Study on environmental and healtheffects of HFO refrigerants(Publication number: M-917|2017)

Reportprepared for

the Norwegian Environment Agency

22 December 2017

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO
refrigerants

Final Report
RPA Report – Assured quality
Project reference / title

J972 / NEA HFO refrigerants

Report status

Final report

Authors

David Fleet
Dr James Hanlon
Dr Kate Osborne
Max La Vedrine
Paul Ashford (Anthesis-Caleb)

Approved for issue by

Meg Postle

Date of issue

22 December 2017

Disclaimer

The views and propositions expressed herein are, unless otherwise stated,
those of Risk & Policy Analysts and do not necessarily represent any official
view of the Norwegian Environment Agency or any other organisation
mentioned in this report.

List of abbreviations
A2L

Mildly flammable refrigerants category

A5; non-A5

Article 5 Developing countries; non-Article 5 Developed countries

BAU

Business As Usual

Cefic

European Chemical Industry Council

CF3C(O)H

Trifluoroacetaldehyde

CF3COO-

Trifluoroacetate

CFC

Chlorofluorocarbon

CLP

Classification, Labelling and Packaging

CMR

Carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction

CO2

Carbon dioxide

COF2

Carbonyl fluoride

CSR

Chemical Safety Report

EC10

10% effective concentration (the concentration that causes the measured effect in
10% of organisms)

EC25

25% effective concentration (the concentration that causes the measured effect in
25% of organisms)

EC50

Half maximum response dose (the concentration that causes the measured effect in
50% of organisms)

ECHA

European Chemicals Agency

EEAP

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

EUSES

European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances

GWP

Global Warming Potential

HC(O)Cl

Formyl chloride

HC(O)F

Formyl fluoride

HC(O)OH

Formic acid

HCFC

Hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HCFO

Hydrochlorofluoroolefin

HCHO

Formaldehyde

HClHydrochloric acid

HF

Hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen fluoride

HFC

Hydrofluorocarbon

HFO

Hydrofluoroolefin

LC50

Lethal concentration for 50% of the population

LOAEL

Local Observed Adverse Effect Level

MAC

Mobile Air Conditioning

MAK

Maximum Concentration at the Workplace

MIT-5

Mitigation 5

MoE

Margin of Exposure

MOS

Margin Of Safety

NO

Nitric oxide

NO3

Nitrate radical

NOAEL

No Observed Adverse Effect LevelNOECNo Observed Effect ConcentrationNOELNo Observed Effect Level

O3

Ozone

ODS

Ozone-depleting substanceOECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OEL

Occupational exposure level

OH

Hydroxyl radical

PEC

Predicted Environmental Concentration

PNEC

Predicted No-Effect Concentration

PPE

Personal Protection Equipment

ppm

Parts per million

ppt

Parts per trillion

QSAR

Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship

RAC

Refrigeration & Air Conditioning

RACHP

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps

RCR

Risk Characterisation Ratio

REACH

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

SDS

Safety Data Sheet

SNAP

Significant New Alternatives Policy

STP

Sewage Treatment Plan

TEAPTechnology and Economic Assessment Panel

TFA

Trifluoroacetic acid, CF3C(O)OHTFF

Trifluoroacetyl fluoride, CF3COF

TSCA

Toxic Substances Control Act

TWA

Time-weighted average

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

US EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

WMO

World Meteorological Organization

Table of contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 12
1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives of the study ................................................................................................................... 1
Aims and structure of this report.................................................................................................... 1

2

Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 3
Overview of the methodology ........................................................................................................ 3
Task 1: Grey literature..................................................................................................................... 3
Task 2: Academic literature ............................................................................................................ 3
Task 3: Selection of relevance and data extraction- DistillerSR®.................................................... 4
2.4.1

Screening of the literature .............................................................................................. 4

2.4.2

Data extraction................................................................................................................ 4

2.4.3

Literature review outputs ............................................................................................... 4

Task 4: Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 4
Task 5: Assessing HFO projections ................................................................................................. 4
2.6.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

Task 6: Risk assessment for HFOs ................................................................................................... 5

3

2.7.1

VEGA ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.7.2

EUSES .............................................................................................................................. 5

Substance information.......................................................................................................... 6
Overview of HFOs and HFO blends currently used/likely to be used as refrigerants ..................... 6
HFO substances that are used/likely to be used as refrigerants .................................................... 7
3.2.1

HFO only refrigerants ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2

HFO blends .................................................................................................................... 12

HFO impurities .............................................................................................................................. 13
4

HFO emissions estimates - projected up to 2100 .................................................................. 15
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Projected emissions ...................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1

