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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 939-606-3 | CAS number: 96690-74-3
- 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
![](https://www.echa.europa.eu/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/print_toxicological-information.png)
Toxicological Summary
- Administrative data
- Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
- Workers - Hazard via dermal route
- Workers - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - workers
- General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
- General Population - Hazard via dermal route
- General Population - Hazard via oral route
- General Population - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - General Population
Administrative data
Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 285 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL (ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 3
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 860 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- Route specific dose descriptor is not available.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL is chosen as starting point.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Chronic studies in rats resulted in an equal NOAEL (Munday et al., 1995a,b).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- AF not used for inhalation route.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 4 060 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL (ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 12
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 48 800 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- Adequate route specific dose descriptor is not available.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL is chosen as starting point.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Chronic studies in rats resulted in an equal NOAEL (Munday et al., 1995a,b).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Species: rat
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- skin irritation/corrosion
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - workers
There is a substantial data base on the counter ions triethanolamine (TEA) and Ammonium online available. Data show that major toxicological effects will be related to the alkyl sulfate moiety and not to the counter ions. For details please refer to the corresponding sub section.
As starting point the dietary NOAEL of 488 mg/kg bw/day (Munday et al., 1976a) representing an average of all NOAELs, was chosen for the risk assessment. For details on study selection please refer to IUCLID section 7.5.
The conversion of an oral NOAEL into an inhalatory NAEC is performed using the following equations; for workers the resulting concentration needs to be additionally corrected for the difference between basal caloric demand and caloric demand under light activity:
Corrected inhalatory NAEC = oral NOAEL x 1/sRVratx ABSoral-rat/ ABSinh-humanx sRVhuman/wRV
= oral NOAEL x 1/0.38m³/kg bw x 1 x 6.7 m³/10 m³
sRV: standard respiratory volume, ABS: absorption, wRV: worker respiratory volume
In the ECHA Guidance a factor of 2 is suggested for the extrapolation from oral to inhalation absorption. On the contrary, the Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission directive 93/67/EEC, 2003 Appendix IV A and B gives a number of physico-chemical properties that normally determine oral, inhalation and dermal absorption. These parameters include molecular weight, log Kow, pKa values and for inhalation also particle size distribution, vapour pressure etc.
Molecules with a molecular weight <500 and a log KOW between 0 and 4 can be assumed to be well absorbed equivalently by the oral and inhalation route. Oral absorption may be reduced for acids and bases depending on their pKa value and their possibility of absorption in the GI tract. More lipophilic substances may be better absorbed in the GI tract due to the solubilisation with bile acids and thus oral absorption may be higher than inhalation absorption. The consideration of physico-chemical parameters should be performed before using default assumptions. Unless valid data suggest that inhalation leads to higher absorption than oral ingestion, equal absorption will be assumed when extrapolating from oral to inhalation route.
To convert an oral NOAEL into a dermal NAEL, the differences in absorption between routes as well as differences in dermal absorption between rats and humans have to be accounted for.
The dermal absorption of AS is relatively poor as can be expected from an anionic molecule which tends to bind to the skin surface (HERA, 2002; Howes, 1975; Black & Howes, 1980). Experimental animal data with14C-labelled C12AS Na in guinea pigs showed that 0.35% of the applied dose of 3 µmol was absorbed (Prottey & Ferguson, 1975). Therefore including a default assumption of 1% for all modelled exposures will display a sufficient conservative approach.
Corrected dermal NAEL = oral NOAEL x ABSoral-rat/ABSdermal
= oral NOAEL x 100/1
ABS: absorption
In addition it is assumed that only workers will come in contact with the neat substances. Due to the known irritating potential of undiluted AS it is common to use personal protective equipment like gloves to avoid dermal contact therewith considering local DNELs as obsolete.
According to ECETOC, 2010 the use of default AFs recommended by ECHA will in most cases lead to DNELs that are not scientifically justified and consequently to unrealistically low levels for establishing safe use. Moreover, ECHA provides limited scientific justification for the default AFs; it is supposed they have relied on ‘standard approaches’ used by other organisations. In contrast, ECETOC based its AFs on a critical review of the literature consequently they should be used preferentially.
