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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 482-330-9 | CAS number: 144020-22-4
- 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
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:
- 7.3 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 18
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 150 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 132 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation was applied in accordance with ECHA’s Guidance R.8. In the route to route extrapolation for the inhalation route a correction for respiratory volume is applied. The oral rat study NOAEL is modified into a NOAEC for human inhalation using ECHA guidance: The respiratory volume of rats (0.38 m3/kg bw) is multiplied by the respiratory volume of human (6.7 m3/person) and corrected for the respiratory volume for light activity to address the workers (10 m3/person). In addition, the inhalation absorption is set to twice as high as oral absorption. Therefore, the modified dose descriptor is calculated as follows: 150 mg/kg bw NOAEL / 2 (oral versus inhalation) / 0.38 x (6.7/10) = 132 mg/m3.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No additional assessment factor for dose response is needed because the dosing was well spaced in the study and a NOAEL was derived in the study similar to OECD 40x (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 6 has been applied to extrapolate the NOAEL from sub-acute to a chronic study as presented in R.8.4.3.1 and table R.8-5 (ECHA’s guidance, November, 2012).)
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 has been used because the difference in metabolic rate between rat and humans has been accounted for in the conversion of NOAEL in mg/kg bw to the NOAEC mg/m3, as presented in ECHA’s guidance R.8, figure R. 8-2 (November, 2012).)
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 3 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences. This factor has been derived by ECETOC (TR110, 2010). The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients; this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A
Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species and includes intraspecies differences. - AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). When taking into account the standard information requirements and the completeness and consistency of the database the default assessment factor of 1, to be applied for good/standard quality of the database, is recommended.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable, because there are no remaining uncertainties, which have not already been accounted for.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 2 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 72
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 150 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation was applied in accordance with ECHA’s Guidance R.8. In the route to route extrapolation for the dermal route no correction is applied because the default absorption of 50% as in the ECHA guidance is used for oral and dermal absorption.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No additional assessment factor for dose response is
needed because the dosing was well spaced in the study and a NOAEL was derived in the study similar to OECD 40x (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012). - AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 6 has been applied to extrapolate the NOAEL from sub-acute/chronic to a chronic study as presented in R.8.4.3.1 and table R.8-5 (ECHA’s guidance, November, 2012).)
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- For allometric scaling a factor of 4 is applicable to convert rat to human data, as determined by ECHA (Table R.8-3, 2012)
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 3 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences. This factor has been derived by ECETOC (TR110, 2010). The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients; this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species and includes intraspecies differences.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). When taking into account the standard information requirements and the completeness and consistency of the database the default assessment factor of 1, to be applied for good/standard quality of the database, is recommended.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable, because there are no remaining uncertainties, which have not already been accounted for.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 5 399 µg/cm²
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- sensitisation (skin)
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 1
- Dose descriptor:
- other: NOEC
- Value:
- 5 399 µg/m³
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- As the NOAEC was taken as the dose descriptor starting point no (additional) assessment factor is needed (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point
The results from an OECD TG 429 LLNA assay are available resulting in an EC3 of e.g. 20.71 and a NOEC of e.g. 25%. This NOEC is used as a starting point for the DNEL derivation. Using the 25 μL application of 25% test substance on the mouse ear surface of 1 cm2 and taking into account the density of Trimofix O (980 mg/mL), the dose level was calculated as 0.25 (%)* 980 (density) * 0.025 (ml) * 1000 (conversion from mg to μg) / 1 = 6125 μg/cm2. However, the reliable NOEC found in a well conducted HRIPT study was lower (5399 μg/cm2, see AF for intraspecies
differences) and therefore chosen as the basis for the DNEL. (ECHA’s guidance, R.8 p126, November, 2012)
Because there is no choice to select μg/m2 we have selected μg/m3. (Unit should be μg/m2) - AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Repeated exposure is taken into account in the exposure assessment by using events/day.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor for allometric scaling is not needed since local effects are independent of the basal metabolic rate, allometric scaling should not be applied (allometric scaling factor of 1) ECHA, 2012, Chapter R8.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- The assessment factor for remaining uncertainties can be 1. For vehicle effects: an assessment factor of 1 is applied as the matrices of the products compiled from the substance are not intended to enhance penetration. For type of skin (skin thickness and skin integrity) it can be seen that the human skin (exposed hands) to be similarly or less sensitive compared to the skin of the mouse ear. The LLNA is selected as a model because the mouse ear is considered very thin with high blood flow and as such reflect a similar thickness and integrity compared to human skin in general.)