Output from BAU scenarios up to 2050 ........................................................................ 16

4.2.2

Output from MIT-5 scenarios up to 2050 ..................................................................... 18

4.2.3

Discussion/comparison of the results from BAU and MIT-5 scenario up to 2050........ 21

The impact of ‘natural’ refrigerants on HFO consumption........................................................... 22
5

Chemical processes and degradation products .................................................................... 24

Chemical processes ....................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.1

Atmospheric dispersion and degradation mechanisms................................................ 24

Degradation products ................................................................................................................... 25
5.2.1
6

TFA ................................................................................................................................ 26

Environmental impacts ....................................................................................................... 29
Environmental compartments where TFA is found ...................................................................... 29
6.1.1

TFA in surface waters .................................................................................................... 29

6.1.2

TFA in soils..................................................................................................................... 30

6.1.3

Terminal sinks and hotspots ......................................................................................... 30

Environmental effects of TFA ........................................................................................................ 32
6.2.1

Concentrations of TFA in the environment .................................................................. 32

6.2.2

Toxicity of TFA .............................................................................................................. 34

Environmental effects of other decomposition products ............................................................ 41
7

Human health impacts ........................................................................................................ 43
Hazards to human health .............................................................................................................. 43
Workers health and safety ............................................................................................................ 45

8

7.2.1

Overview ....................................................................................................................... 45

7.2.2

Manufacturing workers................................................................................................. 45

7.2.3

Refrigerant workers ...................................................................................................... 46

7.2.4

Risk management measures ......................................................................................... 47

7.2.5

Accidental release and elevated levels and/or leaks of HFOs ...................................... 50

7.2.6

Fire/explosion products and impact on workers’ health and safety ............................ 51

Risk assessment.................................................................................................................. 54
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 54
VEGA results .................................................................................................................................. 56
8.2.1

VEGA prediction and applicability domain comments ................................................. 56

EUSES model inputs ...................................................................................................................... 58
8.3.1

Assumptions and potential issues................................................................................. 59

8.3.2

Physico-chemical properties ......................................................................................... 59

8.3.3

Degradation and transformation rates ......................................................................... 61

8.3.4

Release estimate ........................................................................................................... 61

8.3.5

Regional, continental and global distribution ............................................................... 64

8.3.6

Exposure........................................................................................................................ 65

8.3.7

Human exposed to or via the environment .................................................................. 65

8.3.8

Microorganisms in a STP ............................................................................................... 65

8.3.9

Aquatic organisms ......................................................................................................... 65

8.3.10Terrestrial ...................................................................................................................... 68

8.3.11

Birds .............................................................................................................................. 68

8.3.12

Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 68

8.3.13

Humans ......................................................................................................................... 70

8.3.14

Environmental effects assessment ............................................................................... 70

8.3.15

Risk characterisation ..................................................................................................... 70

EUSES assessment results ............................................................................................................. 70
8.4.1

Assessment for 2025 (same in plateau and phase-out) ............................................... 71

8.4.2

2100 plateau ................................................................................................................. 73

8.4.3

2100 phase-out ............................................................................................................. 74

8.4.4

Discussion...................................................................................................................... 76

Identified data gaps ...................................................................................................................... 79
9Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 81

10 Further work ...................................................................................................................... 84
Identified knowledge gaps ............................................................................................................ 84
11 References ......................................................................................................................... 86
Annex 1

Consultation questions ............................................................................................ 93

Annex 2

Detailed information about methodology ................................................................ 96

Annex 3TFA VEGA output ................................................................................................... 110

Annex 4EUSES Summary 2025 and 2100 Plateau ................................................................. 244

