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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Workers - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
29.4 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Route of original study:
Oral
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
18
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEC
Value:
529 mg/m³
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

Based on toxicokinetic assessment, default values of 100% are derived for both oral and respiratory absorption. A standard respiratory volume of 0.38 m3/kg/day in rat (considering 8 hours exposure) and a standard respiratory volume of 6.7 m3/person for a person at rest and 10 m3/person for a worker performing light activity (for 8 hours exposure) were considered.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
There is no evidence of a steep dose-relationship, and a reliable NOAEL can be derived based on the dose range tested.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
6
Justification:
The NOAEL was derived in a subacute exposure study; the extrapolation factor to the chronic exposure duration is 6.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
1
Justification:
No allometric scaling is required for the extrapolation from an oral animal study to human inhalation exposure.
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed, as has been concluded in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
AF for intraspecies differences:
3
Justification:
An assessment factor of 3 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences. This factor has been retrieved by ECETOC (TR110, 2010). The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species, and includes intraspecies differences.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
Data from a reliable guideline study
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is considered appropriate for the DNEL derivation.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

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

Workers - Hazard via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
8.3 mg/kg bw/day
Most sensitive endpoint:
developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Route of original study:
Oral
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
72
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
600 mg/kg bw/day
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

Based on toxicokinetic assessment, 100% and 50% values are considered for oral and dermal absorption, respectively.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
There is no indication of a steep dose-response, and a reliable NOAEL can be derived based on the dose range tested.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
6
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a subacute study; the extrapolation factor to the chronic exposure duration is 6.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
Default value for the extrapolation from an oral animal study to human dermal exposure
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed, as has been concluded in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
AF for intraspecies differences:
3
Justification:
An assessment factor of 3 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences. This factor has been retrieved by ECETOC (TR 110, 2010) based on scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, which represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species, and includes intraspecies differences.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in the GLP-compliant guideline study
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is considered appropriate for the DNEL derivation.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

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

Workers - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
hazard unknown but no further hazard information necessary as no exposure expected

Additional information - workers

General Population - Hazard via inhalation route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
8.7 mg/m³
Most sensitive endpoint:
developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Route of original study:
Oral
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
30
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEC
Value:
260 mg/m³
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

Based on toxicokinetic assessment, default values of 100% are derived for both oral and respiratory absorption.

A standard respiratory volume of 1.15 m3/kg bw for rats (considering 24 hours exposure) was used.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
There is no indication of a steep dose-response, and a reliable NOAEL can be derived from the dose range tested.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
6
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a subacute toxicity study; the assessment factor for the extrapolation to chronic exposure is 6.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
1
Justification:
No allometric scaling is required for the extrapolation from an oral animal study to the respiratory human exposure.
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed, as has been concluded in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
AF for intraspecies differences:
5
Justification:
An assessment factor of 5 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences, as has been concluded by ECETOC (TR110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species, but includes intraspecies differences.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a GLP-compliant guideline study.
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is considered appropriate for the DNEL derivation.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local 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 via dermal route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
5 mg/kg bw/day
Most sensitive endpoint:
developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Route of original study:
Oral
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
120
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
600 mg/kg bw/day
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

Based on the toxicokinetic assessment, values of 100% and 50% have been derived for oral and dermal absorption, respectively.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
There is no indication of a steep dose-response, and a reliable NOAEL can be derived from the dose range tested.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
6
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a subacute study; the extrapolation factor to chronic exposure is 6.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
Default value
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
AF for intraspecies differences:
5
Justification:
An assessment factor of 5 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences as has been derived by ECETOC (TR110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species, but includes intraspecies differences.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a GLP-compliant guideline study.
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is considered appropriate for the DNEL derivation.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

Local effects

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

General Population - Hazard via oral route

Systemic effects

Long term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
Value:
2.5 mg/kg bw/day
Most sensitive endpoint:
developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Route of original study:
Oral
DNEL related information
DNEL derivation method:
ECHA REACH Guidance
Overall assessment factor (AF):
120
Dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Modified dose descriptor starting point:
NOAEL
Value:
300 mg/kg bw/day
Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:

No modification of the starting point is necessary, as the NOAEL is derived in an oral toxicity study.

AF for dose response relationship:
1
Justification:
There is no evidence of a steep dose-response, and the adequate NOAEL can be derived from the dose range tested.
AF for differences in duration of exposure:
6
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a subacute study; the assessment factor for the extrapolation to chronic exposure is 6.
AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
4
Justification:
Default value
AF for other interspecies differences:
1
Justification:
Additional assessment factors for interspecies differences are not needed as has been derived in the ECETOC report (TR 110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The concept of adjusting animal dose by allometric scaling predicts reasonably well the appropriate dose in humans. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. This analysis is based on a comparison of animal to actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans (see below at intraspecies differences).
AF for intraspecies differences:
5
Justification:
An assessment factor of 5 has been used to account for the intraspecies differences as has been derived by ECETOC (TR110, 2010) based on a review of the scientific literature. The ECETOC analysis has been based on a comparison between animal and actual human data that per se includes intraspecies variability in humans. In addition, the human population under investigation comprised cancer patients, this represents a very sensitive subpopulation. A Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) of 2.5-2.6 suggests the likelihood of some variability or additional uncertainty around the predicted NOAEL in humans. Thus, this standard deviation represented by the GSD of 2.5-2.6 is probably due to potential differences in biological sensitivity between species, but includes intraspecies differences.
AF for the quality of the whole database:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is derived in a GLP-compliant guideline study
AF for remaining uncertainties:
1
Justification:
The NOAEL is considered appropriate for the DNEL derivation.
Acute/short term exposure
Hazard assessment conclusion:
no hazard identified
DNEL related information

General Population - Hazard for the eyes

Local effects

Hazard assessment conclusion:
hazard unknown but no further hazard information necessary as no exposure expected

Additional information - General Population