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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Acute Toxicity: inhalation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
acute toxicity: inhalation
Type of information:
other: Secondary source ECHA disseminated Dossier for CAS 687-47-8
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
data from handbook or collection of data

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
secondary source
Title:
ECHA disseminated dossier for CAS 687-47-8
Author:
ECHA
Year:
2016
Bibliographic source:
Study 1995 cited in ECHA disseminated dossier for CAS 687-47-8; Status Dec. 2016

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 403 (Acute Inhalation Toxicity)
Version / remarks:
the observation period lasted 15 days instead of 14 days
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Test type:
other: standard acute method
Limit test:
yes

Test animals

Species:
rat
Strain:
other: SPF-reared, Wistar derived rats
Sex:
male/female

Administration / exposure

Route of administration:
inhalation: vapour
Type of inhalation exposure:
whole body
Vehicle:
other: unchanged (no vehicle)
Analytical verification of test atmosphere concentrations:
yes
Duration of exposure:
4 h
Concentrations:
actual concentation of ethyl lactate in the test atmosphere turned out to be 5.4 ± 0.4 g/m³. The nominal concentration was 17.6 g/m³. From the determination of the particle size distribution it appeared that no aerosol could be shown. This does not necessarily mean that there were no droplets in the test atmosphere, since it is very likely that after deposition of the droplets in the impactor the ethyl lactate has evaporated. Actually, the large difference between actual and nominal concentration points to loss of test material, which at this high concentration level only is observed during aerosol exposures.
No. of animals per sex per dose:
5
Control animals:
no

Results and discussion

Effect levelsopen allclose all
Sex:
male/female
Dose descriptor:
LC50
Effect level:
> 5.4 mg/L air (analytical)
Exp. duration:
4 h
Sex:
male/female
Dose descriptor:
LC0
Effect level:
5.4 mg/L air
Exp. duration:
4 h
Mortality:
None of the rats died during or after exposure.
Clinical signs:
other: During the entire exposure the animals showed a decreased breathing frequency. Wet noses were seen after 30 minutes of exposure and piloerection after 60 minutes. Half closed eyes and lachrymation were all observed only at 15 minutes after the start of th
Body weight:
Body weight gain was not visibly affected by the exposure. All animals gained weight in a normal way.
Gross pathology:
Gross-examination at autopsy revealed pale lungs in one male and three females. In three females the lungs showed a few petechiae.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
The 4-hour LC50 of ethyl lactate in rats is higher than 5.4 g/L. No clear information given on type of inhalative exposure (i.e. aerosol vs. vapour). Based on this uncertainty, the given LC50 cannot be applied for an overall classification decision due to the fact that criteria differ between aerosol and vapour exposure.
Executive summary:

Based on chosen study conditions, the LC50 of ethyl lactate is greater than 5.4 mg/L. Based on the structural similarity concerning the alkyl residue (methyl- vs. ethyl group) between Ethyl-S-lactate and Methylpyruvate and their close metabolic relationship (bilateral biotransformation between pyruvate and lactate via the lactate dehydrogenase), a similar outcome for methylpyruvate is considered, however, based on uncertainties in the type of inhalation exposure (i.e. aerosol vs. vapour), the given LC50 cannot be applied for an overall classification decision due to the fact that criteria differ between aerosol and vapour exposure.