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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 701-229-5 | CAS number: -
- 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://chesar.echa.europa.eu/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/print_ecotoxicological-information.png)
Ecotoxicological Summary
Administrative data
Hazard for aquatic organisms
Freshwater
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC aqua (freshwater)
- PNEC value:
- 0.19 µg/L
- Assessment factor:
- 2
- Extrapolation method:
- sensitivity distribution
Marine water
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC aqua (marine water)
- PNEC value:
- 1.14 µg/L
- Assessment factor:
- 2
- Extrapolation method:
- sensitivity distribution
STP
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC STP
- PNEC value:
- 20 µg/L
- Assessment factor:
- 10
- Extrapolation method:
- assessment factor
Sediment (freshwater)
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC sediment (freshwater)
- PNEC value:
- 1.8 mg/kg sediment dw
- Assessment factor:
- 1
- Extrapolation method:
- equilibrium partitioning method
Sediment (marine water)
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC sediment (marine water)
- PNEC value:
- 0.64 mg/kg sediment dw
- Assessment factor:
- 1
- Extrapolation method:
- equilibrium partitioning method
Hazard for air
Air
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Hazard for terrestrial organisms
Soil
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC soil
- PNEC value:
- 0.9 mg/kg soil dw
- Extrapolation method:
- sensitivity distribution
Hazard for predators
Secondary poisoning
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- PNEC oral
- PNEC value:
- 0.16 mg/kg food
- Assessment factor:
- 10
Additional information
A basic assumption made in this hazard assessment and throughout the CSRs on cadmium and cadmium compounds, (in accordance to the same assumption made in the EU RA process), is that the causative factor for ecotoxicity of these substances is the Cd++ion. As a consequence, for the setting of PNEC's for these substances, the generic PNEC as derived for the Cd++ ion is used, and is always referring to the Cd ion concentration.
However, Cd-substances can differ significantly in their solubility, i.e. their capacity to release cadmium ions into (environmental) solution. That effect is checked eventually in the transformation/dissolution tests and may result in different environmental hazard and, consequently, different classification for aquatic effect.
The detailed deriviation of the PNEC's for the Cd-ion for the several environmental compartments can be found back in CSR for e.g. Cd metal (November 2010). Hereunder, a brief summary of the derivation of the different PNEC values is given:
In the EU RA, it was concluded that the conditions for using a statistical extrapolation method to derive the PNEC for Cd in freshwater were met. Accordingly, this approach is also used for the present analysis. All chronic data mentioned in table below are used in a species sensitivity distribution (SSD), and the PNEC is derived based on the HC5 concentration.
The HC5 calculated out of this SSD is 0.38 µg Cd/l. according to the EU risk assessment, an AF of 2 was used. This leads to a PNEC of 0.19 µg Cd/L.
organism |
medium | H |
endpoint | NOEC (µg/L) |
reference | |
Salmo gairdneri |
aerated well water; T 10; O27.5; pH 8-8.6 |
375-390 |
mortality |
12 |
Lowe-Jinde and Niimi, 1984 |
|
Salmo gairdneri no geometric mean calculation: different test medium |
synthetic water (ISO 1977); T 25; pH 8.3 |
100 |
median survival time |
4
(no geomean) |
