Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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.
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 230-949-8 | CAS number: 7381-01-3
Toxicological Summary
Administrative data
Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 62.5 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC and ECHA
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 6
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 374.9 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
ECHA guidance recommends that an assessment factor of 2 be applied when doing route to route extrapolation for oral to inhalation exposure, recognizing higher absorption via the lungs. The NOAEL from the oral study was therefore divided by two before the route to route extrapolation. Allometric scaling is applied by taking account for the different breathing rates between rats and humans, as described in ECHA technical guidance the oral NOAEL in the rat mg/kg/day *1/0.38 * 6.7/10 = mg/m3 inhalation NOAEC for workers.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- Effects show a clear dose response so factor of 1 used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- ECHA guidance document Chapter R8, in Appendix R.8-12, indicates that DNELS derived using a NOAEL from a 90 day study are derived using an assessment factor of 2 for extrapolation of the study duration to chronic exposure.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Allometric scaling is already included in the route to route extrapolation from the rat oral NOAEL to the equivalent human inhalation NOAEC.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review (see discussion) that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5 for this, therefore a factor of 1 has been applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that the appropriate fact for intraspecies differences for workers is 3 and not 5 as ECHA proposed. See discussion for detailed justification.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Due to the common metabolites identified in the Toxicokinetics section, it is considered that the read across is appropriate. ECHA has suggested an additional assessment factor where read across is used of at least 2, for the reason concerning common metabolites given we have used a factor of 1.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- All uncertainties are already included so a factor of 1 is applied.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 28.75 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Dermal
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC and ECHA
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 72
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 2 070 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
ECHA guidance assumes that absorption for dermal exposure is the same as for oral exposure, which is a worst case assumption.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- Effects show a clear dose response so factor of 1 used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- ECHA guidance document Chapter R8, in Appendix R.8-12, indicates that NOAELs from a 28 day study should have a factor of 6 applied for extrapolation of the DNEL to chronic exposure.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- A factor of 4 is applied based on ECHA guidance for allometric scaling of data from rats to humans.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review (see discussion) that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5 for this, therefore a factor of 1 has been applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that the appropriate fact for intraspecies differences for workers is 3 and not 5 as ECHA proposed. See discussion for detailed justification.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dermal 28 day study was on the Coco fatty acids 2-sulfoethyl ester, sodium salt (sodium cocoyl isethionate) CAS No 61789-32-0, therefore no additional factor for the quality of the database is considered necessary, therefore we have used a factor of 1.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- All uncertainties are already included so a factor of 1 is applied.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no DNEL required: short term exposure controlled by conditions for long-term
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- medium hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - workers
Selection of Assessment factors for Intra – Inter species variation for workers and the general population (consumers)
ECHA (2010) has produced guidance on the assessment factors to use to derive a DNEL for human exposure based the application of assessment factors (safety factors) to an NOAEL or LOAEL in animal studies.
The ECHA guidance proposes an assessment factor of 4 for the allometric scaling from rats to humans when calculating oral and dermal DNELs. However it then proposes an additional factor of 2.5 to cover remaining differences (uncertainties). There is no clear scientific justification for this additional factor. ECETOC in itsGuidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL(2010) reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that the factor of 4 for rats was sufficient to cover the allometric scaling from rats to humans and any remaining differences are of intra-species rather than interspecies variability. Based on this, the additional assessment factor of 2.5 for inter-species variability will not be used.
This ECETOC guidance also reviewed the intra-species assessment factors, which ECHA proposed as 5 for workers and 10 for the general population. ECETOC originally proposed in 2003, based on the scientific evidence, that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5.
This was confirmed in the ECETOC (2010) Guidance.
After reviewing these proposals, we have adopted the proposal from ECETOC as our default assessment factors but consider possible additional factors on a case by case basis.
In this case we have decided to use an assessment factor of 3 for workers based on the ECETOC Guidance (ECETOC 2010). For Consumers we have taken the ECETOC recommended factor of 5.
