Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 230-391-5 | CAS number: 7085-85-0
- 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

Epidemiological data
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- epidemiological data
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- 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:
- 2 000
- Report date:
- 2000
Materials and methods
- Study type:
- cohort study (retrospective)
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The cohort follow-up began on January 1, 1981, and conntinued until the termination of employment or through the end of the study on December 31, 1998. the analysis employed a Cox proportional hazard model to compare the probability of developing an obstructive pulmonary pattern among the exposed and the unexposed, which used the date of a first abnormal PFT as the estimated time of onset for all "incident cases". The cohiert analysis included only persons who were employed after 1981 and thereby had been monitored since the very beginning of their employment.
- GLP compliance:
- no
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- ethyl cyanoacrylate
- IUPAC Name:
- ethyl cyanoacrylate
Constituent 1
Method
- Type of population:
- occupational
- Ethical approval:
- confirmed, but no further information available
- Details on study design:
- The cohort follow-up began on January 1, 1981, and conntinued until the termination of employment or through the end of the study on December 31, 1998. the analysis employed a Cox proportional hazard model to compare the probability of developing an obstructive pulmonary pattern among the exposed and the unexposed, which used the date of a first abnormal PFT as the estimated time of onset for all "incident cases". The cohiert analysis included only persons who were employed after 1981 and thereby had been monitored since the very beginning of their employment. The resluts of the cohort analysis were reported numerically as risk ratios (RR).
The case-control portion of the study involved 2 outcomes of interest:
1. "suspected" cases of pulmonary obstruction
2. upper airway symptoms (rhinitis/sinusitis) or conjunctivitis cases
The study was conducted at an adhesive production facility in Puerto rico. The study population included all men and women employed between 1981 and 1998. All of these persons underwent routine annual (production workers) or biennial (nonproduction workers) physical examinations that included pulmonary function tests (PFTs).
The following data were abstracted:
- Birth date, sex, race
- Dates of visits with the on-site occupational physican - including data on diagnoses and treatments from visits related to any respiratory illnesse s, allergies, or dermatologic conditions.
- Information from a self-administerd questionnaire regarding rashes, allergies, and smoking status. This instrument was first used by the facility i n 1989 as a preemplyment questionnaire, but it was also given to workers employed prior to this period during their closest medical exam.
- Information from each pulmonary function test, including date of PFT; smoking status; Age, weight, and height at the time of the PFT; and FVC (force d vital capacity, the volume of air that can be max. forcefully exhaled), FVC % predicted, FEV1 (forced expiratory volume 1, the volume of air that is fo rcefully exhaled in 1 s), FEV1 % predicted, % FEV1, % FEV1 predicted, FEF25-75% (forced expiratory flow, the average forced expiratory flow during th e mid (25-75%) portion of the FVC), FEF25-75% predicted, PEF (peak expiratory flow rate, the peak flow rate during expiration), and PEF % predicted.
All study participants were initially classified as either "ever exposed" or "unexposed". The "ever exposed" category included all workers who ever emplyed as monomer manufactures, mixers, bottlers/packagers, or waste handlers.
Results and discussion
- Results:
- The cohort analysis showed that the risk of developing pulmonary obstruction was not higher among workers exposed to cyanoacrylates than among workers who were unexposed. Unfortunately, the small sample size of the cohort study did not allow further stratification of the exposure categories. In contrast, the case-control analysis had a larger sample size and therefore permitted further stratification of exposure. Regardless of the exposure assignment method, the results demonstrated no signs of an association between a person ever having pulmonary obstruction and his exposure to cyanoacrylates.