Dave et al., 1981 |
|
Oncorhynchus kisutch |
sand filtered Lake Superior Water; continuous flow; DO 10.3; Al 41; Ac 3; pH 7.6 |
45 |
biomass |
1.3 |
Eaton et al., 1978 |
|
Salvelinus fontinalis |
sand filtered Lake Superior Water; continuous flow; DO 10.3; Al 41; Ac 3; pH 7.6 |
45 |
biomass |
1.1
|
Eaton et al., 1978 |
|
Salvelinus fontinalisgeometric mean calculation: same test medium, same endpoint (biomass) |
sterilised Lake Superior water; pH 7-8; Al 38-46; Ac 1-10; DO 4-12; T 9-15 |
42-47 |
total weight of young /female of the 2nd generation |
0.9 geomean =1.0 |
Benoit et al, 1976 |
|
Salvelinus fontinalis |
reconstituted soft water: T 14-; DO 9.3-11.4 mg/L; Cd(BG) <0.2 µg/L; pH 6.3-7.6; H 20 |
20 |
survival |
8 |
Jop et al., 1995 |
|
Salvelinus fontinalisgeometric mean calculation: similar test medium, same endpoint (survival) |
river water: T 14-; DO 8.7-12.2 mg/L; Cd(BG) <4 µg/L; pH 6.6-7.4; H 16-28 |
16-28 |
survival |
62 geomean =22 |
Jop et al., 1995 |
|
Salmo salar |
municipal water charcoal filtered and UV sterilised; BC 0.13 µg Cd/L; pH 6.5-7.3; T 5-10; DO 11.1-12.5; Al 14-17 |
19-28 |
total biomass |
0.47
|
Rombough and Garside, 1982 |
|
Catostomus commersoni Esox lucius Salvelinus namaycush Salmo trutta (late eyed eggs) |
sand filtered Lake Superior Water; continuous flow; DO 10.3; Al 41; Ac 3; pH 7.6 |
45 |
standing crop (biomass) biomass |
4.2 4.2 4.4 1.1 |
Eaton et al., 1978 |
|
Jordanella floridae |
untreatedwater; T 25; DO 8.3; Al 42; Ac 2.4; pH 7.1-7.8 |
44 |
reproduction |
4.1 |
Spehar, 1976 |
|
Brachydanio rerio |
synthetic water (changed ISO); T 24; DO >80%; pH 7.2 |
100 |
reproduction |
1 |
Bresch., 1982 |
|
Oryzias latipes no geometric mean calculation: different test medium |
tap water; continuous flow; T 20 |
200 100 |
mortality and abn. behaviour |
6 3
|
Canton and Slooff, 1982 |
|
Xenopus laevis |
tap water; continuous flow; T 20 |
170 |
inhibition of larvae development |
9 |
Canton and Slooff, 1982 |
|
Pimephaless promelasgeometric mean calculation: same test medium, same endpoint (reproduction) |
pond water diluted with carbon filtered demineralised tap water; DO 6.5-6.6; pH 7.6-7.7; Al 145-161; Ac 8-12; T 16-27 |
201-204 |
reproduction (pond fish) reproduction (laboratory fry) |
13
14geomean =13.5 |
Pickering and Gast, 1972 |
|
Daphnia magna
|
50 µm filtered and sterilisedwater; pH 8.1; T 20; H 224 |
224 |
intrinsic rate of natural increase |
3.2 |
Van Leeuwen et al., 1985 |
|
Daphnia magna no geometric mean calculation: different endpoints |
NPR synthetic water; pH 8.4; T 20 |
200 |
mortality |
1
|
Van Leeuwen et al., 1985 |
|
Daphnia magna different medium |
synthetic water; T 25; pH 8; DO 69% |
11 |
reproduction |
0.6
|
Kühn et al., 1989 |
|
Daphnia magna |
Synthetic water; Al 65; T 25 |
90 |
reproduction |
2 |
Winner, 1988 |
|
D. magna: geometric mean calculation: similar medium, same endpoint) |
well water: T 20±2°C; DO 4.9-7.9; Cd(BG) 0.08; pH 7.9 |
103 |
reproduction |
0.16geomean =0.6 |
Chapman et al., 1980 |
|
|
well water: T 20±2°C; DO 4.9-7.9; Cd(BG) 0.08; pH 8.2 |
209 |
reproduction |
0.21 |
Chapman et al., 1980t |
|
Daphnia magna
|
unchlorinated, carbon filtered well water, aerated to saturation; Al 230; pH 8; DO >5; T 23; Cd < 0.01 µg Cd/L |
240 |
reproductive impairment |
2.5 |
Elnabarawy et al., 1986 |
|
Daphnia magna no geometric mean calculation: different medium |
aerated well water; DO >70%; pH 8; T 22; Al 250 |
300 |
reproduction |
0.8 |
Knowles and McKee, 1987 |
|
Daphnia magna |
culture medium; pH8.4; T 20 |
150 |
biomass production/female |
2.5 |
Bodar et al., 1988a |
|
Daphnia magna no geometric mean calculation: different medium |
