude of biological factors such as genetic polymorphism affecting e.g. toxicokinetics/metabolism, age, gender, health status and nutritional status. It is usually assumed that a default assessment factor of 10 for the general population is sufficient to protect the larger part of the population, including e.g. children and the elderly. For threshold effects, this factor of 10 is the standard procedure, as a default, when assessing exposure to the general population.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). The standard information requirements are fulfilled and the database is complete and consist. Therefore, it is recommended to use an assessment factor of 1 for a good quality of the database.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified

General Population - Hazard via oral route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
0.013 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
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, for the dose-response relationship, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in the dose descriptor (NOAEL, benchmark dose…) as the surrogate for the true no-adverse-effect-level (NAEL). In this case the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, derived from a study which is of good quality and without uncertainties. Therefore the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 1.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
2
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a subchronic toxicity study is available, a default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, differences in metabolic rate (allometric scaling) should be accounted for by extrapolation of doses according to an overall assumption that equitoxic doses (when expressed in mg/kg bw/day) scale with body weight to the power of 0.75. This results in different default allometric scaling factors for the different animal species when compared with humans. For rats, the default assessment factor, as a standard procedure, is 4.
AF for other interspecies differences:
2.5
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Interspecies differences result from variation in the sensitivity of species due to differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Some of the toxicokinetic differences can be explained by differences in body size (and related differences in basal metabolic rate). As substance-specific data are available, the standard procedure for threshold effects is followed. As a default, an additional factor of 2.5 for interspecies differences (other than allometric scaling), i.e. toxicokinetic differences not related to metabolic rate (small part) and toxicodynamic differences (larger part) is applied.
AF for intraspecies differences:
10
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, intraspecies differences in human result from a multitude of biological factors such as genetic polymorphism affecting e.g. toxicokinetics/metabolism, age, gender, health status and nutritional status. It is usually assumed that a default assessment factor of 10 for the general population is sufficient to protect the larger part of the population, including e.g. children and the elderly. For threshold effects, this factor of 10 is the standard procedure, as a default, when assessing exposure to the general population.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). The standard information requirements are fulfilled and the database is complete and consist. Therefore, it is recommended to use an assessment factor of 1 for a good quality of the database.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
1.2 mg/kg bw/day
Most sensitive endpoint:
acute toxicity
DNEL related information
Overall assessment factor (AF):
200
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL

General Population - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified

Additional information - General Population

Studies revealed that AHTN is not an eye and skin irritant. It is neither a respiratory irritant nor sensitiser. The EU Risk Assessment Report (EU RAR) demonstrated controlled risk by the Margin of Safety (MoS) approach. The internal body burden is in the EU RAR compared to an internal no-effect dose. Conclusions on risk are based by considering the magnitude of the MOS in comparison with a minimal MOS of 200 for consumers. The minimal MOS is derived by combining the following assessment factors (specified in the draft version of the TGD-2005): an interspecies factor of 10 (4 for metabolic size differences x 2.5 for sensitivity differences), an intraspecies factor of 10 and a factor of 2 for semichronic to chronic exposure extrapolation).

For reasons of consistency, this has been taken into account in the calculation of the DNEL. As a result, the risk characterisation ratios are aligned with the calculated Margin of Safety reported in the EU RAR.