SummaryThis report describes the findings of a study on environmental and health effects of HFO(hydrofluoroolefin) refrigerants conducted for the Norwegian Environment Agency. The aim of thestudy were threefold, to identify the HFO substances used as refrigerants and their related emissions,and discuss the atmospheric dispersion, degradation and subsequent deposition of the degradation
products. This was followed by an assessment of the environmental and human health impacts
associated HFOs and their degradation products. Finally, a risk assessment was performed to assess
how the future use of HFOs and their subsequent emissions would affect the environment globally up
to 2100.
Information for the study was gathered from systematic search and review of the academic and grey
literature. Consultation was also conducted with various stakeholders, including a manufacturer of
HFO refrigerants, a company involved in the reclamation of HFO refrigerants, academic experts, a nongovernment organisation and a refrigeration industry association.
HFO substance information was collated from review of the literature, consultation and the patent
database. A number of HFOs were identified as refrigerants that were commonly used, likely to be
used in the future and those at different stages of development. HFO-1234yf is the most commonlyused HFO substance as is a replacement for HFC-134a in mobile air-conditioning with HFO-1234ze and
HFO-1233zd also being identified as being used as refrigerants. A number of HFO/HFC blends havealso been identified as being used as refrigerants, such as R-448a with the main driving force for HFO
blends being their lower global warming potential compared to pure HFCs. There are also otherpotential HFO substances that have been identified that may be used as refrigerants in the future suchas HFO-1244yd and HFO-136mzz. HFO refrigerants are high in purity; however, there is limited
information available on the identity of any impurities present.
Projected emissions of HFO refrigerants (HFO-1234yf) have also been calculated up to 2100 using BAU
and MIT-5 scenarios, with emissions of HFOs and other low-GWP refrigerants expected to climb to2050. With the addition of contributions from Article 5, these peak emissions could exceed 500,000
tonnes per year, although this will be need closer monitoring as the trends evolve. Emissions between
2050 and 2100 have been calculated using a plateau scenario (in 2100, emissions have been calculated
to be over 339,000 tonnes) and a phase-out scenario (in 2100, emissions would be zero) using theMIT-5 scenario.
The final atmospheric degradation products of HFOs are dependent on the identity of the HFO. For
example, the most commonly used HFO substance at present, HFO-1234yf, undergoes atmosphericdegradation producing a 100% molar yield of trifluoroacetic acid, TFA. The degradation products ofother HFOs are HF, HCl, formic acid and carbon dioxide in varying proportions.
In the atmosphere, a rapid partitioning of TFA into droplets of clouds, rain and fog occurs) with wet
precipitation assumed to be the major source of TFA in the biosphere. TFA is found in a wide range ofwater bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands where inflow into these water bodies occur
from precipitation, glaciers, runoff from land, groundwater (springs) and water-treatment facilities
where it forms trifluoroacetate salts (CF3COO-) with minerals such as calcium and sodium. TFA
concentrations in the environment vary with compartment and location with the highest
concentrations witnessed in terminal water bodies such as salt lakes, playas and oceans. There havebeen few studies on TFA concentrations in groundwater to date but of the few studies that have been
conducted, concentrations have been low. This is unexpected as TFA is poorly retained in soil and haslarge mobility, but may be due to the slow percolation into the groundwater samples that have beentested to date. In freshwaters, TFA is thought to be solely anthropogenic in nature; however, TFA
found in oceans is both natural and anthropogenic in source.

Of the tested aquatic organisms, only the alga R. subcapitata displayed sensitivity to TFA, although
this needs to be confirmed by retesting. However, there is no published data for toxicity to soil
macroorganisms except arthropods, terrestrial arthropods or for to birds or soil microorganisms.
There is less than satisfactory information on the toxicity of TFA and salts to terrestrial plants, and nostudies have been reported for concentrations of TFA in crops for human consumption (Solomon etal. 2016). Furthermore, there is no information on toxicity to organisms found in salt lakes and playas.
This is particularly important because salt lakes are the most likely site for accumulation of TFA in thenatural environment. ECHA have highlighted the inadequacy and absence of toxicity data in the TFA
REACH registration dossier and have instructed the lead registrant for the substance to address thisby 2021. At present, however, the consensus amongst academic experts is that TFA will have anegligible effect on the environment.
A number of knowledge gaps need to be addressed to conclude that TFA will have negligible effect on
the environment. Generally, more research is needed to fully understand the cycle of TFA in theatmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also a lack of information on the amounts of TFA used globallyor other potential sources of TFA in the environment i.e. other chemicals with TFA as a degradation
product.
The health hazards of HFO refrigerants have been investigated, in particular the health and safety ofworkers. There is limited information available in the literature on the health effects, with the healtheffects from material safety data sheets stating that HFOs are asphyxiant in high concentrations andthat contact with the evaporating liquid may lead to freezing of the skin or frostbite. The REACH
registration dossier for HFO-1234yf lists the substance to be low hazard for inhalation exposure,dermal exposure and eyes. No thresholds for the hazard have been identified. This registration
dossier has been subject to an ECHA review with additional work identified to be performed.
Refrigeration workers in the EU who handle HFO refrigerants are also subject to the requirements of
the F gas regulations, whilst in manufacturing, exposure levels are generally between 0 and 1 ppm.
For accident release or elevated levels of HFOs, a number of recommended measures have been
identified and discussed. The main thermal decomposition products (dependent of HFO or HFO blend)
are carbonyl fluoride; carbon oxides; carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride, carbonyl halides,
hydrochloric acid and fluorocarbons.
A risk assessment was performed for HFO refrigerant use up to the 2100 which was based on the mostcommonly used HFO substance, HFO-1234yf, and its degradation product, TFA. The risk assessment
was performed using EUSES and with a basic PEC:PNEC analysis also performed. The outcome of therisk assessment supported similar conclusions identified in literature, these being that toxicity risk of
TFA to organisms and human health appears to be low, however, TFA is expected to become
concentrated in terminal sinks due to TFA being highly persistent. The risk, therefore, increases if
emissions of HFO-1234yf to the environment increase.
A number of knowledge gaps were identified during the study which may be addressed during any
future studies. Many of these gaps concerned the toxicity data for TFA being inadequate or missing
not allowing a thorough assessment of the effects this may have on the wider environment. For
example, there is no information on toxicity to organisms found in salt lakes and playas which isimportant as these environmental compartments are terminal sinks for TFA. There have been few
studies on TFA concentrations in groundwater and no measurements of the concentrations of TFA incrops for human consumption have been reported. ECHA have highlighted gaps and inadequacies inthe toxicity data in the registration dossier for TFA for both the environment and human health, andhave asked the lead substance registrant to address these in an updated dossier by 2021. The risk
assessment performed for HFO refrigerants up to the 2100 could be repeated when the REACH
registration dossier for TFA has been fully updated in 2021.