20 µm cloth filteredwater; pH 7.7; Al 42.3; DO 9; T 18 |
45.3 |
weight/animal
|
1 |
Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 |
|
Daphnia pulex
|
Whatman N° 1 filteredwater; pH 7.7; Al 42.4; Cd < 1µg L-1 |
65 |
longevity |
1 |
Bertram and Hart, 1979 |
|
Daphnia pulex |
unchlorinated, carbon filtered well water, aerated to saturation; Al 230; pH 8; DO >5; T 23; Cd < 0.01 µg Cd/L |
240 |
reproductive impairment |
7.5 |
Elnabarawy et al., 1986 |
|
Aplexa hypnorum: immature |
Lake Superiorwater; DO 7.5; T 24 |
|
growth |
4.41 |
Holcombe et al., 1984 |
|
Physa integra |
untreated Lake Superior water; pH 7.1-7.7; T 15; DO 10-11; Al 40-44; Ac 1.9-3 |
44-48 |
mortality |
8.3 |
Spehar et al., 1978 |
|
Daphnia galeata mendotae |
10 µm filtered Lake Michigan water; T 18.5 |
120 |
number of individuals |
2 |
Marshall, 1978 |
|
Ceriodaphnia reticulata |
unfiltered river water; static; Ac 2-4.2; Al 41-65; pH 7.2-7.8 |
55-79 |
reproduction |
3.4 |
Spehar and Carlson, 1984 |
|
Ceriodaphnia reticulata no geometric mean calculation: different medium |
unchlorinated, carbon filtered well water, aerated to saturation; Al 230; pH 8; DO >5; T 23; Cd < 0.01 µg/L |
240 |
reproductive impairment |
0.25 |
Elnabarawy et al., 1986 |
|
Ceriodaphnia dubia no geometric mean calculation: different medium, different endpoint |
Synthetic water; Al 65; T 25 |
90 |
mortality |
1.5 |
Winner, 1988 |
|
Ceriodaphnia dubia |
reconstituted soft water: T 14-; DO 9.3-11.4 mg/L; Cd(BG) <0.2 µg/L; pH 6.3-7.6; H 20 |
20 |
reproduction |
10 |
Jop et al., 1995 |
|
Ceriodaphnia dubiageometric mean calculation: similar medium, same endpoint (reproduction) |
river water: T 14-; DO 8.7-12.2 mg/L; Cd(BG) <4 µg/L; pH 6.6-7.4; H 16-28 |
16-28 |
reproduction |
11geomean =10.5 |
Jop et al., 1995 |
|
Hyalella azteca |
well water: T 23; pH 7.8 |
280 |
Survival |
0.51 |
Ingersoll and Kemble, 2000 |
|
Chironomus tentans |
well water: T 23; pH 7.8 |
280 |
weight |
5.8 |
Ingersoll and Kemble, 2000 |
|
Selenastrum capricornutum |
modified ISO 6341 medium; 0.2 µm filtered; T 20.3-25.6; pH 7.7-10.4 |
49 |
cell number |
2.4 |
LISEC, 1998a |
|
Coelastrum proboscideum |
AM; T 31; pH 5.3; |
32 |
biomass |
6.3 |
Müller and Payer 1979 |
|
Asterionella formosa |
AM; pH 8 |
121 |
growth rate |
0.85 |
Conway and Williams 1979 |
|
Chlamydomonas reinhardii |
AM; pH 6.7; T 20 |
42 |
steady state cell number |
7.5 |
Lawrence et al. 1989 |
|
Scenedesmus quadricauda |
AM; pH 7 |
|
biomass (OD) |
31 |
Bringmann and Kühn, 1980 |
|
Lemna paucicostata no geometric mean calculation: different medium |
AM; T 25 pH>6 pH 5.1 pH 5.1 |
120 120 700 |
number of fronds |
5 10 10 |
Nasu and Kugimoto, 1981 |
T = temperature (°C); H = hardness (as mg CaCO3/L); DO = dissolved oxygen (mg O2/L); Al = alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L); Ac = acidity (mg CaCO3/L); AM, artificial medium.
The marine cadmium database largely fulfils the species and taxonomic requirements for input chronic toxicity data as explained in the RIP R. 10 guidance (at least 10 species NOECs and 8 taxonomic groups). Indeed, 48 species mean NOECs based on 62 NOEC values, coming from 39 families and from 9 taxonomic groups covering three trophic levels were found to fulfil the relevancy and reliability requirements as explained by Klimisch et al. 1997. The marine Cd database includes 1 micro- and 1 macro-algae species, 4 annelid species, 11 crustacean species, 7 echinoderm species, 13 mollusc species, 3 nematod species, 2 cnidarian species, 1 ascidian species and 6 fish species.
Following endpoints were selected for the use in SSD for the derivation of marine PNEC for Cd.
