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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 629-757-0 | CAS number: 1224966-15-7
- 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
![](https://echa.europa.eu/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/print_toxicological-information.png)
Toxicological Summary
- Administrative data
- Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
- Workers - Hazard via dermal route
- Workers - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - workers
- General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
- General Population - Hazard via dermal route
- General Population - Hazard via oral route
- General Population - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - General Population
Administrative data
Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 1.7 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECHA REACH Guidance (with ECETOC modification)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 10
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 17.6 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- An OECD 408 compliant 90-day study in rat via oral route with AAI-DETA resulted to an overall NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day. The corrected 8 hr inhalation NOAEC for workers is NOAEL (10) * 1.76 mg/m3 = 17.6 mg/m3. No factor 2 for route extrapolation from oral to inhalation is applied: Due to very low vp (8.4x10-8 Pa at 25°C), exposure is only possible as aerosol. If any exposure via inhalation does occur, this can only be in the form of larger droplets, as the use does not include fine spraying or mists. Droplets will deposit mainly on upper airways, and will be subsequently swallowed following mucociliary transportation to pharynx. This result to no principal difference in absorption compared to oral route.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No specific concerns. Effects at LOAEL are of local nature.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- The guidance indicates that for subchronic to chronic a factor 2 should be applied. A lower factor could be considered on the basis of the understanding that the dose levels of the NOAEL for this effect of foamy macrophages in mesenteric lymph nodes is not influenced by the duration of the study.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Already included in NOAEC calculation
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5. Additionally, the further applied intraspecies factor sufficiently includes the remaining differences factor for interspecies. As effects are interpreted as being local and related to the route of exposure, the already applied allometric scaling already represents a worst case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5 for interspecies. This factor may be increased by modified factors as suggested by the German Auschuss für Gefahrstoffe leading to an assessment factor of 5 for workers. As the effects for which the risk assessment is made is based on a local response following an non-specific mechanism with expected inherently relative low variation between individuals, no additional factor is needed to accommodate for possible high uncertainty between individuals on the basis of possible specific sensitivities.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Available data are derived from recent, high quality and valid studies showing consistent results within category.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL of 10 mg/kg for systemic toxicity is conservative, considering that macrophages in the mesenteric lymph nodes are a local, porte d’entrée related effect due to the route of application, and not a systemic effect per se.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.25 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECHA REACH guidance with ECETOC modification
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 40
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 10 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- An OECD 408 compliant 90-day study in rat via oral route with AAI-DETA resulted to an overall NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day. Extrapolation from oral NOAEL represents a worst case situation, as dermal absorption is considered to be lower compared to oral absorption.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No specific concerns. Effects at LOAEL are of local nature.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- The guidance indicates that for subchronic to chronic a factor 2 should be applied. A lower factor could be considered on the basis of the understanding that the dose levels of the NOAEL for this effect of foamy macrophages in mesenteric lymph nodes is not influenced by the duration of the study.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Default factor for allometric scaling from rat to human.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5. Additionally, the further applied intraspecies factor sufficiently includes the remaining differences factor for interspecies. As effects are interpreted as being local and related to the route of exposure, the already applied allometric scaling already represents a worst case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5 for interspecies. This factor may be increased by modified factors as suggested by the German Auschuss für Gefahrstoffe leading to an assessment factor of 5 for workers. As the effects for which the risk assessment is made is based on a local response following an non-specific mechanism with expected inherently relative low variation between individuals, no additional factor is needed to accommodate for possible high uncertainty between individuals on the basis of possible specific sensitivities.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Available data are derived from recent, high quality and valid studies showing consistent results within category.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL of 10 mg/kg for systemic toxicity is conservative, considering that macrophages in the mesenteric lymph nodes are a local, porte d’entrée related effect due to the route of application, and not a systemic effect per se.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- skin irritation/corrosion
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- skin irritation/corrosion
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- skin irritation/corrosion
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - workers
Workers:
Inhalation route:
Use of the substance is limited to industrial and professional users. The likelihood of exposure via inhalation is low considering its high boiling point (> 300 °C) and very low vapour pressure (8.4x10-8Pa at 25°C) and use applications that do not involve the forming of aerosols, particles or droplets of an inhalable size.
Dermal route:
No threshold effect: Substance is irritating to the skin, and corrosive to mucous membranes (eyes). Effects following dermal exposures will be characterized by local effects from irritation that are related to duration, quantity and concentration of the substance, rather than by systemic toxicity due to dermal uptake. Specifically considering that acute oral toxicity is low and dermal uptake is expected to be low.
For irritating/corrosive substances, the use of protective gloves and other equipment, such as face shields, aprons and good work practices are mandatory. As a result, direct dermal contact occurs only occasionally. Therefore, repeated substantial daily dermal exposure is unlikely. (For properly labelled corrosives, the emphasis in the CSR and ES should be on the presentation of adequate risk management measures, rather than on the assessment of the risks from dermal exposure.)