References:
ECHA, 2010 Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. Version 2 December 2010
ECETOC, 2010Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL,Technical Report No.110,ISSN-0773-8072-110 (print),ISSN-2079-1562-110 (online), October 2010
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 18.5 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC and ECHA
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 10
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 185.2 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
ECHA guidance recommends that a factor of 2 be applied when doing route to route extrapolation for oral to inhalation exposure, recognizing higher absorption via the lungs. The NOAEL from the oral study was therefore divided by two before the route to route extrapolation. Allometric scaling is applied by taking account for the different breathing rates between rats and humans as described in ECHA technical guidance the oral NOAEL in the rat mg/kg/day *1/1.15 mg/m3 inhalation NOAEC for consumers.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- Effects show a clear dose response so factor of 1 used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- ECHA guidance document Chapter R8, in Appendix R.8-12, indicates that DNELS derived using a NOAEL from a 90 day study are derived using an assessment factor of 2 for extrapolation of the study duration to chronic exposure.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Allometric scaling is already included in the route to route extrapolation from the rat oral NOAEL to the equivalent human inhalation NOAEC.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review (see discussion) that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5 for this, therefore a factor of 1 has been applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that the appropriate fact for intraspecies differences for the general population is 5 and not 10 as ECHA proposed. See discussion for detailed justification.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Due to the common metabolites identified in the Toxicokinetics section, it is considered that the read across is appropriate. ECHA has suggested an additional assessment factor where read across is used of at least 2, for the reason concerning common metabolites given we have used a factor of 1.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- All uncertainties are already included so a factor of 1 is applied.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 17.3 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Dermal
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC and ECHA
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 120
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 426 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
ECHA guidance assumes that absorption for dermal exposure is the same as for oral exposure, which is a worst case assumption.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- Effects show a clear dose response so factor of 1 used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 6
- Justification:
- ECHA guidance document Chapter R8, in Appendix R.8-12, indicates that NOAELs from a 28 day study should have a factor of 6 applied for extrapolation of the DNEL to chronic exposure.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- A factor of 4 is applied based on ECHA guidance for allometric scaling of data from rats to humans.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review (see discussion) that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5 for this, therefore a factor of 1 has been applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that the appropriate fact for intraspecies differences for the general population is 5 and not 10 as ECHA proposed. See discussion for detailed justification.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- The dermal 28 day study was on the Coco fatty acids 2-sulfoethyl ester, sodium salt (sodium cocoyl isethionate) CAS No 61789-32-0, therefore no additional factor for the quality of the database is considered necessary, therefore we have used a factor of 1.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- All uncertainties are already included so a factor of 1 is applied.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no DNEL required: short term exposure controlled by conditions for long-term
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 10.7 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC and ECHA
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 40
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 426 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
The DNEL is derived from a NOAEL in a 90 day oral study, so there is no route to route extrapolation.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- Effects show a clear dose response so factor of 1 used.
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- ECHA guidance document Chapter R8, in Appendix R.8-12, indicates that DNELS derived using a NOAEL from a 90 day study are derived using an assessment factor of 2 for extrapolation of the study duration to chronic exposure.
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- A factor of 4 is applied based on ECHA guidance for allometric scaling of data from rats to humans.
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive review (see discussion) that there is no justification for the suggested additional factor of 2.5 for this, therefore a factor of 1 has been applied.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- ECETOC reported in 2010 after an extensive scientific review that the appropriate fact for intraspecies differences for the general population is 5 and not 10 as ECHA proposed. See discussion for detailed justification.
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- Due to the common metabolites identified in the Toxicokinetics section, it is considered that the read across is appropriate. ECHA has suggested an additional assessment factor where read across is used of at least 2, for the reason concerning common metabolites given we have used a factor of 1.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- All uncertainties are already included so a factor of 1 is applied.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- low hazard (no threshold derived)
Additional information - General Population
Selection of Assessment factors for Intra – Inter species variation for workers and the general population (consumers)
ECHA (2010) has produced guidance on the assessment factors to use to derive a DNEL for human exposure based the application of assessment factors (safety factors) to an NOAEL or LOAEL in animal studies.
The ECHA guidance proposes an assessment factor of 4 for the allometric scaling from rats to humans when calculating oral and dermal DNELs. However it then proposes an additional factor of 2.5 to cover remaining differences (uncertainties). There is no clear scientific justification for this additional factor. ECETOC in itsGuidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL(2010) reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that the factor of 4 for rats was sufficient to cover the allometric scaling from rats to humans and any remaining differences are of intra-species rather than interspecies variability. Based on this, the additional assessment factor of 2.5 for inter-species variability will not be used.
This ECETOC guidance also reviewed the intra-species assessment factors, which ECHA proposed as 5 for workers and 10 for the general population. ECETOC originally proposed in 2003, based on the scientific evidence, that assessment factors of 3 for workers and 5 for the general population are sufficient for covering any intra-species variability, which includes the remaining differences factor of 2.5.
This was confirmed in the ECETOC (2010) Guidance.
After reviewing these proposals, we have adopted the proposal from ECETOC as our default assessment factors but consider possible additional factors on a case by case basis.
In this case we have decided to use an assessment factor of 3 for workers based on the ECETOC Guidance (ECETOC 2010). For Consumers we have taken the ECETOC recommended factor of 5.
References:
ECHA, 2010 Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. Version 2 December 2010
ECETOC, 2010Guidance on Assessment Factors to Derive a DNEL,Technical Report No.110,ISSN-0773-8072-110 (print),ISSN-2079-1562-110 (online), October 2010
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.
