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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 215-607-8 | CAS number: 1333-82-0
- 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
Direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other
- Type of information:
- other: Occupational exposure study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- FEB 1984 to MAY 1984
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- publication
- Title:
- Occupational dermatosis among chrome platers
- Author:
- Lee, H.S. and Goh, C.L.
- Year:
- 1 988
- Bibliographic source:
- Contact Dermatitis 1988:18: 89-93
Materials and methods
- Study type:
- other: Occupational exposure study
- Endpoint addressed:
- skin irritation / corrosion
- eye irritation
- respiratory irritation
- skin sensitisation
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Factories engaged in chrome plating for at least 5 8-h working days a week were included in the study.
Subjects: Chrome platers, who operate and maintain the chrome plating bath or tank; control subjects: workers not chrome plating in the same factories were similarly examined
Parameter: Their age, race, sex and duration of employment in chrome plating were noted. Muco-cutaneous symptoms (of the last year), examination of skin disease, patch test to potassium dichromate 0.5% when ulcers or dermatitis were noted. - GLP compliance:
- no
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Chromic acid
- EC Number:
- 231-801-5
- EC Name:
- Chromic acid
- Cas Number:
- 7738-94-5
- Molecular formula:
- CrH2O4
- IUPAC Name:
- dihydroxy(dioxo)chromium
Constituent 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- All practical chrome plating is done from a solution consisting mainly of hexavalent chromic acid plus small but critical quantities of sulphuric acid or a complex fluoride (catalyst). The chromic acid concentration in the plating bath is usually maintained between 250 g/L and 400 g/L The weight ratio of chromic acid to sulphuric acid is usually 100:1.
Method
- Type of population:
- occupational
- Subjects:
- - Number of subjects exposed: 37 male chrome platers and 37 male control subjects were interviewed and examined.
- Sex: Male
- Age: The mean age of the chrome platers was 31.3 (standard deviation [SD] +/- 8.6) years (range 17 to 53 years). 81% were between 20 and 40 years old. Controls were machted for sex, age and race. Age was matched to within 5 years of the exposed subjects. The mean age was 31.2 (SD +/- 8.4) (range 18 to 51 years).
- Race: 84% of the chrome platers (19 bright chrome platers, 12 hard chrome platers) were Chinese; 11% (4 hard chrome platers) Malays and 6% (2 hard chrome platers) were Indians.
- Demographic information:
- Known diseases:
- Other: The duration of employment as chrome platers was 8.1 (SD +/-7.9) years (range 3 weeks to 30 years). 44% of the hard chrome platers had been thus employed for > 10 years compared with only 21 % of the bright chrome platers - Ethical approval:
- not applicable
- Route of exposure:
- dermal
- inhalation
- Reason of exposure:
- unintentional, occupational
- Exposure assessment:
- not specified
- Details on exposure:
- Electrolysis produces bubbles of oxygen and hydrogen that generate chromic acid mist or spray by bursting violently at the surface of the liquid.
There are 2 types of chrome plating, depending on the purpose for which plating is required. A significant difference of exposure to airborne chromate in the 2 types of plating was demonstrated before. They recommended that a distinction should always be made between the 2 types of chrome plating in studies of chromate exposures among electroplaters:
Bright chrom plating: A thin coat of chromium (usually <0.75 µm) is electrodeposited onto a substrate (metal or plastic) to provide a durable, non-tarnishing surface for a decorative purpose (widespread use).
Hard chrome plating: The layer of chromium required is thicker. The purpose is to obtain a surface which is resistant to heat, wear, corrosion, and has a low coefficient of friction.
Exposure to airborne chromate is generally higher in hard chrome plating than in bright chrome plating.
The basic manufacturing process may be summarized as follows: raw material >>preplating >>plating >>postplating >>product.
The article to be plated (raw material) is usually a metal (iron or steel) or a plastic. It is pretreated (preplating) to clean the surface, so that good adhesion can be obtained between the article and the electro-deposit. It involves degreasing with solvent and cleansing with alkali and acid.
The article is then plated by introducing it into the plating solution (plating) and switching the current on. In bright chrome plating, nickel plating is done prior to chrome plating.
After plating (postplating), the article is taken out of the bath and rinsed with water and dried. It is then sent to another section for assembly or packaging. - Examinations:
- All workers who came under the definition as "chrome plater" were studied. Their age, race, sex and duration of employment in chrome plating were noted. Muco-cutaneous symptoms experienced over the last 1 year were recorded. They were then examined for skin disease. A patch test (carried out by the standard method) to potassium dichromate 0.5% pet was performed when ulcers or dermatitis were noted.
- Medical treatment:
- none
Results and discussion
- Clinical signs:
- The rate of mucosal symptoms was 57% (21/37). Symptoms were significantly more common in the exposed group as compared to controls (p< 0.001 for each of the symptoms). The prevalence of symptoms of throat irritation, nasal irritation, and rhinorrhoea was significantly higher in the hard chrome group than in the bright chrome group. 14 (38%) had skin lesions. 7 workers had skin ulcers, 6 had dermatitis and 1 had ulceration and dermatitis. Another 16 (43%) had scars of previous ulcers. The prevalence of ulcers and scars was higher in the exposed group than controls. The prevalence of dermatitis was not significantly different between the exposed and controls. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of skin ulcers and scars between the hard and bright chrome platers. 1 worker had a nasal septum perforation. He was asymptomatic.