1 Introduction
Background
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer regulates the production andconsumption of nearly 100 ozone depleting substances (ODS). The Protocol was adopted on 15 th
September 1987, and is the only UN treaty to date that has been ratified by all 197 UN Member States(United States EPA, 2016). The treaty has evolved over time considering new scientific, technical andeconomic developments, and it continues to be amended and adjusted. The latest amendment to theProtocol took place in Kigali, Rwanda in 2016 and introduced a phase-down schedule for HFCs
(hydrofluorocarbons).
HFCs, used as refrigerants and in other applications (such as blowing agents), are potent greenhousegases with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) up to five thousand times greater than carbon dioxide(NASA, 2015). An alternative to HFCs are the HFOs (hydrofluoroolefins), which have zero ozone
depletion potential and low GWP. However, the final atmospheric HFO degradation products such as
trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and hydrofluoric acid (HF) may have environmental and human health effects(Wallington et al, 2014) which will be investigated in this study. For example, TFA is a highly persistentpollutant, with both anthropogenic and natural sources, and is ubiquitous in precipitation and ocean
water even in remote areas (Hansen et al, 2015).

Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are:

To determine the HFO substances that are used or likely to be used as refrigerants, their related
emissions, degradation products of HFOs and their atmospheric dispersion;
To assess the environmental and health effects of HFOs and their degradation products; andTo perform an assessment of how the future use of HFOs and their subsequent emissions would
affect the environment globally.

Aims and structure of this report
The aim of this report is threefold. Firstly, it discusses the use of HFO refrigerants, their related
emissions, atmospheric dispersion, degradation and the deposition of subsequent degradation
products. This is followed by an assessment of the environmental and human health impacts
associated HFOs and their degradation products. Finally, a risk assessment is performed to assess how
the future use of HFOs and their subsequent emissions would affect the environment globally up to2100.
The report is organised as follows:








Section 2: Summarises the methodology employed for the study;
Section 3: Provides HFO substance information;
Section 4: Discusses HFO emissions;
Section 5: Discusses the chemical processes and degradation products of HFOs;
Section 6: Assessment of the environmental impacts of HFOs and their degradation products;
Section 7: Assessment of the human health impacts of HFOs and their degradation products;
Section 8: Discusses the outcomes of the risk assessment;
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 1









Section 9: Discusses the conclusions of the study;
Section 10: Recommends further work needed to address knowledge gaps;
Section 11: Lists the references;
Annex 1: Lists consultation questions;Annex 2: Detailed information about methodology;
Annex 3: TFA VEGA output; andAnnex 4: EUSES Summary 2025 and 2100 Plateau.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 2

2 Methodology
Overview of the methodology
The methodology for the study has been divided into the following stages which are introduced below,
and discussed in more detail in Annex 2.
Task 1: Grey literature search;
Task 2: Academic literature search;
Task 3: Screening of the literature using DistillerSR®; andTask 4: Consultation

Additionally, the methodology employed for the calculation of the projected emissions and for therisk assessment of HFO refrigerants are introduced below, and discussed in more detail in Annex 2.


