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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 928-812-9 | CAS number: -
- 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
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
Description of key information
Short description of key information on bioaccumulation potential result:
C14-C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids are typically metabolized by side chain oxidation to alcohol and carboxylic acid derivatives. These metabolites can be glucuronidated and excreted in the urine or further metabolized before being excreted. The majority of the metabolites are excreted in the urine and to a lower extent, in the feces. Excretion is rapid with the majority of the elimination occurring within the first 24 hours of exposure. As a result of the lack of systemic toxicity and the ability of the parent material to undergo metabolism and rapid excretion, bioaccumulation of the test substance in the tissues is not likely to occur.
Short description of key information on absorption rate:
C14-C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids are poorly dermally absorbed and they tend to partition into the stratum corneum. When dermally absorbed, C14-C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids are rapidly metabolized and eliminated.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
There are no toxicokinetic data available for hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics. However, based on available data on similar substances, e. g. C14–C20 aliphatic, 2-30% aromatic and C16-C20 aliphatic, 2-30% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids, hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics are readily absorbed when inhaled or ingested (Tulliez and Peleran, 1977 and Le Bon et al., 1988) and at the same time are poorly dermally absorbed (Riviere et al., 1999). Regardless of exposure route, hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatic are rapidly metabolized and excreted (Tulliez and Peleran, 1977, Le Bon et al., 1988 and Riviere et al., 1999). Therefore, bioaccumulation of hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics is not expected.
READ ACROSS STRATEGY
Hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics are mixed solvents of variable composition, containing primarily aliphatic constituents with up to 60% aromatic constituents. The hydrocarbon solvents which are compositionally most closely related are hydrocarbons, C14-C20 aliphatic, 2 -30% aromatics and C16-C20 aliphatic, 2-30% aromatics as well as C9-C14 aliphatic with 2-25% aromatics. These substances consist of molecules which are of similar types and proportions to hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics but are of lower molecular weight. The toxicological principle which supports read-across is that substances of similar composition are likely to have similar toxicological properties.
In addition, other types of substances may also be useful for read across, e. g. are petroleum substances of similar carbon number and aromatic content, principally kerosene and jet fuel which, as noted above, are typically in the range of C9-C16. These substances also contain similar types of molecules in similar proportions. In general hydrocarbon solvents are more highly refined than the petroleum substances. Accordingly, the petroleum substances typically represent a “worse case” with respect to hydrocarbon solvents and can be used for read-across on that basis as well.
Discussion on bioaccumulation potential result:
There are no dermal absorption studies available for hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics. However, there are data available on similar substances, e. g. various Jet-fuels. Thus read-across was performed. Due to the structural similarity of these substances to constituents of hydrocarbons C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics, it seems reasonable to assume that the solvents would have toxicokinetic properties similar to those of these substances.
IN VIVO
The percutaneous absorption and cutaneous disposition of topically applied neat Jet-A, JP-8, and JP-8(100) jet fuels (25 µL/5 cm2) was examined by monitoring the absorptive flux of the marker components 14C naphthalene and 4H dodecane simultaneously applied non-occluded to isolated perfused porcine skin flaps (a = 4) (Riviere et al., 1999, Singh et al. 2002). Absorption of 14C hexadecane was estimated from JP-8 fuel. Absorption and disposition of naphthalene and dodecane were also monitored using a nonvolatile JP-8 fraction reflecting exposure to residual fuel that might occur 24 h after a jet fuel spill. In all studies, perfusate, stratum corneum, and skin concentrations were measured over 5 h. Naphthalene absorption had a clear peak absorptive flux at less than 1 h, while dodecane and hexadecane had prolonged, albeit significantly lower, absorption flux profiles. Within JP-8, absorption was (mean +/- SEM; % dose) hexadecane (0.18 +/- 0.08). The area under the curve (AUC) was determined to be (mean +/- SEM; % dose-h/mL): naphthalene (0.0199 +/- 0.0020)> dodecane (0.0107 +/- 0.0009) > hexadecane (0.0017 +/- 0.0003).
