Registration Dossier

Ecotoxicological information

Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Description of key information

The key study for this endpoint was Ágh, 2010. This study was selected basd upon it's reliability (reliability score of 1 according to the criteria of Klimisch et al, 1997) and the age of the study report. The study was conducted according to the OECD 202 guideline using the prefered test species (Daphnia magna) and the prefered exposure time and media (48 hours in freshwater). The study reported a 24 hour EC50 of 15.71 mg/l based upon mobility and a 48 hour EC50 of 11.61 mg/l based upon mobility. 
Several supporting studies were also available for this endpoint. Herring et al, 1988, was conducted in a similar manner to EU Method C.2 and reported a 72h-LC50 of 50mg/l for Hydra oligactis. Adams et al, 1989, was conducted on Octopuses (3 species) using a novel methodology, and reported a 3h-LC100 of 100mg/l.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Fresh water invertebrates

Fresh water invertebrates
Effect concentration:
11.61 mg/L

Additional information

Ágh, 2010, was selected as the key study as it was conducted according to the OECD 202 guideline under GLP conditions using the prefered model (Daphnia magna), duration of exposure (48 hours) and test medium (freshwater). No deviations from the guideline were reported in the study and the reporting of methodology and results was considered to be of sufficient detail to allow for comparison to other substances.

As Herring et al, 1988, was conducted in a similar manner to a recognised testing guideline it was considered to be of sufficient reliability for presentation as supporting information.

Adams et al, 1989, was reported with a clearly presented methodology and results section although as it was conducted with a novel methodology on a species which is typically honored as a vertebrate in the EU no basis for comparison was available for the study. It was therefore awarded the reliability score of 4 as insufficient information was available for an assessment of it's reliability.