Task 5: Project emissions up to 2100; andTask 6: Risk assessment up to 2100

For Tasks 5 and 6, the scenarios which have been modelled for post 2050 emissions are:

Emissions are stabilised after 2050; orThere is a phase-out of HFO refrigerants after 2050

Task 1: Grey literature
Relevant studies for the grey literature were identified from a comprehensive Google search and alsoa targeted search of relevant agencies, associations and manufacturers of refrigerants; these aredetailed in Annex 2.
Additional grey literature was been searched based on consultation responses. The grey literature
was screened for relevance and the relevant data extracted using DistillerSR®. Based on the outcomeof one consultation, and after the literature review, the patent database was subsequently searched
for impurity information.

Task 2: Academic literature
Based on the results obtained from searching the grey literature, the academic literature wasreviewed for relevant studies. Search terms were developed in PubMed and are discussed in Annex
2. These search terms were broad in scope to ensure a wide range of relevant literature for HFO
substance information, HFO emissions, chemical processes and degradation products, andenvironmental and human health impacts was retrieved. Google Scholar was also reviewed forrelevant studies.
The academic literature was screened for relevance and the relevant data extracted using DistillerSR®,
as discussed in Annex 2.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 3

Task 3: Selection of relevance and data extraction- DistillerSR®
2.4.1 Screening of the literature
The literature identified during the grey literature and academic literature searches was scoped forrelevance to the study. This is a two stage process based on templates created in DistillerSR® anddescribed in detail in Annex 2.

2.4.2 Data extraction
For studies that were relevant after screening, the relevant data was extracted using DistillerSR®, thisis described in detail in Annex 2.

2.4.3 Literature review outputs
The results of the grey and academic literature review for determining the HFO substances that areused or likely to be used as refrigerants, their related emissions, degradation products of HFOs andtheir atmospheric dispersion are described in detail in Figure 11-1 in Annex 2 and for theenvironmental and health effects of HFOs and their degradation products in Figure 11-2 in Annex 2.

Task 4: Consultation
Eight stakeholders were contacted for consultation for the study. These included academic experts,
a non-government organisation, a HFO refrigerant manufacturer, a HFO refrigerant reclaimer and arefrigeration industry association. Questions asked during the consultations are listed in Annex 1.

Task 5: Assessing HFO projections
2.6.1 Introduction
The TEAP Task Force Report (XXVII/4) from September 2016 is the most appropriate source forcalculating HFO emissions. This was the final TEAP report leading into the Kigali negotiations. The
report provides valuable consumption information that we can convert through existing modelling
techniques into emission estimates.
The report contains tabulated projected consumption by refrigerant category and RAC (Refrigeration& Air Conditioning) sub-sector in 5 year intervals. From this, it is possible to interpolate for theintervening years and build-up a picture of growth of HFO use, subject to the following:Annex 4 only records low-GWP refrigerants as a category, so this would include CO2, ammonia
and hydrocarbons, as well as HFOs;
Table 2-7 indicates that low-GWP in the terms of the Report means <300 GWP; andTables 2-3 & 2-4 give various pure substances and blends that could qualify.

Annex 4 of the TEAP report also maps at least two Mitigation Scenarios which could be followed interms of likely low-GWP (Mitigation 5 scenario (MIT-5) and Business As Usual (BAU)). MIT-5 assumes
the completion of conversion of key non-Article 5 RAC equipment by 2025 and the commencementof similar conversions in Article 5 countries by the same date.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 4

MIT-5 was viewed as the most representative scenario in respect of the Kigali Amendment thateventually emerged, although even this was marginally too aggressive. However, an over-aggressiveschedule would inflate the consumption and emissions of low-GWP alternatives such as HFOs andthereby make the environmental risk assessment appropriately conservative by over-stating
consumption and resulting emissions.

Task 6: Risk assessment for HFOs
Approach to Assessment
This risk assessment has considered the exposure of the environment to TFA, including the basis fordetermining the exposure of humans via the environment. Although there is a range of HFO
compounds used in the EU, this risk assessment considers the main breakdown product TFA. Althoughadditional exposure assessments could be conducted, encompassing the use of the various otherproducts and their breakdown products, it is anticipated that the assessment of TFA will provide aworst case assessment.
The methodology used for the risk assessment is as follows using EUSES:•••

Estimate overall emissions by industry sector (organotin production, glass coating, stabilisers,
catalysts and biocides);For each sector, estimate emissions by TFA and life-cycle stage (for example, emissions of TFA
from different sources); andDetermine the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) at a regional level for each of
the TFA compounds using the EUSES model.

Further information on the inputs for the risk assessment model is discussed in Section 8.