In general an AF of 2 is applied when extrapolating data of subchronic toxicity studies to the chronic situation. However, repeated dose toxicity data revealed comparable NOAELs after subchronic and chronic treatment. Based on this fact there is no uncertainty regarding the extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure and thus a factor of 1 is applied for exposure duration.
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 85 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL (ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 5
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 424 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- Route specific dose descriptor is not available.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL is chosen as starting point.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Chronic studies in rats resulted in an equal NOAEL (Munday et al., 1995a,b).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- AF not used for inhalation route.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- hazard unknown (no further information necessary)
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 2 440 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL (ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 20
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 48 800 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- Adequate route specific dose descriptor is not available.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL is chosen as starting point.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Chronic studies in rats resulted in an equal NOAEL (Munday et al., 1995a,b).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Species: rat
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- skin irritation/corrosion
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 24 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL (ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 20
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 488 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
- not applicable
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- NOAEL is chosen as starting point.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Chronic studies in rats resulted in an equal NOAEL (Munday et al., 1995a,b).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- Species: rat
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC, Technical Report No. 110
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - General Population
There is a substantial data base on the counter ions triethanolamine (TEA) and ammonium online available. Data show that major toxicological effects will be related to the alkyl sulfate moiety and not to the counter ions. For details please refer to the corresponding sub section.
As starting point the dietary NOAEL of 488 mg/kg bw/day (Munday et al., 1976a) representing an average of all NOAELs, was chosen for the risk assessment. For details on study selection please refer to IUCLID section 7.5.
The conversion of an oral NOAEL into an inhalatory NAEC is performed using the following equations:
Corrected inhalatory NAEC = oral NOAEL x 1/sRVratx ABSoral-rat/ ABSinh-human
= oral NOAEL x 1/1.15 m³/kg bw x 1
sRV: standard respiratory volume, ABS: absorption, wRV: worker respiratory volume
In the ECHA Guidance a factor of 2 is suggested for the extrapolation from oral to inhalation absorption. On the contrary, the Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission directive 93/67/EEC, 2003 Appendix IV A and B gives a number of physico-chemical properties that normally determine oral, inhalation and dermal absorption. These parameters include molecular weight, log Kow, pKa values and for inhalation also particle size distribution, vapour pressure etc.
Molecules with a molecular weight <500 and a log KOWbetween 0 and 4 can be assumed to be well absorbed equivalently by the oral and inhalation route. Oral absorption may be reduced for acids and bases depending on their pKa value and their possibility of absorption in the GI tract. More lipophilic substances may be better absorbed in the GI tract due to the solubilisation with bile acids and thus oral absorption may be higher than inhalation absorption. The consideration of physico-chemical parameters should be performed before using default assumptions. Unless valid data suggest that inhalation leads to higher absorption than oral ingestion, equal absorption will be assumed when extrapolating from oral to inhalation route.
To convert an oral NOAEL into a dermal NAEL, the differences in absorption between routes as well as differences in dermal absorption between rats and humans have to be accounted for.
The dermal absorption of AS is relatively poor as can be expected from an anionic molecule which tends to bind to the skin surface (HERA, 2002; Howes, 1975; Black & Howes, 1980). Experimental animal data with 14C-labelled C12 ASO4 Na in guinea pigs showed that 0.35% of the applied dose of 3 µmol was absorbed (Prottey & Ferguson, 1975). Therefore including a default assumption of 1% for all modelled exposures will display a sufficient conservative approach. In addition it is assumed that only workers will come in contact with the neat substances.
Corrected dermal NAEL = oral NOAEL x ABSoral-rat/ ABSdermal
= oral NOAEL x 100/1
ABS: absorption
According to ECETOC, 2010 the use of default AFs recommended by ECHA will in most cases lead to DNELs that are not scientifically justified and consequently to unrealistically low levels for establishing safe use. Moreover, ECHA provides limited scientific justification for the default AFs; it is supposed they have relied on ‘standard approaches’ used by other organisations. In contrast, ECETOC based its AFs on a critical review of the literature consequently they should be used preferentially.
In general an AF of 2 is applied when extrapolating data of subchronic toxicity studies to the chronic situation. However, repeated dose toxicity data revealed comparable NOAELs after subchronic and chronic treatment. Based on this fact there is no uncertainty regarding the extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure and thus a factor of 1 is applied for exposure duration.
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.
![ECHA](/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/echa_logo.png)