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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Ecotoxicological information

Toxicity to other above-ground organisms

Administrative data

Endpoint:
toxicity to other above-ground organisms
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
other information
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Acceptable, well-documented publication which meets basic scientific principles

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1987
Report date:
1987

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
no guideline followed
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Exposure of larvae for 48 hours
GLP compliance:
no

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
3,5,5-trimethylhexan-1-ol
EC Number:
222-376-7
EC Name:
3,5,5-trimethylhexan-1-ol
Cas Number:
3452-97-9
Molecular formula:
C9H20O
IUPAC Name:
3,5,5-trimethylhexan-1-ol
Details on test material:
- Purity: analytical grade

Sampling and analysis

Analytical monitoring:
not specified

Test substrate

Vehicle:
no

Test organisms

Test organisms (species):
other: xenopus laevis

Study design

Study type:
laboratory study
Limit test:
no
Total exposure duration:
48 h

Results and discussion

Effect concentrations
Duration:
48 h
Dose descriptor:
LD50
Effect conc.:
13.5 other: mg/L
Conc. based on:
test mat.
Basis for effect:
mortality

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
The LC50 (48 h) of 3, 5, 5-trimethylhexan-1-ol to larvae of Xenopus laevis was 13.5 mg/L
Executive summary:

The LC50 (48 h) of 3, 5, 5-trimethylhexan-1-ol to larvae of Xenopus laevis was 13.5 mg/L. The sensitivity of this species was reportedly comparable to that of fish (De Zwart and Slooff, 1987).