More details of the results see in the tables below.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Characteristics of he Total Cohort at the End of Follow-Up on December 31, 1998
|
n(%) |
Person-years (%) |
Outcome distribution |
|
|
Suspected casesa |
61 (13.6%) |
663.0 (15.7%) |
Incident casesb |
26 (6.1%) |
163.7 (3.9%) |
Noncases |
389 (86.4%) |
3548.6 (84.3%) |
Exposure distribution |
|
|
Unexposed |
215 (47.8%) |
1912.2 (45.4%) |
Ever exposedc |
235 (52.2%) |
2299.4 (54.6%) |
Peak |
|
|
High peak (max 1.5 ppm) |
44 (18.7%) |
706.4 (30.7%) |
Low peak (max 0.11 ppm) |
191 (81.3%) |
1593.0 (69.3%) |
Cumulatived |
|
|
Low (≤ 17 ppm-d) |
79 (33.8%) |
378.6 (16.5%) |
Moderate (> 17, ≤ 67 ppm-d) |
76 (32.4%) |
510.5 (22.2%) |
High (> 67 ppm-d) |
79 (33.8%) |
1410.2 (61.3%) |
Gender distribution |
|
|
Male |
309 (68.7%) |
3381.7 (80.3%) |
Female |
141 (31.3%) |
829.9 (19.7%) |
Smoking status |
|
|
Current |
70 (15.6%) |
728.5 (17.3%) |
Never |
340 (75.6%) |
2955.1 (70.2%) |
Former |
40 (8.9%) |
528.0 (12.5%) |
aDefined as persons whose PFTs ever showed an obstructive pattern as reflected in an FEV1/FEV ratio <70%.
bDefined as person whose PFTs were normal initially, but then showed an obstructive pattern (FEV1/FEV ratio <70%).
cDefined as persons ever employed in monomer production, mixing, bottling and packaging, or waste handling.
dOne exposed cohort member was lacking a cumulative exposure score due to missing hire date.
Comparison of Exposed and Unexposed According to Outcome and demographic Characteristics
|
Exposed, n(%) |
Unexposed, n(%) |
Pulmonary obstruction |
|
|
Suspected casesa |
32 (13.6%) |
29 (13.5%) |
Incident casesb |
11 (4.6%) |
15 (7.0%) |
Noncases |
203 (86.3%) |
186 (86.5%) |
|
|
|
Rhinitis/conjunctivitis |
|
|
Casesc |
25 (10.6%) |
14 (6.5%) |
Noncases |
210 (89.4%) |
201 93.5%) |
|
|
|
Gender distribution |
|
|
Male |
170 (72.3%) |
139 (64.6%) |
Female |
65 (27.7%) |
76 (35.4%) |
|
|
|
Age distribution |
|
|
<35 |
50 (21.3%) |
58 (27.0%) |
35-50 |
114 (48.5%) |
91 (42.3%) |
>50 |
71 (30.2%) |
66 (30.7%) |
|
|
|
Smoking status |
|
|
Current |
41 (17.5%) |
29 (13.5%) |
Never |
173 (73.6%) |
167 (77.7%) |
Former |
21 (8.9%) |
19 (8.8%) |
aDefined as persons whose PFTs ever showed an obstructive pattern as reflected in an FEV1/FEV ratio <70%.
bDefined as person whose PFTs were normal initially, but then showed an obstructive pattern (FEV1/FEV ratio <70%).
cDefined as persons whose routine medical evaluation records ever mentioned any of the following diagnosis: rhinitis, sinusitis, or conjunctivitis.
