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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 204-567-7 | CAS number: 122-70-3
- 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
Biodegradation in soil
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
- Endpoint:
- biodegradation in soil: simulation testing
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Data is from peer reviewed journal and review article.
- Justification for type of information:
- Data is from peer reviewed journal and review article.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: as mentioned below
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Biodegradation study was conducted for 30 days for evaluating the percentage biodegradability of test substance 2-phenylethyl propanoate.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Test type:
- laboratory
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Name of test material (IUPAC name): 2-phenylethyl propanoate
- Common name: Phenethyl propionate (PEP)
- Molecular formula: C11H14O2
- Molecular weight: 178.2296 g/mol
- Smiles notation: c1(CCOC(=O)CC)ccccc1
- InChl: 1S/C11H14O2/c1-2-11(12)13-9-8-10-6-4-3-5-7-10/h3-7H,2,8-9H2,1H3
- Substance type: Organic
- Physical state: Liquid - Radiolabelling:
- yes
- Oxygen conditions:
- aerobic
- Soil classification:
- other: Laboratory Soil
- Soil no.:
- #1
- Soil type:
- sandy loam
- % Clay:
- 18
- % Silt:
- 22
- % Sand:
- 60
- % Org. C:
- 1.6
- pH:
- 7
- Details on soil characteristics:
- SOIL COLLECTION AND STORAGE
- Geographic location: Soil was collected at the Iowa State University Agronomy and Agricultural Engineering Research Farm near Ames, Iowa [Field 55].
PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS (in addition to defined fields)
- Moisture at 1/3 atm (%): soil moisture content was adjusted to 75% of 1/3 bar moisture. - Soil No.:
- #1
- Duration:
- 30 d
- Initial conc.:
- 10 other: μg/g
- Based on:
- test mat.
- Parameter followed for biodegradation estimation:
- test mat. analysis
- Soil No.:
- #1
- Temp.:
- 25 ± 2°C
- Humidity:
- soil moisture content was adjusted to 75% of -33 J/kg (1/3 bar) moisture
- Details on experimental conditions:
- - Soil condition: air dried/fresh
- No. of replication treatments: There were four replications for each group.
- Test apparatus (Type/material/volume): 250-ml French square bottle was used as a test vessel. The soil was classified as a sandy loam, a Nicollet-Webster complex with 1.6% organic matter, 60% sand, 22% silt, 18% clay, and pH 7.0. Soil (50g) was kept in a 250-ml French square bottle.
- Details of traps for CO2 and organic volatile, if any: Polyurethane foam was suspended above the treated soils inside each bottle to capture volatile compounds. 1.5g of Drierite® (anhydrous calcium sulfate) was used to trap tritium H2O in the air in the container. Drierite was changed when it turned pink. - Soil No.:
- #1
- % Recovery:
- 90
- Remarks on result:
- other: More than 90% as determined spike-recovery experiments at the initial time point.Volatility loss was negligible in one month with mass balance from 96% to 100%.
- Key result
- Soil No.:
- #1
- DT50:
- 4 d
- Type:
- (pseudo-)first order (= half-life)
- Temp.:
- 25 °C
- Remarks on result:
- other: Other details not known
- Transformation products:
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2-Phenylethanol and 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol were found as the degradation of 2-phenylethyl propanoate.
- No.:
- #1
- No.:
- #2
- Details on transformation products:
- Formation and decline of each transformation product during test: 2-Phenylethanol reached the maximal concentration in 1 week both in water and in soil; however, the peak in soil was 36% of total radioactivity compared to 74% of total radioactivity in water. The formation of 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol was also less in soil than in water.
Description of biotransformation pathway: Another degradation product was 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol, which was probably a biotransformation product of 2-phenylethanol in microbes. This is evidenced by coincidence of increase of the latter and decrease of the former while the overall mass balance remained constant. - Evaporation of parent compound:
- no
- Volatile metabolites:
- no
- Residues:
- no
- Details on results:
- TEST CONDITIONS
- Aerobicity, moisture, temperature and other experimental conditions maintained throughout the study: Yes
MINERALISATION
% of applied radioactivity present as CO2 at end of study: Mineralization was less than 3%.
VOLATILIZATION
% of the applied radioactivity present as volatile organics at end of study: Average radioactivity as bound residues remained below 6%. - Conclusions:
- The half-life of test substance 2-phenylethyl propanoate was determined to be 4 days. The degradation product of chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate were 2-Phenylethanol and 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol, respectively.
