Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Workers - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
2.4 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
irritation (respiratory tract)
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
other: TLV-TWA recommended by AGGIH
Overall assessment factor (AF):
10
Dose descriptor:
LOAEC
DNEL value:
24 mg/m³
AF for dose response relationship:
3
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in extrapolation of the LOAEC to the NAEC. It is suggested to use an assessment factor between 3 (as minimum/majority of cases) and 10 (as maximum/exceptional cases). Taking into account the dose spacing in the experiment (5-fold), as well as the (tendency to a) concentration dependent increase in incidence and severity of the lesion from mid to high concentration in both sexes, it is suggested to use an assessment factor of 3.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a sub-chronic toxicity study is available, default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure. However, as the DNEL is derived based on on local effects exposure duration is not expected to influence the effect. An assessment factor of 1 is therefore considered to be sufficient.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, an assessment factor for allometric scaling is not needed because the effects are not dependent on metabolic rate or systemic absorption (i.e. it concerns a local effect).
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, an assessment factor for allometric scaling is not needed because the effects are not dependent on metabolic rate or systemic absorption (i.e. it concerns a local effect)
AF for intraspecies differences:
3
Justification:
In accordance with ECETOC Derivation of Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk Assessment – Technical Report No. 86 and ECETOC Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL – Technical Report No. 110, a default assessment factor for the general population is based on the distributions of human data for various toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic parameters. The upper extreme of the variability in these data was estimated by calculating the 95th percentile of the distribution, which is considered sufficiently conservative to account for intraspecies variability in the general population (the data analysed included both sexes, a variety of disease states and ages). This results in recommended default assessment factor of 5 for the general population. As the worker population is more homogeneous (i.e. younger, healthier, protected from exposures), a default assessment factor of 3 is recommended. This proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health refers to standard default procedures. Until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterization of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). When taking into account the standard information requirements and the completeness and consistency of the database the default assessment factor of 1, to be applied for good/standard quality of the database, is recommended.
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for remaining uncertainties should be used where necessary. As the approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative, no further assessment factors are required.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
hazard unknown but no further hazard information necessary as no exposure expected
DNEL related information

Workers - Hazard via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)

Workers - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)

Additional information - workers

General Population - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
1.2 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
irritation (respiratory tract)
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
20
Dose descriptor:
LOAEC
DNEL value:
24 mg/m³
AF for dose response relationship:
3
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, consideration should be given to the uncertainties in extrapolation of the LOAEC to the NAEC. It is suggested to use an assessment factor between 3 (as minimum/majority of cases) and 10 (as maximum/exceptional cases). Taking into account the dose spacing in the experiment (5-fold), as well as the (tendency to a) concentration dependent increase in incidence and severity of the lesion from mid to high concentration in both sexes, it is suggested to use an assessment factor of 3.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for differences in the experimental exposure duration and the duration of exposure for the worker and scenario under consideration needs to be considered taking into account that a) in general the experimental NOAEL will decrease with increasing exposure times and b) other and more serious adverse effects may appear with increasing exposure times. Consequently, to end up with the most conservative DNEL for repeated dose toxicity, chronic exposure is the ‘worst case’. So, as only a sub-chronic toxicity study is available, default assessment factor of 2 is to be applied, as a standard procedure. However, as the DNEL is derived based on on local effects exposure duration is not expected to influence the effect. An assessment factor of 1 is therefore considered to be sufficient.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, an assessment factor for allometric scaling is not needed because the effects are not dependent on metabolic rate or systemic absorption (i.e. it concerns a local effect).
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECETOC Derivation of Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk Assessment – Technical Report No. 86 and ECETOC Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL – Technical Report No. 110, potential differences in biological sensitivity between species are largely accounted for in the default assessment factor proposed for intraspecies variability.
AF for intraspecies differences:
6
Justification:
In accordance with ECETOC Derivation of Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk Assessment – Technical Report No. 86 and ECETOC Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL – Technical Report No. 110, a default assessment factor for the general population is based on the distributions of human data for various toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic parameters. The upper extreme of the variability in these data was estimated by calculating the 95th percentile of the distribution, which is considered sufficiently conservative to account for intraspecies variability in the general population (the data analysed included both sexes, a variety of disease states and ages). This results in recommended default assessment factor of 6 for the general population. This proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health refers to standard default procedures. Until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterization of dose [concentration]-response for human health, the evaluation of the total toxicological database should include an assessment whether the available information as a whole meets the tonnage driven data requirements necessary to fulfil the REACH requirements, or whether there are data gaps (completeness of the database). Furthermore, the hazard data should be assessed for the reliability and consistency across different studies and endpoints and taking into account the quality of the testing method, size and power of the study design, biological plausibility, dose-response relationships and statistical association (adequacy of the database). When taking into account the standard information requirements and the completeness and consistency of the database the default assessment factor of 1, to be applied for good/standard quality of the database, is recommended.
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
In accordance with ECHA Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter 8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, a factor allowing for remaining uncertainties should be used where necessary. As the approach used for DNEL derivation is conservative, no further assessment factors are required
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
hazard unknown but no further hazard information necessary as no exposure expected
DNEL related information

General Population - Hazard via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information

Local effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
medium hazard (no threshold derived)

General Population - Hazard via oral route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

General Population - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified

Additional information - General Population