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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 945-909-1 | CAS number: 69415-01-6
- 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
Density
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
- Endpoint:
- relative density
- Type of information:
- (Q)SAR
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- QSAR Report 3rd September 2020
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model, but not (completely) falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. SOFTWARE
US EPA T.E.S.T
2. MODEL (incl. version number)
Toxicity Estimation Software Tool
3. SMILES OR OTHER IDENTIFIERS USED AS INPUT FOR THE MODEL
Cl/C(Cl)=C(/c2ccc(OCC1CO1)cc2)c4ccc(OCC3CO3)cc4
4. SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE (Q)SAR MODEL and APPLICABILITY TO THE TEST CHEMICAL
- Defined endpoint: Density
- Unambiguous algorithm:
Consensus method was utilised as it provides the most accurate prediction. In the consensus method, the predicted toxicity is simply the average of the predicted toxicities from the other QSAR methodologies (taking into account the applicability domain of each method)23. If only a single QSAR methodology can make a prediction, the predicted value is deemed unreliable and not used. This method typically provides the highest prediction accuracy since errant predictions are dampened by the predictions from the other methods. In addition, this method provides the highest prediction coverage because several methods with slightly different applicability domains are used to make a prediction. The predicted toxicity is estimated by taking an average of the predicted toxicities from the below QSAR methods
Hierarchical method
The toxicity for a given query compound is estimated using the weighted average of the predictions from several different cluster models.
FDA method
The prediction for each test chemical is made using a new model that is fit to the chemicals that are most similar to the test compound. Each model is generated at runtime.
Single model method
Predictions are made using a multilinear regression model that is fit to the training set (using molecular descriptors as independent variables).
Group contribution method
Predictions are made using a multilinear regression model that is fit to the training set (using molecular fragment counts as independent variables).
Nearest neighbor method
The predicted toxicity is estimated by taking an average of the 3 chemicals in the training set that are most similar to the test chemical.
- Defined domain of applicability and similarity with analogues in the data set:
The applicability domain is defined using several different constraints. The first constraint, the model ellipsoid constraint, checks if the test chemical is within the multidimensional ellipsoid defined by the ranges of descriptor values for the chemicals in the cluster (for the descriptors appearing the cluster model). The model ellipsoid constraint is satisfied if the leverage of the test compound (h00) is less than the maximum leverage value for all the compounds used in the model 17. The second constraint, the Rmax constraint, checks if the distance from the test chemical to the centroid of the cluster is less than the maximum distance for any chemical in the cluster to the cluster centroid. The distance is defined in terms of the entire pool of descriptors (instead of just the descriptors appearing in the model), the equation for which is available in the User Guide.
The last constraint, the fragment constraint, is that the compounds in the cluster have to have at least one example of each of the fragments contained in the test chemical. For example if one was trying to make a prediction for ethanol, the cluster must contain at least one compound with a methyl fragment (-CH3 [aliphatic attach]), one compound with a methylene fragment (-CH2 [aliphatic attach]), and one compound with a hydroxyl fragment (-OH [aliphatic attach]). This constraint was added to avoid situations where a chemical might have a similar backbone structure to the chemicals in a given cluster but has a different functional group attached. For example if a given cluster contained only short-chained aliphatic amines one would not want to use it to predict the toxicity of ethanol. If a chemical contains a fragment that is not present in the training set, the toxicity cannot be predicted.
- Appropriate measures of goodness-of-fit and robustness and predictivity:
Predictions for the test chemical were based on the most similar chemicals in the training set. Those used had similarity coefficient values of 0.71-0.60 and a mean absolute effor for these similarity coefficients of 0.02.
-Test Set Data Description and appropriateness
The density is defined as mass per unit volume. The data set for this endpoint was obtained from the density data contained in LookChem 84. The data set was restricted to chemicals with boiling points greater than 25°C (or the boiling point was unavailable). The data set was further restricted to chemical with densities > 0.5 and < 5 g/cm3. The final dataset consisted of 8909 chemicals. Data from LookChem are not peer reviewed but the set is very large and thus provides a large degree of structural diversity. The modeled property was density in g/cm3.
6. ADEQUACY OF THE RESULT
The density is defined as mass per unit volume. It is not used for classification and labelling but is fundamental to understanding the intrinsic properties of the substances. - Qualifier:
- no guideline available
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- - Software tool(s) used including version:
US EPA T.E.S.T
- Model(s) used: V4.2
- Model description: see field 'Justification for non-standard information' - Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Model id C20H18O4Cl2_1599141652391
SMILES Code: Cl/C(Cl)=C(/c2ccc(OCC1CO1)cc2)c4ccc(OCC3CO3)cc4 - Key result
- Type:
- relative density
- Density:
- 1.3 other: relative
- Remarks on result:
- other: in silico QSAR predicted value
- Conclusions:
- The relative density of the substance is predicted as 1.3.
Reference
Description of key information
The relative density of the substance is predicted as 1.3.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
- Relative density at 20C:
- 1.3
Additional information
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.