2.7.1 VEGAThe VEGA platform has been employed to access the QSAR (Quantitative Structure Activity
Relationship) models for TFA. The use of QSAR models allows the prediction of the properties of a
substance from its structure (VEGA Hub, undated). For TFA, this has been used to examine themutagenicity, carcinogenicity, development toxicity, fish toxicity, daphnia toxicity, and persistence.
Other QSAR models can be used to predict the properties of TFA.

2.7.2 EUSESThe EUSES (European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances) software has been employed
for assessing the environmental and human risks from HFO emissions (EU Science Hub, 2016). The
EUSES model generates predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) from estimated releases fromuse patterns (based on emissions, which is further discussed in section 3) and substance properties(further discussed in Section 4). However, modelling of fluorinated compounds has been challenging.
In this assessment a number of challenges were also identified, the calculated values should be usedwith caution.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 5

3 Substance information
Overview of HFOs and HFO blends currently used/likely to be
used as refrigerants
In the table below are the HFOs and HFO/HFC blends identified that are currently being used, likely to
be used in the future, or have shown early promise but no longer being developed.
Table 3-1: HFOs and HFO/HFC blends currently used/likely to be used as refrigerants
HFO

Other known nomenclature
HFO-1234yf
Solstice® yf Refrigerant, R-1234yf, 1234yf, HFC-1234yf,
Opteon™ YF
HFO-1234ze
Solstice® ze, HFO-1234ze(E)HFO-1233zd
Solstice® zd, HFO-1233zd(E), HCFO-1233zd
HFO-1224yd
Amolea® 1224yd, HFO-1224yd(Z)HFO-1336mzz
Opteon™ 1100, HFO-1336mzz-Z, HFO-1336mzz(Z)HFO-1243zf
HFO-1114
HFO-1216
HFO-1345czf
HFO-1123
HFO-1225ye(Z)*HFO-1243z**Had early expectations, however, due to unforeseen toxicity data they are no longer favourable
HFO/HFC blend
Tradenames
R-448A (HFO/HFC blend)
Solstice® N40 (R-448A)
R-449A (HFO/HFC blend)Opteon™ XP40 (R-449A)
R-450A (HFO/HFC blend)
Solstice® N13 (R-450A)
R-452A (HFO/HFC blend)Opteon™ XP44 (R-452A)
R-514A (HFO/other substance blend)Opteon ™ XP30 (R-514A)
Manufacturer: Solstice® (Honeywell); Opteon™ (Chemours); Amolea®(Ashai Glass)Potential issue – inconsistent nomenclature use
HFOs can be referred to by a variety of nomenclature in the literature which can pose a challenge fora non-technical audience. For example, HFO-1234yf has been referred to as HFC-1234yf and R-1234yf.
This is addressed in the following section where other known nomenclature for individual HFOs isstated.
There is also a potential issue for the naming of HFOs. HCFOs have been included in this study, as they
are considered to be equivalent to HFOs as they are not listed under the Montreal Protocol or EU ODS
regulations, and are listed under Annex II of the REACH regulation. However, there are manychlorinated substances with short atmospheric lifetimes that are not included under the Montreal
Protocol, but this is subject to periodic review (e.g. in the case of methylene chloride).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 6

HFO substances that are used/likely to be used as refrigerants
3.2.1 HFO only refrigerants
HFO-1234yf
HFO-1234yf (C3H2F4) has been identified from literature review and consultation as the most widelyused HFO refrigerant. HFO-1234yf is commonly being used as a replacement for HFC-134a in mobile
air conditioning and is being rolled out as a 4th generation refrigerant.

Figure 3-1: Chemical structure of HFO-1234yf
Source: Chembase (2014): 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop1-ene.
Availableat:
http://en.chembase.cn/molecule-8052.html

HFO-1234yf has been registered under REACH (ECHA, 2017a) under the name polyhaloalkene and2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS No. 754-12-1; EC No. 468-710-7/616-220-0) and is manufactured
and/or imported in the European Economic Area in the tonnage range of 1,000 - 10,000 tonnes per
year. The trade names Opteon™ YF and Opteon™ YF Aftermarket (see Table 3-1) are also registeredunder the ECHA registration (ECHA, 2017a).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 7

Table 3-2: HFO-1234yf ECHA summary
HFO substanceChemical formula

HFO-1234yf,
2,3,3,3tetrafluoroprop-1ene

C3H2F4; CF3CF=CH2

Tonnageregistration(tonnes)
1,000 - 10,000

Other known
nomenclature

REACH registrants

Solstice® yf
Refrigerant(Honeywell);
R-1234yf; 1234yf;
HFC-1234yf;
Opteon™ YF(Chemours)

