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: 618-347-7 | CAS number: 9003-01-4
- 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

Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Genetic toxicity in vitro
Description of key information
Based on 4 different Ames tests on its analogue acrylic acid up to concentrations ranging between 1000 and 5000 µg/plate with or without exogenous metabolic activation, the registered substance is considered to be devoid of mutagenic potential in bacterial systems.
Acrylic acid did not induce gene mutations in CHO cells (HGPRT locus) in one study but was positive in four distinct mouse lymphoma assays and in two in vitro chromosomal aberration tests. In the mouse lymphoma assays small colonies were induced preferentially, thus the mutagenic potential of acrylic acid seems to be limited to clastogenicity.
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
- Read-across hypothesis: "Different compounds have the same type of effect(s)"
2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
- Target chemical: 2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer (purity ≥ 99.0%) = UVCB substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol) and 2-carboxyethyl acrylate oligomers (average Mw = 208.8 g/mol)
- Source chemical: Acrylic acid = monoconstituent substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol)
3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
- Common structure: the constituents of the target and source chemicals share identical functional groups (i.e. one terminal carboxylic acid group and one terminal vinyl group) and only differ in the presence/absence of one or several -CH2-CH2-COO- pattern(s) in their structural backbones. This pattern being introduced as a result of (poly)addition reactions, it is only present in the polymerized units of acrylic acid (average number of -CH2-CH2-COO- patterns per vinyl group: < 3) and is absent from the monomer units.
- Common physico-chemical/fate properties: the target and source chemicals are both hydrophylic substances (log Pow < 1) with a high solubility in water and a low volatility (VP < 5 hPa). Both substances have a low potential for bioaccumulation in living organisms (log Pow < 4) and a low potential for persistence in environmental compartments (rapidly degradable).
- Common mode of action: the toxic effects of the target and source chemicals are expected to result from their acidic character (carboxylic acid group) and from the reactivity of their double bond (vinyl group). As the polyaddition reactions lead only to an increase in the chain length/molecular weight without an increase in the number of reactive functional groups, the low molecular-weight polymerized units of acrylic acid (from the test item) are not expected to exert higher toxicity than the monomer units. As a result, the target chemical, although only partially composed of acrylic acid monomers, is considered at the very worst to be as toxic as the source substance.
Further information (including data matrix) is available in the attached read-across justification document. - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- other: S. Typhimurium TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 100
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Remarks:
- Up to concentrations ranging between 1000 and 5000 µg/plate
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Conclusions:
- Based on 4 different Ames test in compliance with the standards in force at the time, the acrylic acid analogue did not show evidence of mutagenic activity up to concentrations ranging between 1000 and 5000 µg/plate with or without exogenous metabolic activation. Therefore the registered substance is considered to be devoid of mutagenic potential in bacterial systems.
- Endpoint:
- in vitro cytogenicity / chromosome aberration study in mammalian cells
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
- Read-across hypothesis: "Different compounds have the same type of effect(s)"
2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
- Target chemical: 2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer (purity ≥ 99.0%) = UVCB substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol) and 2-carboxyethyl acrylate oligomers (average Mw = 208.8 g/mol)
- Source chemical: Acrylic acid = monoconstituent substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol)
3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
- Common structure: the constituents of the target and source chemicals share identical functional groups (i.e. one terminal carboxylic acid group and one terminal vinyl group) and only differ in the presence/absence of one or several -CH2-CH2-COO- pattern(s) in their structural backbones. This pattern being introduced as a result of (poly)addition reactions, it is only present in the polymerized units of acrylic acid (average number of -CH2-CH2-COO- patterns per vinyl group: < 3) and is absent from the monomer units.
- Common physico-chemical/fate properties: the target and source chemicals are both hydrophylic substances (log Pow < 1) with a high solubility in water and a low volatility (VP < 5 hPa). Both substances have a low potential for bioaccumulation in living organisms (log Pow < 4) and a low potential for persistence in environmental compartments (rapidly degradable).
- Common mode of action: the toxic effects of the target and source chemicals are expected to result from their acidic character (carboxylic acid group) and from the reactivity of their double bond (vinyl group). As the polyaddition reactions lead only to an increase in the chain length/molecular weight without an increase in the number of reactive functional groups, the low molecular-weight polymerized units of acrylic acid (from the test item) are not expected to exert higher toxicity than the monomer units. As a result, the target chemical, although only partially composed of acrylic acid monomers, is considered at the very worst to be as toxic as the source substance.
Further information (including data matrix) is available in the attached read-across justification document. - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Species / strain:
- Chinese hamster Ovary (CHO)
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- positive
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Species / strain:
- mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells
- Metabolic activation:
- without
- Genotoxicity:
- positive
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Conclusions:
- The analogue of the registered substance, acrylic acid, induced chromosomal aberrations in CHO cells or mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells in vitro.
