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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Link to relevant study record(s)

Description of key information

The substance is acutely toxic to aquatic algae.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

EC50 for freshwater algae:
7.9 mg/L
EC10 or NOEC for freshwater algae:
4.1 mg/L

Additional information

In order to determine the effects of 4,4'-methylenebis(2-methylcyclohexanamine) (CAS 6864-37-5, DMDC) on aquatic algae, there are data from two studies available:

1.) In a non-GLP study according to OECD Guideline 201, conducted with Desmodesmus subspicatus (BASF AG, 1989), the 72-h ErC50 was determined to be >5.0 mg/L (nominal; analytically not verified; 72-h ErC10 = 1.25 mg/L).

2.) In an additional GLP-study (NITE Japan, 2002), performed according to OECD 201 (Alga, Growth Inhibition Test) with Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, the test concentrations were analytically verified. The results were recalculated with Toxrat v2.10 (BASF SE 2014); the measured geomean concentrations in the relevant concentration range were within ±20% of the nominal values. Therefore, the results are based on the measured geomean concentrations. As analytical monitoring was only performed for this study by NITE (2002), these values are selected as key data. The 72-h ErC50 was estimated to be 7.9 mg/L. The 72-h ErC10 was determined to be 4.1 mg/L and the 72-h NOEC was 0.13 mg/L. All validity criteria were fulfilled in this study.

According to the Guidance on information and safety assessment Chapter R.10: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for environment “an EC10 for a long-term test which is obtained using an appropriate statistical method (usually regression analysis) will be used preferentially. […] There has been a recommendation within OECD in 1996 to phase out the use of NOEC, in particular as it can correspond to large and potentially biologically important magnitudes of effect. The advantage of regression method for the estimation of ECx is that information from the whole concentration-effect relationship is taken into account and that confidence intervals can be calculated. These methods result in an ECx, where x is a low effect percentile (e.g. 5-20%). It makes results from different experiments more comparable than NOECS”.

Therefore, the ErC10 (4.1 mg/L; NITE, 2002) instead of the NOEC has been used for the assessment.