Salicylonitrile

Partition coefficient

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: see 'Remark'

Remarks:

Well documented study. Capacity factor extrapolated to that expected in pure water before application of linear regression analysis with known literature LogPow. Good accuracy is expected as correlation with literature values is restricted to similar substituted phenols.

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 117 (Partition Coefficient (n-octanol / water), HPLC Method)

Deviations:

yes

Remarks:

Capacity factor extrapolated to that expected in pure water before linear regression with known LogPow

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Survey of the lipophilic properties of a range of substituted phenols. The logarithm of the capacity factor (k=(t-t0)/t0, where t=retension time) for the substance was plotted against 6 different methanol/water mobile phases and extrapolated to 0% methanol using least squares regression. A further linear regression was used to relate measured logk0 to literature LogPoct values.

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

HPLC method

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Analytical method:

high-performance liquid chromatography

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.66

Temp.:

30 °C

pH:

< 7

Details on results:

Acidic conditions; pH added by registrant for TCC purposes. Logk0 = 1.10 (esd=0.02). Relation of Logk0 to LogPoct: Logk0=0.8478*logPoct-0.3112 (n=29, r=0.9794, s=0.1490, F=636)

Conclusions:

LogPow calculated from Logk0 and linear regression (equation 4) by registrant. A very good relation to LogPow is expected as the linear regression is based on group of similar phenolic substances.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: see 'Remark'

Remarks:

Well documented study. Retension value extrapolated to that expected in pure water before application of linear regression analysis with known literature LogPow. Good accuracy is expected as correlation with literature values is restricted to similar substituted phenols. Greater uncertainty in the result due to use of TLC; non-standard method.

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 117 (Partition Coefficient (n-octanol / water), HPLC Method)

Deviations:

yes

Remarks:

Use of HPTLC. Retension value extrapolated to that expected in pure water before linear regression with known LogPow

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Survey of the lipophilic properties of a range of substituted phenols. The Rm value (Rm=log(1/Rf-1), where Rf=ratio of substance and solvent-front distance travelled) for the substance was plotted against 6 different methanol/water mobile phases and extrapolated to 0% methanol using least squares regression. A further linear regression was used to relate measured Rm to literature LogPoct values.

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

other: high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC)

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Analytical method:

other: TLC

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.72

Temp.:

20 °C

pH:

< 7

Details on results:

Room temperature and acidic conditions; temperature and pH assumed by registrant for TCC purposes. Rm = 1.65 (esd=0.13). Relation of Rm to LogPoct: Rm=1.0988*logPoct-0.2426 (n=28, r=0.9634, s=0.2500, F=336)

Conclusions:

LogPow calculated from Rm and linear regression (equation 3) by registrant. A very good relation to LogPow is expected as the linear regression is based on group of similar phenolic substances.

Reference 3

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

secondary literature

Qualifier:

no guideline followed

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The method followed was that of: Currie, D.J., Lough, C.E., Silver, R.F., and Holmes, H.L., Can. J. Chem., 1966, 44(9), 1035-1043

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

shake-flask method to: flask method

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Analytical method:

photometric method

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.61

Temp.:

25 °C

pH:

ca. 7

Details on results:

No buffers used; pH not reported; pH assumed by registrant.

Conclusions:

Information on original data assembled from two published secondary sources.

Reference 4

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Details on experimental procedure provided. Partition-coefficient not explicitly reported in publication, only parameters from which it can be further calculated.

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 107 (Partition Coefficient (n-octanol / water), Shake Flask Method)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

A database of parameters was developed for the prediction of various physicochemical properties. Where data from the literature was missing, it was determined experimentally. Partition-coefficient measurements were carried out in a manner similar to the guideline method.

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

shake-flask method to: flask method

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Analytical method:

photometric method

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.59

Temp.:

20 °C

pH:

ca. 7

Details on results:

Determined at room temperature and a pH where <1% ionised. Approximate temperature and pH assumed by registrant for TCC purposes; values not reported in original paper. Partition coefficient not reported in original paper; derived from extracted pi parameters, as reported by Sangster et al.

Conclusions:

Approximate temperature and pH assumed by registrant for TCC purposes; values not reported in original paper. Original paper only reports pi values from which the measured partition coefficient can be re-derived. This value then depends on the chosen value for unsubstituted phenol.

Reference 5

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

documentation insufficient for assessment

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

reference to same study

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 117 (Partition Coefficient (n-octanol / water), HPLC Method)

Deviations:

not specified

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Primary aim of the study was to investigate the correlation between capacity factors and biodegradation.

GLP compliance:

no

Type of method:

HPLC method

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Analytical method:

high-performance liquid chromatography

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.83

Temp.:

40 °C

pH:

2.3

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

1.4

Temp.:

40 °C

pH:

7.2

Details on results:

Reported capacity factor logk0 (pH 2.3) = 1.11; logk (pH 7.2) = 0.83

logk0 (pH 2.3) = 0.724(±0.042)*logP - 0.215(±0.082)

n=33, r=0.951, s=0.137, F=302

logk0 (pH 7.2) = 0.661(±0.107)*logP -0.098(±0.203)

n=36, r=0.717, s=0.452, F=38

Conclusions:

LogPow calculated from Logk0 and linear regression by the Registrant. A very good relation to LogPow is expected as the linear regression is based on group of similar phenolic substances.

Description of key information

logPow = 1.66, HPLC, 30°C, Butte 1981
logPow = 1.72, TLC, Butte 1982
logPow = 1.83, RP-HPLC, 40°C, Urushigawa 1984
logPow = 1.61, shaken flask, Holmes 1976
logPow = 1.59, shaken flask, Norrington 1975

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Log Kow (Log Pow):

1.66

at the temperature of:

30 °C

Additional information

All the available data is in agreement to within experimental error.

The original report by Holmes(1976) was not available, but details on the study were assembled from abstracts and various secondary sources. As such, the result cannot be considered reliable, although in very good agreement with the other experimental data. The value attributed to Norrington (1975) was not explicitely reported, but recalculated from the parameters derived from experimental data on the substance.

The data reported by Urushigawa (1984) appear to have been obtained by a method similar to the guideline. The full details of the study could not be extracted from the original report, but the study appears to be carefully conducted and the results in good agreement with other values.

The results from Butte (1981) are regarded as the most reliable, due to the full documentation being available. The HPLC derived results are preferred over the TLC method, because they are closer to the guideline, and the LogPow correlation results and the accuracy in the reported value, are slightly better. The former value is selected as the key parameter and carried forward for risk assessment, and classification and labelling.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006, Annex XI, 1.2, the available data for partition coefficient is considered to be adequate for the purposes of risk assessment, and classification and labelling, based on the weight-of-evidence.