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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 203-308-5 | CAS number: 105-55-5
- 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
Long-term toxicity to fish
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
Description of key information
- In accordance with Annex XI Section 1.2, a weight-of-Evidence approach is used to justify the waiving of the long-term toxicity to fish study. As further detailed in the endpoint study record, fish are significantly less sensitive to acute and chronic toxicity exerted from substances within the Thioureas group.
- This Weight-of-Evidence approach is based on reliable and valid short-term (fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae) and long-term (aquatic invertebrates, algae) data and on QSAR data from the QSAR Toolbox. In accordance with Annex XI Section 1.3, QSAR data can be used instead of testing to omit the required standard information.
The chronic toxicity to fish of 1,3-diethylthiourea was assessed by Van Leeuwen et al. (1990). However, these studies were disregarded for many reasons (significant methodology deficiences and documentation insufficient for assessment).
Long-term toxicity testing on fish is an information requirement under Annex IX to REACH (Section 9.1.6.). In addition to the specific rules set out in Column 2 of Annexes VII to X, a registrant may adapt the standard testing regime according to the Annex XI.
From the registrant point of view, further testing on fish would not contribute to improve the current knowledge of the substance and/or its associated risk when released to the aquatic compartment (all RCR are below 1).
Therefore, and for reasons of animal welfare, a long-term toxicity test on fish is not provided.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
Two studies published within the same article investigated the long-term effects of 1,3 -diethylthiourea (DETU) on the embryo and larval developments of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and zebrafish (Danio rerio). LOEC were determined for some regulatory endpoints. However, the article is not reliable enough to consider its results as relevant for regulatory purposes. We detail below the reasons why we conclude for disregarding these studies and classify them as Klimisch 3a/3b.
I – Critical analysis of van Leeuwen et al. (1990) Fish embryos as teratogenicity screens: a comparison of embryotoxicity between fish and birds; Environmental and Ecotoxicology Safety 20, 42 -52.
Experiment with Oncorhynchus mykiss
Study description
Van Leeuwen et al. (1990) carried out a 60-days ELS test on rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (formerly Salmo gairdneri) eggs and larvae under semi-static conditions, similar to the OECD 210 (2013) fish early-life toxicity test guideline. Freshly spawned eggs were challenged with graded concentrations of 1,3 -diethylthiourea (DETU) dissolved in water and separated by a 1.8 spacing factor. Eggs were incubated in relative darkness at 10°C and larvae hatched after 32 days. Photoperiod was then set at 12L:12D and kept constant until the end of the experiment. “Embryotoxicity”, mortality, weight and length of surviving larvae at the end of the experiment were recorded. This study is quoted Klimisch 3 for a multiplicity of reasons that are detailed below.
Inappropriate energy status of fish
Guideline 210 requires to feed rainbow trout larvae from the swim-up stage, a step that usually occurs 10 to 14 d after hatching (2015 FAO), i.e. at days 42 to 46 of the study, which was not done in the study of van Leeuwen et al. (1990). The absence of feeding for the 14 to 18 remaining days certainly resulted in lower energy status and weakened organisms, which is in opposition with the principle of the test.
Photoperiod was set at 12L:12D just after hatching, while a 7-day darkness period is demanded in the OECD 210 guideline. As for feeding, the 7-day darkness period is set to limit the energy loss due to the movements of the larvae under light conditions. The larvae are indeed more active under light than under darkness, which induces supplemental energy consumption and faster yolk sac depletion.
These two biological limitations surely affected the results by increasing the sensitivity of fish to DETU in an inappropriate way for regulatory purposes.
Methodological deficiencies
Dissolved oxygen was not monitored throughout the study. This clearly is a major experimental flaw when working with fish in general. A hundred rainbow trout larvae kept in 10 L water is indeed a significant loading rate requiring care to water oxygen level. Even if the authors state that aeration was provided, this is not sufficient proof that adequate oxygen concentrations were maintained throughout the 60 days of the study. This lack of information is considered as a methodological deficiency.