Cadmium aquatic marine database (chronic toxicity data) |
|||||
Taxonomic group |
Species name |
Family |
Geomean NOECaddvalue (µg Cddiss/L) |
Reliability |
|
Micro-Algae (1) |
- Chaetoceros compressum |
Chaetocerotacae |
18.3 |
2 |
|
Macro-Algae (1) |
- Ulva pertusa |
Ulvaceae |
63 |
2 |
|
Annelids (4) |
Capitella capitata Ctenodrilus serratus Neanthes arenaceadontata Ophryotrocha diadema |
Capitellidae Ctenodrilidae Nereididae Dorvilleidae |
126.5 320.9 126.5 100 |
2 2 2 2 |
|
Cnidarians (2) |
Eirene viridula Campanularia flexuosa |
Eirenidae Campanulariidae |
100 87.7 |
2 2 |
|
Crustaceans (11) |
Artemia franciscana Artemia parthenogenetica Artemia persimilis Artemia salina Balanus Amphitrite Elminius modestus Mysidopsis bahia Paragraspus quadridentatus Penaeus monodon Tigriopus brevicornis Moina monogolica |
Artemiidae Artemiidae Artemiidae Artemiidae Balanidae Archaeobalanidae Mysidae Grapsidae Penaeidae Harpacticidae Moiniidae |
39.3 106.1 99.5 56.7 5 316 2.2 105 33.3 36.7 1.8 |
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 |
|
Echinoderms (7) |
Arbacia lixula Asterias amurensis Echinometra mathaei Lytechinus pictus Paracentrotus lividus Sphaerechinus granularis Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis |
Arbaciidae Asteriidae Echinometridae Toxopneustidae Echinidae Toxopneustidae Strongylocentrotidae |
357 10000 10 4.2 35.5 623 12.5 |
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 |
|
Molluscs (13) |
Crassostrea cucullata Crassostrea gigas Crassostrea margaritacea Haliotis rubra Ilyanassa obsolete Isognomon californicum Meretrix lusoria Mya arenaria Mytilus edulis Mytilus galloprovincialis Perna viridis Ruditapes decussatus Tresus nuttalli |
Ostreidae Ostreidae Ostreidae Haliotidae Nassariidae Isognomonidae Veneridae Myidae Mytilidae Mytilidae Mytilidae Veneridae Mactridae |
7.1 13 12.6 520 112.4 0.3 33.3 50 480 119.8 345.8 265 42 |
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 and 1 2 and 1 2 2 |
|
Nematods (3) |
Monhystera disjuncta Monhysteramicrophthalma Pellioditis marina |
Monhysteridae Monhysteridae Rhabditidae |
3333 1000 25000 |
2 2 2 |
|
Ascidians (1) |
Ciona intestinalis |
Ascidiaceae |
430.5 |
1 and 2 |
|
Fish (6) |
Atherinops affinis Epinephelus coioides Lates calcarifer Menidia menidia Mugil cephalus Pseudopleuronectes americanus |
Atherinidae Serranidae Centropomidae Atherinidae Mugilidae Pleuronectidae |
10 33.3 794 259.8 20 283.7 |
1 2 2 2 2 2 |
|
TOTAL: 10 Tax. gps |
48 species |
39 families |
48 species mean NOECs |
|
The 5thpercentile value of the SSD (the HC5), set at 50% confidence value, using the lognormal distribution (ETX 2.0) function, results in a value of 2.28 µg Cd/L.This value is taken forward for the PNEC derivation. Using an AF of 2 leads to a PNEC of 1.14 µg Cd/L.
The assessment of the freshwaterPNECsediment for cadmium identified only two long-term ecotoxicity studies from the scientific literature. However, both the “Added” EqP (using partitioning coefficients and a robust aquatic toxicity database from the Cd RAR) and AF (using the lowest NOEC from a field colonization study) approaches produced consistent derivations for the freshwater benthic compartment. The resulting value is considered protective for EU freshwater ecosystems: freshwater PNECadd, sedimentof 1.80 mg/kg d. w. (equivalent to 0.40 mg/kg w. w.). It is emphasized that this is an added PNEC, i. e. natural background needs to be taken into account when characterising the risk from monitored data.
The assessment of the marine PNECsediment for cadmium identified only two long-term ecotoxicity studies from the scientific literature. However, an “Added” EqP (using partitioning coefficients and a robust aquatic toxicity database) approach provided a reliable derivation for the marine benthic compartment. The resulting value is considered protective for EU marine ecosystems: marine PNECsediment, addedof 0.64 mg/kg d. w. (equivalent to 0.14 mg/kg w. w.). It is emphasised that this is an added PNEC, i. e. natural Bg needs to be taken into account when characterising the risk from monitored data.