Cohort Proportional Hazard Modeling Result for Incident Cases
|
|
95 % Confidence interval |
|
Variables |
Risk Ratio |
Lower Limit |
Upper Limit |
Exposure to cyanoacrylates |
0.66 |
0.29 |
1.50 |
Male |
0.51 |
0.22 |
1.18 |
Former smoker |
2.05 |
0.59 |
7.13 |
Current smoker |
1.27 |
0.45 |
3.62 |
Age (continuous variable) |
0.91 |
0.85 |
0.96 |
Case-Control Analysis for “suspected” Pulmonary Obstruction Cases
|
|
|
Odds ratio |
|
|
Cases |
Noncases |
Crude (95% CI) |
Adjusteda(95% CI) |
Cyanoacrylate exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
29 |
186 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Ever exposed |
32 |
203 |
1.01 (0.59-1.74) |
0.99 (0.57-1.75) |
Peak exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
29 |
186 |
1.00 |
1.0 |
High peak (max 1.5 ppm) |
6 |
38 |
1.01 (0.39-2.61) |
0.53 (0.17-1.48) |
Low peak (max 0.11 ppm) |
26 |
165 |
1.01 (0.57-1.79) |
1.14 (0.62-2.08) |
Cumulative exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
29 |
187 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Low (≤ 17 ppm-d) |
8 |
71 |
0.73 (0.32-1.66) |
0.97 (0.39-2.22) |
Moderate (> 17, ≤ 67 ppm-d) |
10 |
66 |
0.98 (0.45-2.12) |
0.94 (0.40-2.05) |
High (> 67 ppm-d) |
14 |
65 |
1.39 (0.69-2.79) |
1.05 (0.47-2.27) |
aAdjusted for age, smoking, gender, and rhinitis/conjunctivitis
Case-Control Analysis of Persons with at least one reported episode of rhinitis/sinusitis or conjunctivitis
|
|
|
Odds ratio |
|
|
Cases |
Noncases |
Crude (95% CI) |
Adjusteda(95% CI) |
Cyanoacrylate exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
14 |
201 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Ever exposed |
25 |
210 |
1.71 (0.87-3.36) |
1.61 (0.82-3.29) |
Peak exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
14 |
201 |
1.00 |
1.0 |
High peak (max 1.5 ppm) |
7 |
37 |
2.72 (1.06-6.98) |
1.06 (0.32-3.19) |
Low peak (max 0.11 ppm) |
18 |
173 |
1.49 (0.72-3.08) |
1.85 (0.86-4.08) |
Cumulative exposure |
|
|
|
|
Never exposed |
14 |
202 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Low (≤ 17 ppm-d) |
5 |
74 |
0.98 (0.34-2.81) |
1.32 (0.40-3.74) |
Moderate (> 17, ≤ 67 ppm-d) |
8 |
68 |
1.70 (0.69-4.19) |
1.55 (0.58-3.90) |
High (> 67 ppm-d) |
12 |
67 |
2.58 (1.16-5.74) |
1.93 (0.74-4.98) |
aAdjusted for age, smoking, gender, and rhinitis/conjunctivitis
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- This study failed to detect any evidence that exposure to MCA or ECA may be associated with occupational asthma. these results allow the conclusion that workers routinely exposed to the peak concentrations of at least 1.5ppm/d, (with occasional higher concentrations during accidents or spills) and those exposed to a short-term average concentrations of about 0.5 ppm or less are not at increased risk of developing pulmonary obstrcution compared with those unexpossed to MCA or ECA.
- Executive summary:
- The association between pulmonary obstruction (e.g., asthma) and occupational exposure to methyl cyanoacrylate (MCA) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA) was examined in an occupational cohort of 450 persons at an adhesive production facility in Puerto Rico. Employee medical records containing information on physical examinations and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), as well as occupational histories, on each employee over a period of about 17 years and industrial hygiene measurements were evaluated. The cohort analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model. Workers exposed to ECA or MCA were compared to workers unexposed to these chemicals with respect to their risk of becoming an ''incident case. An ''incident case was defined as any per son whose PFTs were normal at the time of employment, but later demonstrated an obstructive pattern, which was defined as a decline in the ratio of forced expiratory volume exhaled in 1 s to forced vital capacity (FEV /FVC) below 70%. A separate casecontrol analysis was also conducted that compared ''suspected cases, defined as all those whose PFTs ever demonstrated an obstructive pattern (e.g., asthma), to persons whose PFTs remained within normal limits throughout their employment with respect to their past peak and cumulative exposures to cyanoacrylates. All of these analyses showed no evidence that exposure to average short-term concentrations of ECA or MCA of less than 0.5 ppm and occasional daily peak exposures of at least 1.5 ppm (usually 10 min or less), with occasional higher concentrations during spills, were associated with an increased risk of pulmonary obstruction. However, the study suggested that persons occupationally exposed to cyanoacrylates were more likely to have some reversible eye or upper airway irritation than persons who were unexposed.
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.