- Executive summary:
Biodegradation study was conducted for 30 days for evaluating the percentage biodegradability of test substance 2-phenylethyl propanoate. 3H-phenethyl propionate were purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences and Analytical Sciences. (Boston, MA, USA). Analytical standards of phenethyl propionate, 2-phenylethanol, 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol were purchased from Lancaster Synthesis, Inc. Methanol was purchased from Fisher Scientific Solvents used for extraction and chromatographic analysis were analytical reagent grade or better. Monophase® S scintillation cocktails were purchased from PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences.Initial test substance conc. used for the study was 10μg/g. Soil was collected at the Iowa State University Agronomy and Agricultural Engineering Research Farm near Ames, Iowa [Field 55].The soil contained 1.6% organic matter, 60% sand, 22% silt, 18% clay, and pH 7.0. Soil (50g) was kept in a 250-ml French square bottle, and soil moisture content was adjusted to 75% of 1/3 bar moisture.The temperature was maintained at 25 ± 2°C. Soil samples were treated with 3HPEP in methanol at 10 μg/g. Bottles were sealed with Teflon® caps. Polyurethane foam was suspended above the treated soils inside each bottle to capture volatile compounds. Polyurethane foam was changed biweekly. 1.5g of Drierite® (anhydrous calcium sulfate) was used to trap tritium H2O in the air in the container. Drierite was changed when it turned pink. Soil sampling times were at pre-treatment, at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post-treatment.
Quantitative analysis of PEP was performed using a Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto, CA, USA) series 1100 HPLC system with a quaternary pump, an autosampler, a thermostatted column compartment, and a Spectroflow 757 absorbance detector (ABI Analytical, Kratos Division, Ramsey, NJ, USA). Data were collected and analyzed using HP Chemstation system software (REV. A.04.01). An Alltech Adsorbosphere® (Deerfield, IL, USA) C18 column (4.6×250 mm, 5-μm particle size) was used. Detection was conducted at 270 nm with a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min at room temperature. The mobile phase was methanol/distilled water (70:30, v/v). Soil samples (50 g) were extracted with methanol/distilled water (95:5) three times, and the resulting extracts were pooled. Filtered samples were directly injected for HPLC analysis. HPLC fractions were collected for liquid scintillation counting (LSC). Drierite and polyurethane foam were thoroughly extracted with methanol, and the resulting extracts were subjected to LSC to measure trapped radioactivity. Non-extractable radioactive residues in soil were measured by soil combustion using a Packard sample oxidizer. A 0.5-g soil sample was incorporated into a cellulose pellet, and three replications were performed for each treatment.Dissipation rates of PEP were calculated using first-order open models. A student’st-test was used to compare dissipation rates of PEP in light and in dark from the water dissipation studies.The half-life of test substance2-phenylethyl propanoatewas determined to be4 days.The degradation product of chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate were 2-Phenylethanol and 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol, respectively. 2-Phenylethanol reached the maximal concentration in 1 week both in water and in soil; however, the peak in soil was 36% of total radioactivity compared to 74% of total radioactivity in water. The formation of 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol was also less in soil than in water.The average radioactivity as bound residues remained below 6%, and mineralization was less than 3%.Based on this half-life value of test chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate (i.e 4 days), it is concluded that the chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate is not persistent in the soil environment and the exposure risk to soil dwelling animals is moderate to low.
Reference
The retention time for test substance PEP was 5.4 min on the HPLC chromatogram.
Table: Dissipation half-lives (DT50) of PEP in soil.
Incubation conditions |
DT50 (days) (± S. D.) |
R2a |
Replication (n) |
PEP in soil |
3.92 (±0.19) |
0.84 |
4 |
Where,
a = R2is the correlation coefficient for the first order dissipation model.
Description of key information
Biodegradation study was conducted for 30 days for evaluating the percentage biodegradability of test substance 2-phenylethyl propanoate (Dingfue Hu and Joel Coats, 2008 & Dingfue Hu, 2007). 3H-phenethyl propionate were purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences and Analytical Sciences. (Boston, MA, USA). Analytical standards of phenethyl propionate, 2-phenylethanol, 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol were purchased from Lancaster Synthesis, Inc. Methanol was purchased from Fisher Scientific Solvents used for extraction and chromatographic analysis were analytical reagent grade or better. Monophase® S scintillation cocktails were purchased from PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences.Initial test substance conc. used for the study was 10μg/g. Soil was collected at the Iowa State University Agronomy and Agricultural Engineering Research Farm near Ames, Iowa [Field 55].The soil contained 1.6% organic matter, 60% sand, 22% silt, 18% clay, and pH 7.0. Soil (50g) was kept in a 250-ml French square bottle, and soil moisture content was adjusted to 75% of 1/3 bar moisture.The temperature was maintained at 25 ± 2°C. Soil samples were treated with 3HPEP in methanol at 10 μg/g. Bottles were sealed with Teflon® caps. Polyurethane foam was suspended above the treated soils inside each bottle to capture volatile compounds. Polyurethane foam was changed biweekly. 1.5g of Drierite® (anhydrous calcium sulfate) was used to trap tritium H2O in the air in the container. Drierite was changed when it turned pink. Soil sampling times were at pre-treatment, at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post-treatment.