63% of the lesions occurred on the hands, fingers and wrists. Ulcers were seen in 3 hard chrome platers, and 5 bright chrome platers.
Of 7 workers with ulcers, only 1 was allergic to chromate. Of the 6 workers with dermatitis, 2 were allergic to chromate. The worker with ulceration and dermatitis was not allergic to chromate.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Prevalence of mucosal symptoms among 37 chrome platers compared to controls
Symptoms | No. of workers exposed | Significance* hard vs. bright | Exposed total | Controls | Significance* exposed vs. control | |
hard | bright | |||||
throat irritation | 14 (77.7%) | 4 (21.1%) | p= 0.0009 | 18 (48.6%) | 2 (5.4%) | p =0.0001 |
nasal irritation | 12 (66.7%) | 3 (15.8%) | p =0.0020 | 15 (40.5%) | 2 (5.4%) | p =0.0006 |
rhinorrhoea | 9 (50%) | 3 (15.8%) | p= 0.0234 | 12 (32.4%) | 0 | p= 0.0004 |
nose bleed | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (5.2%) | p =0.7432 | 2 (5.4%) | 0 | p =0.2466 |
eye irritation | 3 (16.7%) | 2 (10.5%) | p= 0.8470 | 5 (13.5%) | 1 (2.7%) | p =0.0996 |
total | 18 (100%) | 19 (100%) | 37 (100%) | 37 (100%) |
* Test of significance by Fisher's exact test when the expected number per cell <5. Otherwise the X² test with Yate's correction was used.
Prevalence of cutaneous signs among 37 chrome platers compared to controls
Symptoms | No. of workers exposed | Significance* hard vs. bright | Exposed total | Controls | Significance* exposed vs. control | |
hard | bright | |||||
Skin ulcer | 3 (16.7%) | 5 (26.3%) | p= 0.3787 | 8 (21.6%) | 0 | |
Scar of ulcer | 6 (33.3%) | 10 (52.6%) | p= 0.2160 | 16 (43.2%) | 0 | |
Eczema | 3 (16.7%) | 4(21.1%) | p= 0.5928 | 7 (18.9%) | 3 (8.1%) | p= 0.1574 |
Nasal septum perforation | 0 | 1 (5.2%) | 1 (2.7%) | 0 | ||
total | 18 (100%) | 19 (100%) | 37 (100%) | 37 (100%) |
* Test of significance by Fisher's exact test when the expected number per cell <5. Otherwise the X² test with Yate's correction was used.
Distribution of cutaneous lesions by anatomical site among 37 chrome platers
Site | Frequency | ||
ulcer | eczema | total | |
hands, fingers, wrist | 8 | 4 | 12 (63.2%) |
forearms | 3 | 1 | 4 (21.1 %) |
legs | 0 | 2 | 2 (10.5 %) |
abdomen | 0 | 1 | 1 (5.3 %) |
total | 11 | 8 | 19 (100%) |
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- Overall, mucosal symptoms in chrome platers included throat and nasal irritation, rhinorrhoea, nose bleed and eye irritation; cutaneous signs consisted of skin ulcer, scar of ulcer, eczema and nasal septum perforation.
- Executive summary:
The study was conducted between February and May 1984. Only factories engaged in chrome plating for at least 5 8-h working days a week were included in the study. On the basis of frequency of exposure to chromium, 17 plants were selected for the study. 37 male chrome platers and 37 male control subjects were interviewed and examined. Muco-cutaneous symptoms experienced over the last 1 year were recorded. They were then examined for skin disease. A patch test (carried out by the standard method) to potassium dichromate 0.5% pet. was performed when ulcers or dermatitis were noted.
14 (38%) of 37 chrome platers in 17 chrome electroplating factories surveyed had occupational contact dermatitis, chrome ulcers, or both. 7 had chrome ulcers, 6 had contact dermatitis and 1 had both. Another 16 (43%) workers had scars suggestive of previous chrome ulcers. Mucosal irritation was present in 57% of the workers. The most common was throat irritation (49%) followed by nasal irritation (41%). Mucosal irritation was more common in hard chrome platers, while skin ulcers and dermatitis were more common in bright chrome platers. Nasal septum perforation was seen in 1 worker. Skin ulceration appeared to be a more specific sign for occupational dermatosis in chrome platers than dermatitis when the prevalence rates were compared to controls. Of the 7 workers with chrome ulcers, only 1 was allergic to chromate. Of the 6 workers with dermatitis, 2 were allergic to chromate. The worker with ulceration and dermatitis was negative to chromate and nickel. Irritant factors are therefore important in the aetiology of contact dermatitis in these chrome platers.
Overall, mucosal symptoms in chrome platers included throat and nasal irritation, rhinorrhoea, nose bleed and eye irritation; cutaneous signs consisted of skin ulcer, scar of ulcer, eczema and nasal septum perforation.
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.