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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Ecotoxicological information

Short-term toxicity to fish

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

short-term toxicity to fish
Type of information:
read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Justification for type of information:
Substance considered to fall within the scope of the read-across 'Silver metal: Justification of a read-across approach for environmental information requirements' (document attached in IUCLID section 13).
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
96 h
Dose descriptor:
Effect conc.:
1.2 µg/L
Nominal / measured:
not specified
Conc. based on:
Basis for effect:
mortality (fish)
Remarks on result:
other: 95% CI 0.72 - 2.07 µg dissolved Ag/L. Fish aged 1-4 day at start of test.
Details on results:
Other LC50 values: 3.37 (7 d old), 5.9 (27 d old), 10.4 (41 d old) µg/L dissolved Ag.
Results with reference substance (positive control):
Not applicable
Reported statistics and error estimates:
Trimmed Spearman Karber analysis was used to estimate 48- and 96-h LC50s.
Validity criteria fulfilled:
not applicable
The 96 hour LC50 for fish aged 1-4 days was 1.2 µg dissolved Ag/L. Other LC50 values were: 3.37 (7 d old), 5.9 (27 d old), 10.4 (41 d old) µg dissolved Ag/L. Silver toxicity varied with age and size of P. promelas. As fish aged and mass increased, 96 hour LC50 values increased (organism sensitivity decreased).
Executive summary:

The toxicity of silver toP. promelaswas assessed in a flow through test. For fish aged 1 -4 days, the 96 hour LC50 is 1.5 µg/L dissolved Ag. Other LC50 values were: 3.37 (7 d old), 5.9 (27 d old), 10.4 (41 d old) µg dissolved Ag/L. Silver toxicity varied with age and size of fish. As fish aged and mass increased 96 h LC50 values increased (organism sensitivity decreased). The GLP status of this study is unknown and it is unclear which guideline was followed. However, there is sufficient information for an assessment to be made and the study is considered suitable for use for this endpoint.

Description of key information

Read across from ionic silver

Plus supporting published data from several studies included in the REACH dossier as Endpoint Study Records with various sizes of nanoparticles and coating types, showing that nanosilver is less toxic than ionic silver

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Fresh water fish

Fresh water fish
Dose descriptor:
Effect concentration:
1.2 µg/L

Marine water fish

Marine water fish
Dose descriptor:
Effect concentration:
331 µg/L

Additional information

Summary of available data for uncoated and coated nanosilver

Reliable and relevant data on the short-term toxicity of uncoated and coated nanosilver to fish are available from 10 studies (Griffitt et al. 2008, Kennedy et al. 2010, Bilberg et al. 2012, Farmen et al. 2012, Kashiwada et al. 2012, George et al. 2012, Cunningham et al. 2013, Hoheisel et al. 2012, Kim et al. 2013, Wang et al. 2012). These studies comprise effects assessment on four species (Danio rerio, Pimephales promelas, Salmo salar and Oryzias latipes) after exposure to various sizes of nanoparticles and coating types. Across these studies a total of 46 LC50 values are available, from exposures ranging from 48 hours to 7 days. Available studies are focussed on the effects of spherical nanoparticles, although the characterisation of several of the test materials used by Kennedy et al. (2010), Bilberg et al. (2012) and Cunningham et al. (2013) describe the presence of small rods or triangular particles. All studies were conducted in freshwater media.

The particle size of raw nanomaterials across the studies ranged from 3.6 to 225.3 nm. However, the majority of studies report effects associated with primary particle sizes between 20 and 149 nm (10th to 90th percentile, respectively). It is worth noting that some of these materials would not be considered as nanomaterials according to the EU definition as their median primary particle size was greater than 100 nm.

