Strontium neodecanoate

Toxicity to soil macroorganisms except arthropods

Administrative data

Endpoint:

toxicity to soil macroorganisms except arthropods: short-term

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: see 'Remark'

Remarks:

The references contained in this summary entry represent investigations on the toxicity of strontium to different soil nematodes, however, with very limited value for risk assessment purposes. All references do not meet the criteria for quality, reliability and adequacy of experimental data for the fulfilment of data requirements under REACH and hazard assessment purposes (ECHA guidance R4 in conjunction with regulation (EC) 1907/2006, Annexes VII-X). The studies were included for information purposes only.

Data source

Reference

Reference 1

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Use of ion characteristics to predict relative toxicity of mono-, di- and trivalent metal ions: Caenorhabditis elegans LC50

Author:

Tatara, C.P.; Newman, M.C.; McCloskey, J.T. and Williams, P.L.

Year:

1998

Bibliographic source:

Aquatic Toxicology 42, 255-269

Reference 2

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Aquatic toxicity using the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans

Author:

Williams, P.L. and Dusenbery, D.B.

Year:

1990

Bibliographic source:

Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 9, 1285-1290

Materials and methods

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Tatara et al. (1998):
Acute toxicity of strontium to adult Caenorhabditis elegans was tested in K-medium.
Williams and Dusenbery (1990):
Acute toxicity of strontium salt to Caenorhabditis elegans in solution.

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

not applicable

IUPAC Name:

not applicable

Details on test material:

Tatara et al. (1998):
Strontium dinitrate; CAS number: 10042-76-9; EC number: 233-131-9
Williams and Dusenbery (1990):
Strontium dinitrate; CAS number: 10042-76-9; EC number: 233-131-9

Sampling and analysis

Details on sampling:

Analytical confirmation of test concentration:
Tatara et al. (1998): yes, AAS
Williams and Dusenbery (1990): no

Test organisms

Test organisms (species):

Caenorhabditis elegans

Animal group:

nematods

Study design

Study type:

laboratory study

Substrate type:

other: liquid; K-medium

Limit test:

no

Remarks:

Tatara et al. (1998): 24 ± 1 h; Williams and Dusenbery (1990): 96 h

Test conditions

Test temperature:

Tatara et al. (1998): 20°C
Williams and Dusenbery (1990): 20°C

Nominal and measured concentrations:

Nominal and measured concentrations:
Tatara et al. (1998): 6 concentrations, not specified
Williams and Dusenbery (1990): not reported

Results and discussion

Effect concentrations

Effect concentrations 1

Duration:

24 h

Dose descriptor:

LC50

Effect conc.:

15 859 other: mg/L

Nominal / measured:

meas. (not specified)

Conc. based on:

element

Basis for effect:

mortality

Remarks on result:

other: Tatara et al. (1998): Mortality observed.

Effect concentrations 2

Duration:

96 h

Dose descriptor:

LC50

Effect conc.:

465 other: mg/L

Nominal / measured:

nominal

Conc. based on:

element

Basis for effect:

mortality

Remarks on result:

other: Williams and Dusenbery (1990): Mortality observed.

Details on results:

Tatara et al. (1998): The tested soil organism C. elegans livies in soil and water films. The test was conducted in solution and is therefore not representative for the soil compartment. The exposure period was too short to be relevant for the hazard assessment. The methodological procedure is invalid due to the used test medium.
Williams and Dusenbery (1990): The tested soil organism C. elegans livies in soil and water films. The test was conducted in solution and is therefore not representative for the soil compartment. The test method is not sufficient described.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:

All studies have methodological shortcomings (incl. test design, endpoint, no guideline followed) and are not sufficiently reported so that observed effects cannot be considered reliable.