The PNEC soil is set based on the lowest observed HC5 derived by statistical extrapolation from the microflora data, i. e.2.3 µg Cd/kg d. w. In the Cd RA, an AF 1 or 2 was considered. The current analysis rather suggests using an AF 1 on the HC5 to derive the PNEC. It is noted that the PNECsoilbased on secondary poisoning is 0.9 µg Cd/g dwwhich is below the proposed value. The latter value is therefore proposed and used for PNECsoil in this assessment. This is in accordance with the approach followed in the Cd RA (ECB 2007).
The EU risk assessment discussed available data for Cd toxicity to micro-organisms.There were 2 high quality studies available, both performed according to OECD protocol (OECD 209) for testing effect on sludge respiration, showing similar NOEC values when Cd was expressed as the dissolved fraction. The LOEC values observed on the dissolved Cd fraction were high as compared to LOEC values for aquatic species. This suggested low sensitivity of bacteria to Cd was confirmed by results on bacterial cultures of Pseudomonas putida, Zoogloea ramigera and Escherichia coli, which also showed LOECs in the 1mg/l range (RA Cd/Cd0 table 3.2.32.) / The PNEC for STP was derived in the EU risk assessment by applying an assessment factor of 10 on the lowest observed NOEC (200 µg Cd/l) which yielded a PNECSTPof 20 µg Cd/l. The same PNEC is used for the present exercise.
The EU risk assessment on cadmium identified 4 good quality feeding studies on birds and 5 studies on mammals. According to the RA, the PNEC oral secondary poisoning is derived from the lowest NOEC on Mallard ducks (1.6 mg Cd/kg diet; White et al 1978).The PNEC oral can be calculated applying an assessment factor of 10 on this long-term feeding study,i. e. 0.16mg Cd/kg diet.
Conclusion on classification
CdSSe is specifically excempted from classification under DSD 67/548/EEC. The reason for this non-classification is the insolubility of the substance.
For CLP, data were generated to check this existing classification against the CLP rules. To this end, transformation/dissolution (T/D) tests were performed on the CdSSe, and reference was made towards newly generated T/D and ecotoxicity data obtained on another sparingly soluble Cd-compound, i.e. CdTe. By comparing T/D data between CdSSe and CdTe, and referring to aquatic effect levels observed for CdTe, the aquatic hazard of the CdSSe could be assessed as follows:
Acute aquatic classification
Standard ecotoxicity testing on CdTe revealed a lowest EC50 value of 1.14 mg CdTe/L observed for Daphnia magna (resulting in no acute classification of CdTe). T/D testing on CdTe demonstrated the sparingly soluble character of this substance (3.2% of Cd solubilised after 7days in pH 6 medium, which is maximising Cd-solubilisation in the relevant pH range 6 -8.5). The solubility of Cd from CdSSe was however even much lower than the solubility of Cd in CdTe: after 7 days only 0.026 % of the Cd was solubilised from CdSSe at pH 6. Considering a) the lowest EC50 value of CdTe of 1.14mg/l, and b) the >100x lower solubility of Cd in CdSSe, as compared to CdTe, it is concluded that also CdSSe is not classified for acute aquatic effect.
Chronic aquatic classification
Standard ecotoxicity testing on CdTe revealed a lowest NOEC value of 0.2 mg CdTe/L observed for Daphnia magna,resulting in classification as
"chronic 3" of CdTe - in this respect it is noted that Cadmium compounds are considered as being "equivalent to rapidly degradable" based on their rapid removal from the water column, see section 4.6.). T/D testing on CdTe demonstrated the sparingly soluble character of this substance (3.8% of Cd solubilised after 28 days in pH 6 medium, which is maximising Cd-solubilisation in the relevant pH range 6 -8.5). From T/D tests, it was shown that the solubility of Cd from CdSSe was however even much lower than the solubility of Cd in CdTe: after 28 days only 0.028 % of the Cd was solubilised from CdSSe at pH 6. Considering a) the lowest NOEC value of CdTe of 0.2mg/l, and b) the >100x lower solubility of Cd in CdSSe, as compared to CdTe, it is concluded that CdSSe is not classified for chronic aquatic effect.
This analysis confirms the non-classification of CdSSe for aquatic effects under DSD.
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)