ArkemaFrance,ChemicalInspection
andRegulatory
Services; Chemours
Netherlands B.V.;
Honeywell
Belgium;
Honeywell Fluorine
Products Europe;
SCAS
EuropeS.A/NV
Sources: Arkema (2015):
Industrial Specialities at a Glance 2014. Available at:https://www.arkema.com/export/sites/global/.content/medias/downloads/investorrelations/en/finance/A
rkema_CMD_2015_MS_-Industrial_Specialties_Final_Version-v16.pdf
Chemours(2017):
Opteon™
YF
Automotive
Refrigerant.
Availableat:https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/uses_apps/automotive_ac/SmartAutoAC/HFO1234yf.html
ECHA(2017):
Polyhaloalkene
registration
dossier.
Availableathttps://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16012
Honeywell (2017):
Solstice® yf Refrigerant (R-1234y).
Available at: http://msdsresource.honeywell.com/ehswww/hon/result/result_single_main.jsp?C001=MSDS&C102=GB&C101=SDS_G
B&C100=E&P_LANGU=E&C013=&C997=C100;E%2BC101;SDS_GB%2BC102;GB%2B1000&P_SYS=1&C008=&
C006=HON&C005=000000011078&

It has also been registered by the US EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Production
volumes were recorded as 126,760 lbs in 2011 but information has been withheld in the years 20122015 due to confidentiality reasons (Table 3-2). From consultation, the worldwide tonnage per region
is confidential, however production is in the 10,000s tonnes range.
Table 3-3: HFO-1234yf US EPA summary
National aggregate
production volumes
EPA registrants(pounds)
HFO-1234yf,
C3H2F4, CF3CF=CH2
2015-2012:
data Honeywell International
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropwithheld
Inc;
The
Chemours
1-ene
2011: 126,760 lbs
Company
Sources: Chemical Data Reporting (CDR). Available at: https://java.epa.gov/chemview#dashboard
HFO substanceChemical formula

HFO-1234ze
HFO-1234ze (C3H2F4) has also been identified as being used as a refrigerant from literature review.
HFO-1234ze is registered under REACH (EC No. 471-480-0) and is manufactured and/or imported in
100 - 1,000 tonnes per year (ECHA, 2017b).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 8Figure 3-2: Structure of HFO-1234ze
Source: American Chemical Society (2017): Patent Picks:
New Propellant Technologies.
Available at:
http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i47/Patent-Picks-NewPropellant-Technologies.html

Table 3-4: HFO-1234ze ECHA summary
HFO substanceChemical formula

Tonnageregistration(tonnes)
100 - 1,000

Other known
nomenclature

REACH registrants

HFO-1234ze,
C3H2F4;
Solstice® ze
Informationnot(E)-1,3,3,3(E)-CF3CH=CFH(Honeywell);publicly available
tetrafluoroprop-1HFO-1234ze(E);ene
R-1234ze
Sources:
ECHA(2017):
HFO-1234ze
Substance
Information.
Availableat:https://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/substance-information//substanceinfo/100.104.972?_disssubsinfo_WAR_disssubsinfoportlet_backURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ech
a.europa.eu%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome%3Fp_p_id%3Ddisssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn2%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D7%26_disssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet_
sessionCriteriaId%3D

HFO-1234ze has not been registered by the US EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
HCFO-1233zd (HFO-1233zd)
HCFO-1233zd (which is also used as a blowing agent) has also been identified as being used inrefrigerants from consultation. HCFO-1233zd is registered under REACH (CAS No. 102687-65-0; EC
No. 700-486-0) and is manufactured and/or imported in 100 - 1,000 tonnes per year (ECHA, 2017b). It
is worth noting, that this substance contains both fluorine and chlorine. HCFO-1233zd is referred toas an HFO as it is not listed under the Montreal Protocol or EU ODS Regulations; it is listed under Annex
II of the EU F-Gas regulation. It will be referred to as HFO-1233zd herein.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 9Figure 3-3: Structure of HFO-1233zd
Source: Patent application WO2011112339 A2. Catalyst
life improvement for the vapour phase manufacture of
1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene. Available at:https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011112339A2

Table 3-5: HFO-1233zd ECHA summary
HFO substance
HFO-1233zd,(E)-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1ene

Chemical formulaC3H2F3Cl;(E)-CHCl=CHCF3

Tonnageregistration(tonnes)
100 - 1,000

Other known
nomenclature

REACH registrants

Solstice® zd
Arkema France;(Honeywell);Honeywell
HFO-1233zd(E);Belgium;
R-1233zd;
Honeywell Fluorine
Solstice® LBA
Products Europe(blowing agent)
Sources:
ECHA(2017):
HCFO-1234zd
Substance
Information.
Availableat:https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.149.148
Honeywell Refrigerants (2017):
Solstice® zd.
Available at https://www.honeywellrefrigerants.com/americas/product/solstice-zd/