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.6 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECHA REACH guidance (with ECETOC modification)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 14
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 8.7 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- An OECD 408 compliant 90-day study in rat via oral route with AAI-DETA resulted to an overall NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day. The corrected 8 hr inhalation NOAEC for general population is NOAEL (10) * 1/1.15 mg/m3 = 8.7 mg/m3. No factor 2 for route extrapolation from oral to inhalation is applied: Due to very low vp (8.4x10-8 Pa at 25°C), exposure is only possible as aerosol. If any exposure via inhalation does occur, this can only be in the form of larger droplets, as the use does not include fine spraying or mists. Droplets will deposit mainly on upper airways, and will be subsequently swallowed following mucociliary transportation to pharynx. This result to no principal difference in absorption compared to oral route.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No specific concerns. Effects at LOAEL are of local nature.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- The guidance indicates that for subchronic to chronic a factor 2 should be applied. A lower factor could be considered on the basis of the understanding that the dose levels of the NOAEL for this effect of foamy macrophages in mesenteric lymph nodes is not influenced by the duration of the study.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Already included in NOAEC calculation
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5. Additionally, the further applied intraspecies factor sufficiently includes the remaining differences factor for interspecies. As effects are interpreted as being local and related to the route of exposure, the already applied allometric scaling already represents a worst case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 7
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5 for interspecies. This factor may be increased by modified factors as suggested by the German Auschuss für Gefahrstoffe leading to an assessment factor of 7 for general public. As the effects for which the risk assessment is made is based on a local response following an non-specific mechanism with expected inherently relative low variation between individuals, no additional factor is needed to accommodate for possible high uncertainty between individuals on the basis of possible specific sensitivities.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Available data are derived from recent, high quality and valid studies showing consistent results within category.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL of 10 mg/kg for systemic toxicity is conservative, considering that macrophages in the mesenteric lymph nodes are a local, porte d’entrée related effect due to the route of application, and not a systemic effect per se.
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
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.18 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECHA REACH guidance (with ECETOC modification)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 56
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 10 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- An OECD 408 compliant 90-day study in rat via oral route with AAI-DETA resulted to an overall NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day. Extrapolation from oral NOAEL represents a worst case situation, as dermal absorption is considered to be lower compared to oral absorption.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No specific concerns. Effects at LOAEL are of local nature.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- The guidance indicates that for subchronic to chronic a factor 2 should be applied. A lower factor could be considered on the basis of the understanding that the dose levels of the NOAEL for this effect of foamy macrophages in mesenteric lymph nodes is not influenced by the duration of the study.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Default factor for allometric scaling from rat to human.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5. Additionally, the further applied intraspecies factor sufficiently includes the remaining differences factor for interspecies. As effects are interpreted as being local and related to the route of exposure, the already applied allometric scaling already represents a worst case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 7
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5 for interspecies. This factor may be increased by modified factors as suggested by the German Auschuss für Gefahrstoffe leading to an assessment factor of 7 for general public. As the effects for which the risk assessment is made is based on a local response following an non-specific mechanism with expected inherently relative low variation between individuals, no additional factor is needed to accommodate for possible high uncertainty between individuals on the basis of possible specific sensitivities.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Available data are derived from recent, high quality and valid studies showing consistent results within category.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL of 10 mg/kg for systemic toxicity is conservative, considering that macrophages in the mesenteric lymph nodes are a local, porte d’entrée related effect due to the route of application, and not a systemic effect per se.
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:
- 0.18 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECHA REACH guidance (with ECETOC modification)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 56
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 10 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- An OECD 408 compliant 90-day study in rat via oral route with AAI-DETA resulted to an overall NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day. As study is based on oral dosing, no route-to-route extrapolation is needed.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No specific concerns. Effects at LOAEL are of local nature.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- The guidance indicates that for subchronic to chronic a factor 2 should be applied. A lower factor could be considered on the basis of the understanding that the dose levels of the NOAEL for this effect of foamy macrophages in mesenteric lymph nodes is not influenced by the duration of the study.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Default factor for allometric scaling from rat to human.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5. Additionally, the further applied intraspecies factor sufficiently includes the remaining differences factor for interspecies. As effects are interpreted as being local and related to the route of exposure, the already applied allometric scaling already represents a worst case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 7
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5 for interspecies. This factor may be increased by modified factors as suggested by the German Auschuss für Gefahrstoffe leading to an assessment factor of 7 for general public. As the effects for which the risk assessment is made is based on a local response following an non-specific mechanism with expected inherently relative low variation between individuals, no additional factor is needed to accommodate for possible high uncertainty between individuals on the basis of possible specific sensitivities.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Available data are derived from recent, high quality and valid studies showing consistent results within category.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL of 10 mg/kg for systemic toxicity is conservative, considering that macrophages in the mesenteric lymph nodes are a local, porte d’entrée related effect due to the route of application, and not a systemic effect per se.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Additional information - General Population
These substances are only applied in professional or industrial setting in oilfield and mining applications applying adequate PPE. Use results to the inclusion into or onto a matrix. Consequently, consumers/general population will not be exposed.
However, in order to be able to evaluate possible secondary exposures via environment, additionally long-term systemic DNELs for general population have been derived.
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.
![ECHA](/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/echa_logo.png)