Registration Dossier
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: 500-066-5 | CAS number: 28961-43-5 1 - 6.5 moles ethoxylated
- 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

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:
- 16.2 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 18
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
Local effects
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.8 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 252
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Additional information - workers
DNELs are derived from systemic NOAELs and if available local NOAELs. DNELs for sensitisation were not derived due to much uncertainties in the derivation (see sectionskin sensitisation DNELs)
Systemic DNELs:
Dermal:
For dermal toxicity a read across is performed to a structural similar acrylate (TMPTA CAS: 15625-89-5). Dermal studies are performed for this substance. The most critical record for dermal systemic effects of TMPTA are seen in a NTP study:
Subacute, rats/mice, 14/28 days (16 days, 5days/week), NTP protocol: NOAEL, (systemic, mice):≥200 mg/kg bw,NOAEL (local, mice): 25mg/kg bw (Publication: 14/28 day NTP, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 2005)
Oral:
As for oral toxicity no adequate study for TMPeoTA is available a read across to another acrylate with comparable structure elements is performed. A reliable combined 28-Day Repeated Dose Oral toxicity study was performed with 1,6-Hexamethylene Diacrylate (HDDA, CAS 13048-33-4)(ReachCentrum, 2010, Stump D.G.). Thisstudy leads to aNOAEL (systemic) of 250 mg/kg bw/d. In conclusion a NOAEL of 250mg/kg bw/d is also assumed to be suitable to derive an oral and inhalation DNEL for TMPeoTA. But as this read across is performed to a substance containing two functional groups instead of three a decrease of 1/3 of the NOAEL is assumed reflecting these circumstances.
Values used for systemic DNEL derivation:
- mice, subacute, dermal,NOAEL, (f/m, systemic, mice): ≥200 mg/kg bw(Publication: 14/28 day NTP, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 2005)
- rats, combined 28-day repeated dose oral, OECD 422, read acrossNOAEL (systemic, rat)250 mg/kg bw, read across adaptation ->166.7 mg/kg bw(ReachCentrum, 2010, Stump D.G.)
Skin sensitisation DNELs ("acute / short term exposure local effects" and "long-term exposure local effects"):
It is very difficult to derive a quantitative sensitisation DNELs based on the available test systems, as most of these test, as well as the human patch test, were not designed to derive a threshold for sensitisation. This was also addressed in the guideance document Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health May 2008.APPENDIX R. 8-10concludes that GMPT and the Buehler test data are only allow a qualitative assessment and that LLNA and human data may be only allow (in some case) the derivation in a more quantitative manner.
A few LLNA studies conducted with TMPeoTA (different batches) show skin sensitisation. But only two of the studies determined a threshold for sensitisation. These two studies were conducted according to the protocol for the non radioactive version of the LLNA (BASF, 2002, Gamer A.O. (a) and BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O. (d)).
Therefore based on the data available, no quantitative derivation of a local DNEL can be calculated due to the following uncertainties:
-The LLNA method used was modified to avoid use of radioactive material. This modified method does not allow a judgement on the potency of the sensitizer. No EC3 value can be derived.
-Dermal penetration is a prerequisite step for sensitization. Based on calculations made using the OECD toolbox (DermWin), penetration is expected to be low.
Thus the first step of the general approach given in APPENDIX R. 8-10is followed and aqualitative approach (by using potency categorisation) to define the risk management measures (RMMs) (see sectionqualitative approach for sensitisation) is performed. The second step of the approach can not be fulfilled as it is not possible to derive reliable DNELs for sensitisation.
Instead, based on the qualitative information that the substance is a skin sensitiser, the applicant strongly suggests establishing adequate risk management measures for all uses.
Qualitative approach for sensitisation:
A qualitative assessment based on information available on skin sensitisation is given below:
- Based on a Buehler test (BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O.) according to Table R. 8-25 the substance is a moderate sensitizer.
- Based on results obtained when using the non-radioactive LLNA(BASF, 2002, Gamer A.O. (a) and BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O. (d))no categorisation based on potency according to Table R. 8-23 is possible. Nevertheless the test result obtained indicates that the substance has a sensitising potential.
Based on all the integrated information there is the concern that TMPeoTA is a moderate skin sensitiser. Therefore the applicant strongly suggests implementing risk management measure controlling the local dermal exposure (seeRisk management measure addressing the classification of the substance).
Risk management measure addressing the classification of the substance:
The substance is classified as irritant to eye and skin sensitiser therefore working with this substance requires a stringent use of appropriate chemical resistant gloves, protective clothing and suitable eye protection if any skin/eye contact is foreseen. Workers should receive a task specific training on how to use the protective equipment and the correct use of it needs to be supervised. Besides that, workers should be warned to avoid skin and eye contact, to wash off any skin contamination immediately and to report skin/eye problems that may develop. Taking these measures into account, the intensity of exposure is considered to be very low.
Assessment of available DNELs:
The lowest derived DNELs are derived from systemic effects, representing the most critical effect. These DNELs were used for risk assessment.
No further DNELs were derived due to increased uncertainties during derivation.
General information:
If no DNEL is derived, then the study design of the tests conducted does in general not allow the derivation of threshold values due to the study design e.g. when a limit test was conducted. Further information about the categorisation of e.g. regarding acute effects, can be obtained from the classification of the substance. If acute local or systemic thresholds or local effects values are recorded these values are used to derive adequate DNEL, otherwise this justification applies.
