1,1'-(ethane-1,2-diyl)bis[pentabromobenzene]

Short-term toxicity to fish

Administrative data

Endpoint:

short-term toxicity to fish

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

Aug 5, 2003 - Nov 7, 2003

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Study performed according to recognized methodology and GLPs using the commercial product as test article and published in the literature.

Data source

Reference

Reference 1

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2003

Reference 2

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Studies and evaluation of the potential toxicity of decabromodiphenyl ethane to five aquatic and sediment organisms

Author:

Hardy et al.

Year:

2012

Bibliographic source:

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 75(1): 73-9

Reference 3

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Results of terrestrial and aquatic studies on the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ethane, a.k.a., ethane 1,2bis(pentabromophenyl)

Author:

Hardy et al.

Year:

2009

Bibliographic source:

Proceedings, SETAC Annual Meeting, Nov 2009, New Orleans, LA

Reference 4

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2007

Reference 5

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2000

Reference 6

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

1985

Reference 7

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

1994

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 203 (Fish, Acute Toxicity Test)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EPA OPPTS 850.1075 (Freshwater and Saltwater Fish Acute Toxicity Test)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

1,1'-(ethane-1,2-diyl)bis[pentabromobenzene]

EC Number:

284-366-9

EC Name:

1,1'-(ethane-1,2-diyl)bis[pentabromobenzene]

Cas Number:

84852-53-9

Molecular formula:

C14H4Br10

IUPAC Name:

1,2,3,4,5-pentabromo-6-[2-(2,3,4,5,6-pentabromophenyl)ethyl]benzene

Test material form:

solid: particulate/powder

Remarks:

migrated information: powder

Details on test material:

98.34 % Decabromodiphenyl ethane
1.66 % Nonabromodiphenyl ethane

Sampling and analysis

Analytical monitoring:

no

Details on sampling:

Rainbow trout were exposed to nominal water accommodated fraction (WAF) loading rates of 0 (well water), 6.9, 14, 28, 55 and 110 mg/L under static conditions. The WAF methodology was chosen due to DBDPEthanes’ negligible water solubility (~0.72 ug/L) and the inability to generate and quantitate stable water concentrations in preliminary work.  Preliminary work at Wildlife International preceeding the conduct of aquatic acute studies indicated stable, measureable water concentrations of DBDPEthane could not be generated for concentrations at and below DBDPEthane's water solubility. Thus, the WAF methodology was chosen in order to generate acute aquatic toxicity information. The highest WAF loading rate, 110 mg/L, was chosen based on EU labelling criteria. Substances that do not exhibit acute toxicity at 100 mg/L are not classified as aquatic toxicants.

Test solutions

Vehicle:

no

Details on test solutions:

Test performed using the Water Accomodated Fraction (WAF). Two individual WAFs were prepared for each test concentration. The test
substance was mixed directly with 12 L of well water in 13 L glass WAF bottles at nominal loading rates selected for testing. Each WAF was stirred for ca. 48 hours using magnetic stirrers with Teflon-coated stir bars with a vortex of approxi- mately 30 percent of the test solution height. Each WAF was topped with a silicone stopper and covered with parafilm. After mixing, the WAFs were allowed to settle for ca. one and a half hours. During mixing the WAFs were clear and colorless with suspended test material throughout, with the amount of test material increasing with dose. After settling, the test solutions were clear and colorless with test material on the bottom of the bottles. A portion was drawn off from the bottom of the WAF to remove any undissolved test material, the two test solutions/dose level combined and 11 L used for each replicate. However, the negative controls were not combined and 11 L was collected from only one of the two WAF bottles. The test solutions were clear and colorless at test initiation and termination.

Test organisms

Test organisms (species):

Oncorhynchus mykiss (previous name: Salmo gairdneri)

Details on test organisms:

juveniles obtained from Thomas Fish Company, Anderson, CA. Mean weight: 0.68 g; Mean lenght: 3.7 cm.

Study design

Test type:

static

Water media type:

freshwater

Limit test:

no

Total exposure duration:

96 h

Post exposure observation period:

none

Test conditions

Hardness:

see below

Test temperature:

see below

pH:

see below

Dissolved oxygen:

see below

Salinity:

see below

Nominal and measured concentrations:

0 (well water), 6.9, 14, 28, 55 and 110 mg/L

Details on test conditions:

see below

Reference substance (positive control):

no

Results and discussion

Effect concentrations

Duration:

96 h

Dose descriptor:

NOELR

Effect conc.:

>= 110 mg/L

Nominal / measured:

nominal

Conc. based on:

test mat.

Basis for effect:

mortality (fish)

Details on results:

In the trout 96-h study, measured water temperatures were within the 12 ± 2°C range established for the test. Dissolved oxygen concentrations remained at or above 7.2 mg/L 96% of saturation) throughout the test while pH ranged from 8.0 to 8.4. Day 0 dilution water specific conductance (μmhos/cm), hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) were 280, 124, and 184, respectively. After 96-h of exposure, trout in all treatment groups appeared healthy and normal, with no mortality or overt signs of toxicity. Trout in one of the negative control replicates appeared healthy and normal throughout the test, but at 48-h four trout in the other negative control replicated chamber were dead, and by 96-h a total of five of the ten trout had died in that replicate. Only test solution from one WAF bottle was used for each negative control replicate instead of combining the test solutions from both WAFs, as was done for the treatment groups. This suggests that a possible contaminant may have been present in the WAF bottle or other equipment used only for that negative control replicate. Since there were no other mortalities or overt signs of toxicity observed in the other negative control replicate or in the DBDPEthane treatment groups after 96-h, it was assumed one of the control replicates may have been contaminated and thus was not used in the analysis of the data. LLR50 values at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours were estimated to be >110 mg/L, the highest concentration tested. The no mortality and NOELR were 110 mg/L.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Sublethal observations / clinical signs:

LLR50 values at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours were estimated to be >110 mg/L, the highest concentration tested. The no mortality and NOELR were 110 mg/L.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Validity criteria fulfilled:

yes

Conclusions:

The test article was not acutely toxic to fish.

Executive summary:

In the trout 96-h study, measured water temperatures were within the 12 ± 2°C range established for the test. Dissolved oxygen concentrations remained at or above 7.2 mg/L 96% of saturation) throughout the test while pH ranged from 8.0 to 8.4. Day 0 dilution water specific conductance (μmhos/cm), hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) were 280, 124, and 184, respectively. After 96-h of exposure, trout in all treatment groups appeared healthy and normal, with no mortality or overt signs of toxicity. Trout in one of the negative control replicates appeared healthy and normal throughout the test, but at 48-h four trout in the other negative control replicated chamber were dead, and by 96-h a total of five of the ten trout had died in that replicate. Only test solution from one WAF bottle was used for each negative control replicate instead of combining the test solutions from both WAFs, as was done for the treatment groups. This suggests that a possible contaminant may have been present in the WAF bottle or other equipment used only for that negative control replicate. Since there were no other mortalities or overt signs of toxicity observed in the other negative control replicate or in the DBDPEthane treatment groups after 96-h, it was assumed one of the control replicates may have been contaminated and thus was not used in the analysis of the data. LLR50 values at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours were estimated to be >110 mg/L, the highest concentration tested. The no mortality and NOELR were 110 mg/L.