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- A HRIPT test in healthy volunteers is available with a 10% test solution, which presents a NOEC of 5399 μg/cm2 (0.2 ml = 200000 μg (the applied dose * 0.10) / 3.63 cm2 * 0.98 (correction for density), that is lower than the NOEC found in the LLNA (6125 μg/cm2). By using the lower NOEC from the HRIPT study as the basis for the DNEL, combined with the existing intraspecies variation in the human population tested, the possible influence of intraspecies variation is already sufficiently accounted for and an AF for intraspecies is not needed.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable because the information fulfils the REACH requirements: an LLNA study according to OECD guideline was used.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- No remaining uncertainties were identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Additional information - workers
In deriving the DNELs for hazard identification for inhalation and the dermal route of exposure mostly ECHA’s guidance is used, which is generally conservative by using default values in absence of data outside the requirements of REACH regulation Annex VII to Annex XI. In addition, the used assessment factors used have been adequately documented. For inter and intraspecies assessment factors have been used which were concluded to be scientifically sound by ECETOC (TR 110, 2010) and which are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature. Therefore, the DNELs for all human health endpoints relevant for workers are considered sufficiently conservative to be used in risk characterisation.
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 2.1 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 30
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 150 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 65 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation was applied in accordance with ECHA’s Guidance R.8. In the route-to-route extrapolation for the inhalation route a correction for respiratory volume is applied. The oral rat study NOAEL is modified into a NOAEC for human inhalation for the General population using ECHA guidance:
Starting point is the NOAEL of 150 mg/kg bw. A factor of 2 is applied for route-to-route extrapolation: oral to inhalation. In addition, for rat to human extrapolation the following formula is used: 75 mg/kg bw /1.15 = 65 mg/m3.- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No additional assessment factor for dose response is needed because the dosing was well spaced in the study and a NOAEL in the OECD TG 422 study was derived (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- Since the dose descriptor is derived from an OECD TG 422 study, an additional assessment factor of 6 to take account of extrapolation of sub-acute data to chronic exposure (ECHA 2012, Chapter R8, p 29).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 has been used because the difference in metabolic rate between rat and humans has been accounted for in the conversion of NOAEL in mg/kg bw to the NOAEC in mg/m3, as presented in ECHA’s guidance R.8, figure R. 8-2 (November, 2012).)
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 has been applied because besides allometric differences no other interspecies differences need to be accounted for which has been shown by ECETOC TR 110 (2010) after a review of the scientific literature. ECETOC concludes that adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. The application the ‘remaining’ AF of 2.5 for interspecies variability would mean an unjustified compilation of AF. The ‘residual’ interspecies variability may remain following allometric scaling, but this is largely accounted for in the default AF proposed for intraspecies variability, i.e. reflecting the interdependency of inter- and intraspecies AF.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 5 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences as has been derived by ECETOC (TR110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species but includes intraspecies differences.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable because the information fulfils the REACH requirements: an OECD TG 422 (2017 under GLP) is available (ECHA’s Guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- No remaining uncertainties were identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 1.2 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 120
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 150 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to route extrapolation can be done because there is adequate oral toxicity data; the critical effect is systemic rather than at the site of contact. There is no evidence that the compound is subject to ‘first-pass’ metabolism which would lead to higher dermal toxicity compared to oral toxicity. To account for any uncertainties considering the toxicity potential via the oral and the dermal route, the absorption via the dermal route is the same as for the oral route, though higher absorption is expected for the oral route (IGHRC, 2006 as mentioned in the ECHA guidance, R.8.4.2, November, 2012). In absence of dermal absorption information a factor of 1 for oral versus dermal absorption is applicable as proposed in ECHA guidance, Chapter R.8.4.2 (November, 2012).