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 4.9 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 30
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
Local effects
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 0.5 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 420
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 1.4 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
DNEL related information
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 120
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
Acute/short term exposure
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Additional information - General Population
DNELs are derived from systemic NOAELs and if available local NOAELs. DNELs for sensitisation were not derived due to much uncertainties in the derivation (see sectionskin sensitisation DNELs)
Systemic DNELs:
Dermal:
For dermal toxicity a read across is performed to a structural similar acrylate (TMPTA CAS: 15625-89-5). Dermal studies are performed for this substance. The most critical record for dermal systemic effects of TMPTA are seen in a NTP study:
Subacute, rats/mice, 14/28 days (16 days, 5days/week), NTP protocol: NOAEL, (systemic, mice):≥200 mg/kg bw,NOAEL (local, mice): 25mg/kg bw (Publication: 14/28 day NTP, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 2005)
Oral:
As for oral toxicity no adequate study for TMPeoTA is available a read across to another acrylate with comparable structure elements is performed. A reliable combined 28-Day Repeated Dose Oral toxicity study was performed with 1,6-Hexamethylene Diacrylate (HDDA, CAS 13048-33-4)(ReachCentrum, 2010, Stump D.G.). Thisstudy leads to aNOAEL (systemic) of 250 mg/kg bw/d. In conclusion a NOAEL of 250mg/kg bw/d is also assumed to be suitable to derive an oral and inhalation DNEL for TMPeoTA. But as this read across is performed to a substance containing two functional groups instead of three a decrease of 1/3 of the NOAEL is assumed reflecting these circumstances.
Values used for systemic DNEL derivation:
- mice, subacute, dermal,NOAEL, (f/m, systemic, mice): ≥200 mg/kg bw(Publication: 14/28 day NTP, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 2005)
- rats, combined 28-day repeated dose oral, OECD 422, read acrossNOAEL (systemic, rat)250 mg/kg bw, read across adaptation ->166.7 mg/kg bw(ReachCentrum, 2010, Stump D.G.)
Skin sensitisation DNELs ("acute / short term exposure local effects" and "long-term exposure local effects"):
It is very difficult to derive a quantitative sensitisation DNELs based on the available test systems, as most of these test, as well as the human patch test, were not designed to derive a threshold for sensitisation. This was also addressed in the guideance document Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health May 2008.APPENDIX R. 8-10concludes that GMPT and the Buehler test data are only allow a qualitative assessment and that LLNA and human data may be only allow (in some case) the derivation in a more quantitative manner.
A few LLNA studies conducted with TMPeoTA (different batches) show skin sensitisation. But only two of the studies determined a threshold for sensitisation. These two studies were conducted according to the protocol for the non radioactive version of the LLNA (BASF, 2002, Gamer A.O. (a) and BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O. (d)).
Therefore based on the data available, no quantitative derivation of a local DNEL can be calculated due to the following uncertainties:
-The LLNA method used was modified to avoid use of radioactive material. This modified method does not allow a judgement on the potency of the sensitizer. No EC3 value can be derived.
-Dermal penetration is a prerequisite step for sensitization. Based on calculations made using the OECD toolbox (DermWin), penetration is expected to be low.
Thus the first step of the general approach given in APPENDIX R. 8-10is followed and aqualitative approach (by using potency categorisation) to define the risk management measures (RMMs) (see sectionqualitative approach for sensitisation) is performed. The second step of the approach can not be fulfilled as it is not possible to derive reliable DNELs for sensitisation.
Instead, based on the qualitative information that the substance is a skin sensitiser, the applicant strongly suggests establishing adequate risk management measures for all uses.
Qualitative approach for sensitisation:
A qualitative assessment based on information available on skin sensitisation is given below:
- Based on a Buehler test (BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O.) according to Table R. 8-25 the substance is a moderate sensitizer.
- Based on results obtained when using the non-radioactive LLNA(BASF, 2002, Gamer A.O. (a) and BASF, 2004, Gamer A.O. (d))no categorisation based on potency according to Table R. 8-23 is possible. Nevertheless the test result obtained indicates that the substance has a sensitising potential.
Based on all the integrated information there is the concern that TMPeoTA is a moderate skin sensitiser. Therefore the applicant strongly suggests implementing risk management measure controlling the local dermal exposure (seeRisk management measure addressing the classification of the substance).
Risk management measure addressing the classification of the substance:
The substance is classified as irritant to eye and skin sensitiser therefore working with this substance requires a stringent use of appropriate chemical resistant gloves, protective clothing and suitable eye protection if any skin/eye contact is foreseen. Workers should receive a task specific training on how to use the protective equipment and the correct use of it needs to be supervised. Besides that, workers should be warned to avoid skin and eye contact, to wash off any skin contamination immediately and to report skin/eye problems that may develop. Taking these measures into account, the intensity of exposure is considered to be very low.
Assessment of available DNELs:
The lowest derived DNELs are derived from systemic effects, representing the most critical effect. These DNELs were used for risk assessment.
No further DNELs were derived due to increased uncertainties during derivation.
General information:
If no DNEL is derived, then the study design of the tests conducted does in general not allow the derivation of threshold values due to the study design e.g. when a limit test was conducted. Further information about the categorisation of e.g. regarding acute effects, can be obtained from the classification of the substance. If acute local or systemic thresholds or local effects values are recorded these values are used to derive adequate DNEL, otherwise this justification applies.
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.

Route: .live1