C8-18 alkylampho(di)propionates

Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates

Description of key information

The acute toxicity of the substance to aquatic invertebrates was investigated in 3 studies. In a 48 h acute toxicity study (classified as reliable without restrictions), Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance according to OECD 202 and GLP principles. The 48h-EC50 was 234 mg/L, corresponding to 90 mg solids/L, based on analytically confirmed nominal concentrations. In a 48 h acute toxicity study (classified as reliable with restrictions), Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance according to EU method C.2 and GLP principles. There was no significant effect on daphnia magna mobility observed at the concentration tested (105.8 mg/L, corresponding to 40.6 mg solids/L), based on nominal concentrations (no analytical verification of test concentration). In a 48 h acute toxicity study, of which the reliability could not be assigned, Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance using a method equivalent/similar to OECD 202 but not under GLP principles. The 48h-EC50 was 18 mg/L, corresponding to 7 mg solids/L, based on nominal concentrations (no analytical verification of test concentration). 
The EC50 value obtained in the study classified as reliable without restrictions is taken as key value for CSA since it was considered the most reliable.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Fresh water invertebrates

Fresh water invertebrates

Effect concentration:

234 mg/L

Additional information

The acute toxicity of the substance to aquatic invertebrates was investigated in 3 studies:

Tobor-Kapłon (2013) - In a 48 h acute toxicity study, Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance according to OECD guideline Nr. 202 and GLP principles. Daphnids were exposed to the following nominal concentrations: 0 (control), 7.0, 17, 41, 104 and 259 mg/L, corresponding to 2.7, 6.6, 16, 40 and 100 mg solids/L. The substance did not induce acute immobilisation in Daphnia magna at an analytically confirmed nominal concentration of 104 mg/L, corresponding to 40 mg solids/L, after 48 hours of exposure. The 48h-EC50 was 234 mg/L, corresponding to 90 mg solids/L, based on analytically confirmed nominal concentrations (95% confidence interval between 199 and 306 mg/L, corresponding to 77 and 118 mg solids/L). The present toxicity study is classified as reliable without restrictions.

 

Bazin et al. (1994) - In a 48 h acute toxicity study, Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance according to EU method C.2 and GLP principles. Daphnids were exposed to the following nominal concentrations: 0 (control) and 105.8 mg/L, corresponding to 40.6 mg solids/L. There was no significant effect on Daphnia magna mobility at the test concentration, based on nominal concentrations (no analytical verification of test concentrations). The present toxicity study is classified as reliable with restrictions.

 

Romstad and Källqvist (1992) – In a 48 h acute toxicity study, Daphnia magna were exposed to the substance using a method equivalent/similar to OECD guideline Nr. 202 but not under GLP principles. Daphnids were exposed to the following nominal concentrations: 0 (control) 10, 18, 32, 56 and 100 mg/L, corresponding to 3.9, 6.9, 12, 22 and 39 mg solids/L. The 48h-EC50 was 18 mg/L, corresponding to 7 mg solids/L, based on nominal concentrations. The reliability of the study could not be assigned since there was no analytical verification of the test concentrations and important study design details and results are missing in the report (the validity criteria could not be verified).

 

Selection of key study

The study conducted by Tobor-Kapłon (2013) was selected as the key study since it was considered the most reliable. In the study conducted by Bazin et al. (1994) no analytical measurement of test concentrations was performed. The Romstad and Källqvist (1992) study was not performed under GLP, no analytical verification of the test concentrations was performed, study design details and details on the results are missing in the report (none of the validity criteria can be verified due to the lack of data in the report).