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No additional assessment factor for dose response is needed because the dosing was well spaced in the study and a NOAEL in the OECD TG 422 study was derived (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- Since the dose descriptor is derived from a OECD TG 422 study, an additional assessment factor of 6 to take account of extrapolation of sub-acute data to chronic exposure (ECHA 2012, Chapter R8, p 29).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- For allometric scaling a factor of 4 is applicable to convers rat to human data, as determined by ECHA (Table R.8-3, 2012).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- This factor has been retrieved by ECETOC (TR 110, 2010) based on scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, which represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species but includes intraspecies differences.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable because the information fulfils the REACH requirements: an OECD TG 422 (2017 under GLP) is available (ECHA’s Guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- No remaining uncertainties were identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 2 699 µg/cm²
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- sensitisation (skin)
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 2
- Dose descriptor:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 5 399 µg/m³
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- As the NOAEC was taken as the dose descriptor starting point no (additional) assessment factor is needed (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point
The results from an OECD TG 429 LLNA assay are available resulting in an EC3 of e.g. 20.71 and a NOEC of e.g. 25%. This NOEC is used as a starting point for the DNEL derivation. Using the 25 μL application of 25% test substance on the mouse ear surface of 1 cm2 and taking into account the density of Trimofix O (980 mg/mL), the dose level was calculated as 0.25 (%)* 980 (density) * 0.025 (ml) * 1000 (conversion from mg to μg) / 1 = 6125 μg/cm2. However, the reliable NOEC found in a well conducted HRIPT study was lower (5399 μg/cm2, see AF for intraspecies differences) and therefore chosen as the basis for the DNEL. (ECHA’s guidance, R.8 p126, November, 2012)
Because there is no choice to select μg/m2 we have selected μg/m3. (Unit should be μg/m2). - AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 1
- Justification:
- Repeated exposure is taken into account in the exposure assessment by using events/day.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor for allometric scaling is not needed since local effects are independent of the basal metabolic rate, allometric scaling should not be applied (allometric scaling factor of 1) ECHA, 2012, Chapter R8.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- The assessment factor for remaining uncertainties can be 1. For vehicle effects: an assessment factor of 1 is applied as the matrices of the products compiled from the substance are not intended to enhance penetration. For type of skin (skin thickness and skin integrity) it can be seen that the human skin (exposed hands) to be similarly or less sensitive compared to the skin of the mouse ear. The LLNA is selected as a model because the mouse ear is considered very thin with high blood flow and as such reflect a similar thickness and integrity compared to human skin in general.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 2
- Justification:
- A HRIPT test in healthy volunteers is available with a 10% test solution, which presents a NOEC of 5399 μg/cm2 (0.2 ml = 200000 μg (the applied dose * 0.10) / 3.63 cm2 * 0.98 (correction for density), that is lower than the NOEC found in the LLNA (6125 μg/cm2). By using the lower NOEC from the HRIPT study as the basis for the DNEL, combined with the existing intraspecies variation in the human population tested, the possible influence of intraspecies variation is partially accounted for. An assessment factor of 2 is needed because the HRIPT study that is performed in healthy volunteers does not take into account the more susceptible individuals within the general population.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable because the information fulfils the REACH requirements: an LLNA study according to OECD guideline was used.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- No remaining uncertainties were identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 1.2 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 1 200
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 150 mg/kg bw/day
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- No additional assessment factor for dose response is needed because the dosing was well spaced in the study and a NOAEL in the OECD TG 422 study was derived (ECHA’s guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- Since the dose descriptor is derived from a OECD TG 422 study, an additional assessment factor of 6 to take account of extrapolation of sub-acute data to chronic exposure (ECHA 2012, Chapter R8, p 29).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- For allometric scaling a factor of 4 is applicable to convert rat to human data, as determined by ECHA (Table R.8-3, 2012).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- This factor has been derived by ECETOC (TR 110, 2010) based on scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, which represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species but includes intraspecies differences.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An assessment factor of 1 is applicable because the information fulfils the REACH requirements: an OECD TG 422 (2017 under GLP) is available (ECHA’s Guidance, R.8.4.3.1, November, 2012).
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- No remaining uncertainties were identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Additional information - General Population
In deriving the DNELs for hazard identification for inhalation and the dermal route of exposure mostly ECHA’s guidance is used, which is generally conservative by using default values in absence of data outside the requirements of REACH regulation Annex VII to Annex XI. In addition, the used assessment factors used have been adequately documented. For inter and intraspecies assessment factors have been used which were concluded to be scientifically sound by ECETOC (TR 110, 2010) and which are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature. Therefore, the DNELs for all human health endpoints relevant for the general population are considered sufficiently conservative to be used in risk characterisation.
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.