OVERVIEW OF PERCUTANEOUS ABSORPTION OF HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
Since there are not always studies of repeated dose toxicity of hydrocarbon solvents using the dermal route of administration available, when necessary to calculate dermal DNELs, systemic data from studies utilizing other routes of administration, normally inhalation but also oral data, can be used (route-to-route extrapolation). In accordance with ECHA guidance, read across from oral or inhalation data to dermal should account for differences in absorption where these exist (R8, example B.6). In fact, hydrocarbon solvents are poorly absorbed in most situations, in part because some are volatile and do not remain in contact with the skin for long periods of time and also because, due to their hydrophobic natures, do not partition well into aqueous environments and are poorly absorbed into the blood.
If these differences in relative absorption are introduced into the DNEL calculations to calculate external doses, the DNELs based on systemic effects are highly inflated. This seems potentially misleading as it implies that substances have different intrinsic hazards when encountered by different routes whereas in fact the differences are due ultimately to differences in absorbed dose. Accordingly, it is our opinion that it would be more transparent if the differences in absorption were taken into account in the exposure equations rather than in DNEL derivation.
Shown below is a compilation of percutaneous absorption information for a number of hydrocarbon solvent constituents covering carbon numbers ranging from C5 to C14 as well as examples of both aliphatic and aromatic constituents. The low molecular weight aliphatic hydrocarbons (n-pentane, 2-methylpentane, n-hexane, n-heptane, and n-octane) were tested by Tsuruta (1982) using rat skin in an in vitro model system. As shown (Table 1), the highest percutaneous absorption value was 2 ug/cm2/hr for pentane. Lower values (< ~ 1 ug/cm2/hr) were reported for aliphatic hydrocarbons ranging from hexane to octane. Several authors have assessed the percutaneous absorption of higher molecular weight aliphatic constituents including Baynes et al. (2000), Singh and Singh (2003), Muhammad et al. (2005), and Kim et al., (2006). The first three of these authors used porcine skin models and reported that, except for one anomalous result with tridecane, the percutaneous absorption values for aliphatic constituents ranging from nonane to tetradecane were well below 1 ug/cm2/hr. Rat and human skin are considered to be more permeable than human skin (Kim et al., 2006), so these numbers can be considered conservative.
Kim et al. (2006) reported results of percutaneous absorption studies with human skin under in vivo conditions. In this case, the assessment method was based on tape stripping. The authors reported percutaneous absorption values ranging from 1 – 2 µg/kg/day for decane, undecane and dodecane. These values are higher than those reported by other authors, most likely because this technique measures absorption into the skin but not through the skin as was done in the studies listed above. Accordingly, it seems likely that these numbers are conservative as well.
With respect to aromatic hydrocarbons, most of the reported percutaneous absorption values [Baynes et al. (2000); Singh and Singh (2003); Mohammad et al. (2005); and Kim et al. (2006)] are less than 2 ug/cm2/day. The only exceptions are the values for naphthalene from Mohammad et al. (2005) which range from 4.2-6.6 µg/cm2/hr.
After considering all of the above, it seems reasonable to assume apparent that across the entire range of hydrocarbon solvent constituents, percutaneous absorption values are less than 2 ug/cm2/day. Accordingly, when systemic dermal DNELs are calculated using route to route extrapolations, the values will not be corrected for differences in absorption. Rather, 2 µg/cm2/hr will be used as a common percutaneous absorption rate for all hydrocarbon solvents for which dermal exposure estimates are provided.
Table 1: Summarized information on percutaneous absorption of hydrocarbon solvent constituents (C5-C16).