Quantitative analysis of PEP was performed using a Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto, CA, USA) series 1100 HPLC system with a quaternary pump, an autosampler, a thermostatted column compartment, and a Spectroflow 757 absorbance detector (ABI Analytical, Kratos Division, Ramsey, NJ, USA). Data were collected and analyzed using HP Chemstation system software (REV. A.04.01). An Alltech Adsorbosphere® (Deerfield, IL, USA) C18 column (4.6×250 mm, 5-μm particle size) was used. Detection was conducted at 270 nm with a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min at room temperature. The mobile phase was methanol/distilled water (70:30, v/v). Soil samples (50 g) were extracted with methanol/distilled water (95:5) three times, and the resulting extracts were pooled. Filtered samples were directly injected for HPLC analysis. HPLC fractions were collected for liquid scintillation counting (LSC). Drierite and polyurethane foam were thoroughly extracted with methanol, and the resulting extracts were subjected to LSC to measure trapped radioactivity. Non-extractable radioactive residues in soil were measured by soil combustion using a Packard sample oxidizer. A 0.5-g soil sample was incorporated into a cellulose pellet, and three replications were performed for each treatment.Dissipation rates of PEP were calculated using first-order open models. A student’st-test was used to compare dissipation rates of PEP in light and in dark from the water dissipation studies.The half-life of test substance2-phenylethyl propanoate was determined to be4 days.The degradation product of chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate were 2-Phenylethanol and 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol, respectively. 2-Phenylethanol reached the maximal concentration in 1 week both in water and in soil; however, the peak in soil was 36% of total radioactivity compared to 74% of total radioactivity in water. The formation of 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol was also less in soil than in water.The average radioactivity as bound residues remained below 6%, and mineralization was less than 3%.Based on this half-life value of test chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate (i.e 4 days), it is concluded that the chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate is not persistent in the soil environment and the exposure risk to soil dwelling animals is moderate to low.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
- Half-life in soil:
- 4 d
- at the temperature of:
- 25 °C
Additional information
Biodegradation study was conducted for 30 days for evaluating the percentage biodegradability of test substance 2-phenylethyl propanoate (Dingfue Hu and Joel Coats, 2008 & Dingfue Hu, 2007). 3H-phenethyl propionate were purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences and Analytical Sciences. (Boston, MA, USA). Analytical standards of phenethyl propionate, 2-phenylethanol, 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol were purchased from Lancaster Synthesis, Inc. Methanol was purchased from Fisher Scientific Solvents used for extraction and chromatographic analysis were analytical reagent grade or better. Monophase® S scintillation cocktails were purchased from PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences.Initial test substance conc. used for the study was 10μg/g. Soil was collected at the Iowa State University Agronomy and Agricultural Engineering Research Farm near Ames, Iowa [Field 55].The soil contained 1.6% organic matter, 60% sand, 22% silt, 18% clay, and pH 7.0. Soil (50g) was kept in a 250-ml French square bottle, and soil moisture content was adjusted to 75% of 1/3 bar moisture.The temperature was maintained at 25 ± 2°C. Soil samples were treated with 3HPEP in methanol at 10 μg/g. Bottles were sealed with Teflon® caps. Polyurethane foam was suspended above the treated soils inside each bottle to capture volatile compounds. Polyurethane foam was changed biweekly. 1.5g of Drierite® (anhydrous calcium sulfate) was used to trap tritium H2O in the air in the container. Drierite was changed when it turned pink. Soil sampling times were at pre-treatment, at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post-treatment.
Quantitative analysis of PEP was performed using a Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto, CA, USA) series 1100 HPLC system with a quaternary pump, an autosampler, a thermostatted column compartment, and a Spectroflow 757 absorbance detector (ABI Analytical, Kratos Division, Ramsey, NJ, USA). Data were collected and analyzed using HP Chemstation system software (REV. A.04.01). An Alltech Adsorbosphere® (Deerfield, IL, USA) C18 column (4.6×250 mm, 5-μm particle size) was used. Detection was conducted at 270 nm with a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min at room temperature. The mobile phase was methanol/distilled water (70:30, v/v). Soil samples (50 g) were extracted with methanol/distilled water (95:5) three times, and the resulting extracts were pooled. Filtered samples were directly injected for HPLC analysis. HPLC fractions were collected for liquid scintillation counting (LSC). Drierite and polyurethane foam were thoroughly extracted with methanol, and the resulting extracts were subjected to LSC to measure trapped radioactivity. Non-extractable radioactive residues in soil were measured by soil combustion using a Packard sample oxidizer. A 0.5-g soil sample was incorporated into a cellulose pellet, and three replications were performed for each treatment.Dissipation rates of PEP were calculated using first-order open models. A student’st-test was used to compare dissipation rates of PEP in light and in dark from the water dissipation studies.The half-life of test substance2-phenylethyl propanoate was determined to be4 days.The degradation product of chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate were 2-Phenylethanol and 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol, respectively. 2-Phenylethanol reached the maximal concentration in 1 week both in water and in soil; however, the peak in soil was 36% of total radioactivity compared to 74% of total radioactivity in water. The formation of 2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol was also less in soil than in water.The average radioactivity as bound residues remained below 6%, and mineralization was less than 3%.Based on this half-life value of test chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate (i.e 4 days), it is concluded that the chemical 2-phenylethyl propanoate is not persistent in the soil environment and the exposure risk to soil dwelling animals is moderate to low.
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.