Loading rate was a hundred larvae per 10 L of solution in a semi-static system. Solution renewal was every two or three days. Assuming a larval mean weight of 50 mg at hatching as a lower case (From and Rasmussen, 1991), this makes a loading rate of 0.5 g/L over a 72-h period, i.e. a loading rate of 1.5 g/L per 24-h period, which is far above the recommended 0.5 g/L per 24 hours (OECD 210, 2013). This raises concerns about water quality (not monitored) and also dissolved oxygen levels, as discussed above.
Other methodological deficiencies include (i) duplicate instead of the quadruplicate testing recommended by the OECD 210 (2013) guideline, (ii) absence of water temperature monitoring and (iii) absence of any analytical monitoring of the substances.
Documentation insufficient for assessment
The article only presents statistical conclusions. No figure, table or data about the analysed variables (mortality, embryotoxicity, larval weight, larval length) in function of the tested doses are presented. Therefore, no judgement about the severity of the dose effect can be made (e.g., do the significant effects detected by mean comparison correspond to 3, 20% or any other percentage difference with the control group?).
The range of tested concentrations is not given and cannot be accurately guessed (although we would agree using a LOEC if the study and article were of sufficient quality for regulatory purposes). The only information given is the spacing factor which is 1.8
The quality (hatching and survival rates) of the control group cannot be assessed. The authors recognized that they had some mortality in the control groups without giving any figure.
The monotonicity of the dose-response and statistical regression quality cannot be checked.
The LOEC for length and weight are different, which is abnormal since both parameters are normally highly correlated in fish.
We consider that the documentation provided by van Leeuwen et al. (1990) is insufficient for reliability assessment.
Conclusions
For all these reasons, this study is classified Klimisch 3a (documentation insufficient for assessment) and 3b (significant methodological deficiencies). It is therefore disregarded for regulatory purposes in the framework of the REACH regulation. We consider that the results of Van Leeuwen et al. (1990) should not be taken into account for PNEC derivation.
II – Critical analysis of van Leeuwen C.J. et al. (1990) Fish Embryos as Teratogenicity Screens: A comparison of Embryotoxicity between Fish and Bird; Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 20 ,42-52.
Experiment with Danio rerio
Study description
Van Leeuwen et al. (1990) carried out a 7-days ELS test on zebrafish Danio rerio. This study on zebrafish is not a real long-term toxicity to fish experiment but we still examined the protocol description and results. Freshly spawned eggs of zebrafish were challenged with different doses of 1,3 -diethylthiourea (DETU) dissolved in water and separated by a 3.2 spacing factor. Sixty eggs were incubated in 50 mL solution for each concentration. Photoperiod was then set at 12L:12D and kept constant until the end of the experiment. Temperature was set at 25°C. Treatments were not replicated. “Embryotoxicity” and larval mortality were recorded.
We consider that this study should be quoted Klimisch 3 for a multiplicity of reasons that are detailed below.
Methodological deficiencies
Dissolved oxygen was not monitored throughout the study. This clearly is a major experimental flaw when working with fish in general. Sixty zebrafish larvae confined in 50 mL solution is indeed a significant loading rate requiring care to water oxygen level. Even if the authors state that aeration was provided, this is not sufficient proof that adequate oxygen concentrations were maintained throughout the 7-day period of the study. This is considered as a methodological deficiency.
Treatments were not replicated which is a major flaw. We wonder how mean comparisons could be performed without any replicate (e.g. how can a LOEC for mortality rate be calculated without any tank replicate ?). This is probably one of the highest concerns that can be raised about this study.
Other methodological deficiencies include (i) absence of water temperature monitoring and (ii) absence of any analytical monitoring of the substances.
Documentation insufficient for assessment
In this section, we address the same critical remarks as in part I. We consider that the documentation provided by van Leeuwen et al. (1990) is insufficient for reliability assessment of the study on zebrafish.
Conclusions
For all these reasons, this study is classified Klimisch 3a (documentation insufficient for assessment) and 3b (significant methodological deficiencies). It is therefore disregarded for regulatory purposes under REACH regulation. We consider that the results of Van Leeuwen et al. (1990) should not be taken into account for PNEC derivation.
III - Overall conclusions
As a conclusion of the critical reviewing of Van Leeuwen et al. (1990), we consider that both studies should be both classified Klimisch 3a (documentation insufficient for assessment) and 3b (significant methodological deficiencies). They are therefore disregarded for regulatory purposes under REACH regulation.
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.