Constituent |
Molecular Weight |
nmol/min/cm2 |
nmol/hr/cm2 |
µg/cm2/hr |
Reference |
||||||
Aliphatic Constituents |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Pentane |
72 |
0.52 |
31.2 |
2.2 |
Tsuruta et al. 1982 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
2-methyl pentane |
86 |
0.02 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
n-hexane |
86 |
0.02 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
n-heptane |
100 |
0.02 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
n-octane |
114 |
0.08 x 10-3 |
0.005 |
0.0005 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Nonane |
128 |
|
|
0.03 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Nonane |
|
|
|
0.38 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Decane |
142 |
|
|
2 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
Decane |
|
|
|
1.65 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Undecane |
156 |
|
|
0.06-0.07 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Undecane |
|
|
|
1.0 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
Undecane |
|
|
|
1.22 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Dodecane |
170 |
|
|
0.02-0.04 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Dodecane |
|
|
|
2 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.3 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
||||||
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.51 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.1 |
Baynes et al. 2000 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Tridecane |
184 |
|
|
0.00-0.02 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Tridecane |
|
|
|
2.5 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
||||||
Tridecane |
|
|
|
0.33 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
Tetradecane |
198 |
|
|
0.3 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
||||||
Hexadecane |
|
|
7.02 x 10E-3 |
0.00004 |
Singh and Singh, 2002 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Aromatic Constituents |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Trimethyl benzene |
120 |
|
|
0.49 - 1.01 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Trimethyl benzene |
|
|
|
1.25 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Naphthalene |
128 |
|
|
6.6 - 4.2 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.4 |
Singh and Singh 2002 |
||||||
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.8 |
Baynes et al. (2000) |
||||||
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.0 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
1 methyl naphthalene |
142 |
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
Methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.55 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
2-methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
||||||
2-methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.1 |
Singh and Singh, 2002 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Dimethyl naphthalene |
156 |
|
|
0.62 – 0.67 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
||||||
Dimethyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.59 |
McDougal et al. 1999 |
References
Tsuruta, H. et al. (1982). Percutaneous absorption of organic solvents III. On the penetration rates of hydrophobic solvents through the excised rat skin. Industrial Health 20:335-345.
Kim, D., Andersen, M., and Nylander-French (2006). Dermal absorption and penetration of jet fuel components in humans. Toxicology Letters 165:11-21.
Muhammad, F., N. Monteiro-Riviere, R. Baynes, and J. Riviere (2005). Effect of in vivo jet fuel exposure on subsequent in vitro dermal absorption of individual aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon fuel constituents. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 68:719-737.
Singh Somnath, Zhao Kaidi, Singh Jagdish. (2002). In vitro permeability and binding of hydrocarbons in pig ear and human abdominal skin. Drug and chemical toxicology, (2002 Feb) Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Singh, S. and Singh, J. (2003). Percutaneous absorption, biophysical and macroscopic barrier properties of porcine skin exposed to major components of JP-8 jet fuel. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 14:77-85.
McDougal, J., Pollard, D., Weisman, W., Garrett, C., and Miller, T. (2000). Assessment of skin absorption and penetration of JP-8 jet fuel and its components. Toxicological Sciences 25:247-255.
The following information is taken into account for any hazard / risk assessment:
Hydrocarbons, C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics are poorly dermally absorbed and they tend to partition into the stratum corneum. When dermally absorbed, hydrocarbons C13-C20, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, 40-60% aromatics are rapidly metabolized and eliminated.
Discussion on absorption rate:
There have not been any in vivo dermal absorption studies of C14-C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids, but there have been in vitro and in vivo studies for constituents of the C14-C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids. Due to the structural similarity of these molecules to other constituents of the C14 – C20 aliphatic, 2-20% aromatic hydrocarbon fluids, it seems reasonable to assume that the solvents would have toxicokinetic properties similar to those of these constituents.
IN VIVO
The percutaneous absorption and cutaneous disposition of topically applied neat Jet-A, JP-8, and JP-8(100) jet fuels (25 uL/5 cm2) was examined by monitoring the absorptive flux of the marker components 14C naphthalene and 4H dodecane simultaneously applied non-occluded to isolated perfused porcine skin flaps (a = 4). Absorption of 14C hexadecane was estimated from JP-8 fuel. Absorption and disposition of naphthalene and dodecane were also monitored using a nonvolatile JP-8 fraction reflecting exposure to residual fuel that might occur 24 h after a jet fuel spill. In all studies, perfusate, stratum corneum, and skin concentrations were measured over 5 h. Naphthalene absorption had a clear peak absorptive flux at less than 1 h, while dodecane and hexadecane had prolonged, albeit significantly lower, absorption flux profiles. Within JP-8, absorption was (mean +/- SEM; % dose) hexadecane (0.18 +/- 0.08). The area under the curve (AUC) was determined to be (mean +/- SEM; % dose-h/mL): hexadecane (0.0017 +/- 0.0003).