- Endpoint:
- in vitro gene mutation study in mammalian cells
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
- Read-across hypothesis: "Different compounds have the same type of effect(s)"
2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
- Target chemical: 2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer (purity ≥ 99.0%) = UVCB substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol) and 2-carboxyethyl acrylate oligomers (average Mw = 208.8 g/mol)
- Source chemical: Acrylic acid = monoconstituent substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol)
3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
- Common structure: the constituents of the target and source chemicals share identical functional groups (i.e. one terminal carboxylic acid group and one terminal vinyl group) and only differ in the presence/absence of one or several -CH2-CH2-COO- pattern(s) in their structural backbones. This pattern being introduced as a result of (poly)addition reactions, it is only present in the polymerized units of acrylic acid (average number of -CH2-CH2-COO- patterns per vinyl group: < 3) and is absent from the monomer units.
- Common physico-chemical/fate properties: the target and source chemicals are both hydrophylic substances (log Pow < 1) with a high solubility in water and a low volatility (VP < 5 hPa). Both substances have a low potential for bioaccumulation in living organisms (log Pow < 4) and a low potential for persistence in environmental compartments (rapidly degradable).
- Common mode of action: the toxic effects of the target and source chemicals are expected to result from their acidic character (carboxylic acid group) and from the reactivity of their double bond (vinyl group). As the polyaddition reactions lead only to an increase in the chain length/molecular weight without an increase in the number of reactive functional groups, the low molecular-weight polymerized units of acrylic acid (from the test item) are not expected to exert higher toxicity than the monomer units. As a result, the target chemical, although only partially composed of acrylic acid monomers, is considered at the very worst to be as toxic as the source substance.
Further information (including data matrix) is available in the attached read-across justification document. - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Species / strain:
- Chinese hamster Ovary (CHO)
- Remarks:
- HGPRT locus
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Species / strain:
- mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- positive
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Conclusions:
- The analogue of the registered substance, acrylic acid, did not induce gene mutations in CHO cells (HGPRT locus) in one study but was positive in four distinct mouse lymphoma assays. In the mouse lymphoma assays small colonies were induced preferentially, thus the mutagenic potential of acrylic acid seems to be limited to clastogenicity.
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (positive)
Genetic toxicity in vivo
Description of key information
In vivo, the analogue acrylic acid did not induce mutagenic effects in either rat bone marrow cells or mouse germ cells after oral administration.
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- genetic toxicity in vivo, other
- Remarks:
- Chromosomal aberrations in rats and germ cell mutations in mice
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
- Read-across hypothesis: "Different compounds have the same type of effect(s)"
2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
- Target chemical: 2-Propenoic acid, homopolymer (purity ≥ 99.0%) = UVCB substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol) and 2-carboxyethyl acrylate oligomers (average Mw = 208.8 g/mol)
- Source chemical: Acrylic acid = monoconstituent substance composed of acrylic acid monomers (Mw = 72 g/mol)
3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
- Common structure: the constituents of the target and source chemicals share identical functional groups (i.e. one terminal carboxylic acid group and one terminal vinyl group) and only differ in the presence/absence of one or several -CH2-CH2-COO- pattern(s) in their structural backbones. This pattern being introduced as a result of (poly)addition reactions, it is only present in the polymerized units of acrylic acid (average number of -CH2-CH2-COO- patterns per vinyl group: < 3) and is absent from the monomer units.
- Common physico-chemical/fate properties: the target and source chemicals are both hydrophylic substances (log Pow < 1) with a high solubility in water and a low volatility (VP < 5 hPa). Both substances have a low potential for bioaccumulation in living organisms (log Pow < 4) and a low potential for persistence in environmental compartments (rapidly degradable).
- Common mode of action: the toxic effects of the target and source chemicals are expected to result from their acidic character (carboxylic acid group) and from the reactivity of their double bond (vinyl group). As the polyaddition reactions lead only to an increase in the chain length/molecular weight without an increase in the number of reactive functional groups, the low molecular-weight polymerized units of acrylic acid (from the test item) are not expected to exert higher toxicity than the monomer units. As a result, the target chemical, although only partially composed of acrylic acid monomers, is considered at the very worst to be as toxic as the source substance.
Further information (including data matrix) is available in the attached read-across justification document. - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Key result
- Sex:
- male/female
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Toxicity:
- no effects
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Conclusions:
- In vivo, the analogue acrylic acid did not induce mutagenic effects in either rat bone marrow cells or mouse germ cells after oral administration. Based on the in vivo results on acrylic acid and the fact that the registered substance has a higher molecular weight (average 208.8 vs. 72 g/mol) and is therefore likely less bioavailable to enter cells and directly interact with genetic material, the registered substance is not considered to be genotoxic and classified accordingly.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (negative)
Mode of Action Analysis / Human Relevance Framework
The exact mode of action of the clastogenic effects observed with acrylic acid and their relevance to humans remain unclear.
Additional information
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the in vivo results on acrylic acid and the fact that the registered substance has a higher molecular weight (average 208.8 vs. 72 g/mol) and is therefore likely less bioavailable to enter cells and directly interact with genetic material, the registered substance is not considered to be genotoxic and classified accordingly.
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.
