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: 202-319-2
CAS number: 94-28-0
1) WoE: Short-term toxicity to invertebrates (Daphnia magna); K2; 1977; no guideline (Eastman's internal method); predates GLP; EC50 (immobility, 96h) > 97 mg/L (nominal concentrations)2) WoE: Short-term toxicity to invertebrates (Daphnia magna); K2; 1989; EU Method C2 or 84/449/EEC; GLP; EC50 (immobility, 48h) = 38.7 mg/L (nominal concentrations based on TOC content) 3) WoE: Short-term toxicity to invertebrates (Mysidopsis bahia); K2; 1998; EPA/600/4-90/027; not GLP; LC50 (mortality, 48h) > 1.8 mg/L (nominal concentration)
For this endpoint 3 studies are available. Two describing the acute
toxicity towards the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna and
one describing the toxicity towards the saltwater invertebrate Mysidopsis
bahia. The first study (by Hirsch, 1977) was not performed according
to any specific guideline and predates GLP. The results of this limit
test indicate that there is an EC50
(immobility, 96h) > 97 mg/L (nominal concentrations). The second study
(Scholz, 1989) was performed according to the EU Method C2 (acute
toxicity for Daphnia) and evaluated a concentration range. After
48h, the EC50 (immobility) was 38.7
mg/L, while the NOEC (immobility, 48h) was determined at 14.5 mg/L
(nominal concentration based on TOC content). The third study with Mysidopsis
bahia (Moser, 1998) was performed according to the EPA/600/4 -90/027
guideline, but not in a GLP compliant laboratory. The toxicity was
evaluated over a certain concentration range and after 48h of exposure
no mortality was observed up to 1.8 mg/L. Therefore the LC50 (48h) was
described to be above the water solubility (>1.5 mg/L).
The toxicity reported in both Daphnia studies differed (EC50 96h
> 97 mg/L (solvent used) versus EC50 48h = 38.7 mg/L (no solvent used))
substantially. A reason for this discrepancy might be located in the
purity of the test substance. In the study by Scholz (1989) the purity
of the substance was only 92.1% while a substantial amount of monoester
was present. Due to the lack of data on the purity of the substance in
the study by Hirsch (1977) comparison between both studies (and test
results) is therefore difficult. Nevertheless, both studies are
indicative of the absence of severe acute aquatic toxicity towards
Although all three tests have certain restrictions, they provide
sufficient information to assess the lack of acute toxicity and
therefore it is believed that a weight of evidence approach is most
appropriate. All tests lack information on actually measured test
concentrations (only nominal concentrations are reported) and only two
tests evaluated multiple concentrations. Additionally, only the test
performed with Mysidopsis bahia evaluated concentrations below
water solubility. Therefore, the tests reporting test concentrations
well above the water solubility need to be treated with caution.
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.
Deze website maakt gebruik van cookies om het surfen zo aangenaam mogelijk te maken.
Welcome to the ECHA website. This site is not fully supported in Internet Explorer 7 (and earlier versions). Please upgrade your Internet Explorer to a newer version.
Do not show this message again