IN VITRO
The flux, permeability coefficient (Kp), and binding of hexadecane for porcine skin was determined to be 8.80 +/- 0.00 (nmol/cm2/h) x 10E-3. The permeability coefficient (Kp), and binding of hexadecane for human skin were determined to be 7.02 +/- 0.00 (nmol/cm2/h) x 10E-3. Factor of difference (FOD) in the permeability of pig and human skin was 1.28 for hexadecane. The FOD in binding of hexadecane to pig and human skin was found to be 0.76.
The percutaneous absorption was determined in vivo (weanling pigs) for the constituent hexadecane, which is also a component of JP-8. In vivo percutaneous absorption results suggest a greater absorption of hexadecane (0.43%) than xylene (0.17%) or heptane (0.14%) of the applied dose after 30 min exposure. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) provides a robust method for assessing damage to the stratum corneum. Heptane showed greater increase in TEWL than the other two chemicals. No significant (p < 0.05) increase in temperature was observed at the chemically treated site than the control site. Heptane showed greater TEWL values and erythema scores than other two chemicals (xylene and hexadecane). Erythema was completely resolved after 24 h of the patch removal in case of xylene and hexadecane.
OVERVIEW OF PERCUTANEOUS ABSORPTION OF HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
There are no studies of repeated dose toxicity of hydrocarbon solvents using the dermal route of administration. Accordingly, where it is necessary to calculate dermal DNELs, systemic data from studies utilizing other routes of administration, normally inhalation but also oral data, can be used in some situations. In accordance with ECHA guidance, read across from oral or inhalation data to dermal should account for differences in absorption where these exist (R8, example B.6). In fact, hydrocarbon solvents are poorly absorbed in most situations, in part because some are volatile and do not remain in contact with the skin for long periods of time and also because, due to their hydrophobic natures, do not partition well into aqueous environments and are poorly absorbed into the blood.
If these differences in relative absorption are introduced into the DNEL calculations to calculate external doses, the DNELs based on systemic effects are highly inflated. This seems potentially misleading as it implies that substances have different intrinsic hazards when encountered by different routes whereas in fact the differences are due ultimately to differences in absorbed dose. Accordingly, it is our opinion that it would be more transparent if the differences in absorption were taken into account in the exposure equations rather than in DNEL derivation.
Shown below is a compilation of percutaneous absorption information for a number of hydrocarbon solvent constituents covering carbon numbers ranging from C5 to C14 as well as examples of both aliphatic and aromatic constituents. The low molecular weight aliphatic hydrocarbons (n-pentane, 2-methylpentane, n-hexane, n-heptane, and n-octane) were tested by Tsuruta (1982) using rat skin in an in vitro model system. As shown (Table 1), the highest percutaneous absorption value was 2 ug/cm2/hr for pentane. Lower values (< ~ 1 ug/cm2/hr) were reported for aliphatic hydrocarbons ranging from hexane to octane. Several authors have assessed the percutaneous absorption of higher molecular weight aliphatic constituents including Baynes et al. (2000), Singh and Singh (2003), Muhammad et al. (2005), and Kim et al., (2006). The first three of these authors used porcine skin models and reported that, except for one anomalous result with tridecane, the percutaneous absorption values for aliphatic constituents ranging from nonane to tetradecane were well below 1 ug/cm2/hr. Rat and human skin are considered to be more permeable than human skin (Kim et al., 2006), so these numbers can be considered conservative.
Kim et al. (2006) reported results of percutaneous absorption studies with human skin under in vivo conditions. In this case, the assessment method was based on tape stripping. The authors reported percutaneous absorption values ranging from 1 – 2 ug/kg/day for decane, undecane and dodecane. These values are higher than those reported by other authors, most likely because this technique measures absorption into the skin but not through the skin as was done in the studies listed above. Accordingly, it seems likely that these numbers are conservative as well.