The extent of aggregation/agglomeration by primary particles in experimental media or stock solutions differed between studies but in almost all instances authors report that some degree of aggregation/agglomeration in test systems occurs, increasing the size of particles in environmental media. The characterisation results for nanosilver in test systems report particle sizes after aggregation/agglomeration of between 3.8 and 3,078 nm, with the majority of studies reporting particle sizes between 29.6 and 310 nm (10th to 90th percentile, respectively). Kennedy et al. (2010), report that PVP and citrate coated nanosilver particles appear to form smaller aggregates in test systems than uncoated or EDTA coated nanosilver materials.

LC50 values range from 9.0 µg/L for ~30 nm particles in P. promelas after 48 hours exposure (Kennedy et al. 2012) to 44,780 µg/L for similar size nanoparticles in Danio rerio after a 120 hour exposure (Kim et al. 2012). The 10th to 90th percentile range of LC50 values for all forms of nanosilver tested for acute fish toxicity is 38 to 42,490 µg/L. All of the results from nanosilver studies are at least an order of magnitude less sensitive than the 96 hour LC50 of 1.2 µg/L used as the key data for this endpoint, based on exposure of one day old Pimephales promelas to ionic silver in dechlorinated tap water (Bielmyer et al. 2007).

In addition, where studies undertook a comparative assessment of nanosilver and ionic silver within their own study designs (Griffitt et al. 2008, Kennedy et al. 2010, Bilberg et al. 2012, Farmen et al. 2012, Cunnigham et al. 2012, Hoheisel et al. 2013, Kim et al. 2013, Wang et al. 2012) nanosilver was less sensitive than ionic silver on six occasions and equally as sensitive, at least for a single type of nanosilver, on two occasions.

There is no statistically significant correlation between smaller particle size and increased toxicity (Kendall test, p>0.05) between either raw or media particle size and LC50. An additional analysis excluding LC50 values from studies with materials with primary particle size greater than 100 nm also resulted in no statistically significant correlation (Kendall test, p>0.05) between either raw or media particle size and LC50.

When the LC50 values from materials with different coatings were compared using a non-parametric ANOVA procedure (Kruskal-Wallis, p<0.05) a statistically significant difference between coating material and LC50 value was identified. PVP and citrate coated materials appear to have lower toxicity than other coating materials and uncoated materials. However, this cannot be confirmed using a statistical post-hoc test as the variance and normality of the different groups is homogenous.

This observation is supported by data from Kevin Kwok (pers comm) on the acute toxicity (96 hour LC50) of nanosilver particles of various sizes and coatings (gum arabic, PVP, citrate-tannic acid, citrate-glutathione and citrate) to Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). These data describe differential toxicity on the basis of coating material, but with limited influence of particle size. The relative toxicity of nanomaterials, from most to least toxic, was as follows: gum arabic < PVP < citrate-tannic acid < citrate-glutathione < citrate < PVP (nanoamor). The toxicity of PVP coated nanoparticles was variable, but appeared to be dependent on the manufacturer of the nanomaterial, possibly due to differences in the chain length of PVP polymer molecules used in the coating, although additional information would be required to confirm this.

Critically, irrespective of coating of particle size, all forms of nanosilver were significantly less toxic than ionic forms of silver. Of particular significance are the conclusions for Hoheisel et al. (2012) (all authors from the US-EPA) who state that, based on their findings, regulatory approaches based on the toxicity of ionic silver to aquatic life would not be under protective for environmental releases of nanosilver.

Exposure duration is considered as a critical factor in ecotoxicity tests with metals as sensitivity is known to be influenced by exposure duration (greater toxicity after longer exposure). Some of the available acute data for nanosilver reported here are from exposure durations of 48 hours, which is significantly shorter than the standard 96 hour exposure exposure duration for acute fish toxicity. However, these data have not been excluded from this analysis on the basis of exposure duration as they are otherwise “well documented and scientifically acceptable” (Klimisch et al. 1996). As the majority of data for nanosilver from this endpoint are from studies of at least 96 hours exposure, with many of longer duration, this is not considered to have adversely affected the integrity of the comparison between the relative sensitivity of ionic and nanosilver for this endpoint.