With respect to aromatic hydrocarbons, most of the reported percutaneous absorption values [Baynes et al. (2000); Singh and Singh (2003); Mohammad et al. (2005); and Kim et al. (2006)] are less than 2 ug/cm2/day. The only exceptions are the values for naphthalene from Mohammad et al. (2005) which range from 4.2-6.6 ug/cm2/hr.
After considering all of the above, it seems reasonable to assume apparent that across the entire range of hydrocarbon solvent constituents, percutaneous absorption values are less than 2 ug/cm2/day. Accordingly, when systemic dermal DNELs are calculated using route to route extrapolations, the values will not be corrected for differences in absorption. Rather, 2 ug/cm2/hr will be used as a common percutaneous absorption rate for all hydrocarbon solvents for which dermal exposure estimates are provided.
Table 1: Summarized information on percutaneous absorption of hydrocarbon solvent constituents (C5-C16).
Constituent |
Molecular Weight |
nmol/min/cm2 |
nmol/hr/cm2 |
ug/cm2/hr |
Reference |
Aliphatic Constituents |
|
|
|
|
|
Pentane |
72 |
0.52 |
31.2 |
2.2 |
Tsuruta et al. 1982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-methyl pentane |
86 |
0.02 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n-hexane |
86 |
0.02 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n-heptane |
100 |
0.02 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n-octane |
114 |
0.08 x 10-3 |
0.005 |
0.0005 |
Tsuruta et al., 1982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonane |
128 |
|
|
0.03 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Nonane |
|
|
|
0.38 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decane |
142 |
|
|
2 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
Decane |
|
|
|
1.65 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undecane |
156 |
|
|
0.06-0.07 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Undecane |
|
|
|
1.0 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
Undecane |
|
|
|
1.22 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dodecane |
170 |
|
|
0.02-0.04 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Dodecane |
|
|
|
2 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.3 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.51 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
Dodecane |
|
|
|
0.1 |
Baynes et al. 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tridecane |
184 |
|
|
0.00-0.02 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Tridecane |
|
|
|
2.5 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
Tridecane |
|
|
|
0.33 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
Tetradecane |
198 |
|
|
0.3 |
Singh and Singh, 2003 |
Hexadecane |
|
|
7.02 x 10E-3 |
0.00004 |
Singh and Singh, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aromatic Constituents |
|
|
|
|
|
Trimethyl benzene |
120 |
|
|
0.49 - 1.01 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Trimethyl benzene |
|
|
|
1.25 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naphthalene |
128 |
|
|
6.6 - 4.2 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.4 |
Singh and Singh 2002 |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.8 |
Baynes et al. (2000) |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.0 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 methyl naphthalene |
142 |
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
Methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.55 |
McDougal et al., 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.5 |
Kim et al., 2006 |
2-methyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
1.1 |
Singh and Singh, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dimethyl naphthalene |
156 |
|
|
0.62 – 0.67 |
Muhammad et al., 2005 |
Dimethyl naphthalene |
|
|
|
0.59 |
McDougal et al. 1999 |
References
Tsuruta, H. et al. (1982). Percutaneous absorption of organic solvents III. On the penetration rates of hydrophobic solvents through the excised rat skin. Industrial Health 20:335-345.
Kim, D., Andersen, M., and Nylander-French (2006). Dermal absorption and penetration of jet fuel components in humans. Toxicology Letters 165:11-21.
Muhammad, F., N. Monteiro-Riviere, R. Baynes, and J. Riviere (2005). Effect of in vivo jet fuel exposure on subsequent in vitro dermal absorption of individual aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon fuel constituents. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 68:719-737.
Singh Somnath, Zhao Kaidi, Singh Jagdish. (2002). In vitro permeability and binding of hydrocarbons in pig ear and human abdominal skin. Drug and chemical toxicology, (2002 Feb) Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Singh, S. and Singh, J. (2003). Percutaneous absorption, biophysical and macroscopic barrier properties of porcine skin exposed to major components of JP-8 jet fuel. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 14:77-85.
McDougal, J., Pollard, D., Weisman, W., Garrett, C., and Miller, T. (2000). Assessment of skin absorption and penetration of JP-8 jet fuel and its components. Toxicological Sciences 25:247-255.
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.