It has also been registered by the US EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Production
volumes have increased since 2012 with volumes in 2015 recorded in the range of 1,000,000 - 10,000,000 lbs.
Table 3-6: HFO-1233zd US EPA summary
National aggregate
production volumes
EPA registrants(pounds)
HFO-1233zd,
C3H2F3Cl;2015:
1,000,000- Honeywell International(E)-1-chloro-3,3,3(E)-CHCl=CHCF3
10,000,000 lbs
Inctrifluoroprop-1-ene
2014:
1,000,000
10,000,000 lbs
2013: <25,000 lbs
2012: <25,000 lbs
Source: Chemical Data Reporting (CDR). Available at: https://java.epa.gov/chemview#dashboard
HFO substanceChemical formula

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 10

HFO-1224yd
HFCO-1224yd has been identified as being used in refrigerants from consultation. There is very limited
information on this HFO and no EC or CAS number is available; only Ashai Glass (Japan) manufactures
this HFO. According to the technical information from Ashai Glass (Ashai Glass, 2017) this HFO has a
GWP <1 and its physical properties are very close to HFC-245fa.

Figure 3-4: Structure of HFO-1244yd
Source: Ashai Glass (2017): Amolea® 1224yd Technical
Information. Available at: http://www.agcchemicals.com/file/AMOLEAyd_Tech_English_C.PDF

Table 3-7: HFO-1224yd summary
HFO substanceChemical formula

HFO-1224yd,(Z)-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1chloroprop-1-ene

C5F4HCl;(Z)-CHCl=CF-CF3

Other known
nomenclature
Amolea® 1224yd (Ashai
Glass); HFO-1224yd(Z)Source: Ashai Glass (2017): Amolea® 1224yd Technical Information.
chemicals.com/file/AMOLEAyd_Tech_English_C.PDF

Manufacturers
Ashai Glass

Available at: http://www.agc-

Other HFO substances that are used or likely to be used as refrigerants
From literature review, a number of other HFO substances have been identified with the potential to
be used as refrigerants which are summarised in the table overleaf. Two potential HFOs, 1225ye(Z)and 1243z had early expectations; however, due to unforeseen toxicity data they are no longer
favourable (Calm et al, 2012).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 11

Table 3-8: Other HFO substances that are used or likely to be used as refrigerants
HFO substance
HFO-1336mzz

Chemical formula
CF3CH=CHCF3

Other nomenclature
Opteon™
1100(Chemours);
HFO-1336mzz-Z;
HFO-1336mzz(Z)N/ARefrigeration use
May be used as arefrigerant on its own
from consultation. Used
as a blend (see Table 3-8)
HFO-1243zf
CF3CH=CH2
May be used, however
there may be toxicity
issuesHFO-1114
CF2=CH2
N/A
May be used
HFO-1216
CF3CF=CF2
N/A
May be used
HFO-1345czf
CF3CF2CH=CH2
N/A
May be used
Sources: Allgood (2015): New Generation of HFO refrigerants. Energy & Store Development Conference.
Availableat:https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/products/Opteon/Stationary_Refrigeration/assets/downl
oads/news/new-generation-hfo-refrigerants.pdf
Raabe et al (2012): Molecular modelling of fluoropropene refrigerants. J Phys. Chem. B., 116, pp 5744-5751
RAC (2014): DuPont has high hopes for new non-flammable refrigerant HFO 1336mzz. Available at:https://www.racplus.com/news/dupont-has-high-hopes-for-new-non-flammable-refrigerant-hfo1336mzz/8669689.article
World Meteorological Organisation (2010). Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. World Meteorological Organization, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United Nations Environment
Programme and the European Commission. Available at:https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/documents/Ozone-Assessment-2010complete.pdf

From consultation, HFO-1123 may also be used as a refrigerant. Ashai Glass were working on arefrigerant blend containing HFO-1123, however no more information is publically available (Ashai
Glass, 2014).

3.2.2 HFO blends
Blends containing HFOs have been identified from literature review as being used or likely to be used
as refrigerants. These blends typically consist of HFOs and HFCs and those that have been identified
are described in Table 3-8. Consultation has identified the key features of HFO blends which are
discussed below.
The main driving force for HFO blends are their lower GWPs in comparison to pure HFCs. HFO blends
are also used due to the advantages of pressure range, have a specific hot gas temperature, and arealso less flammable than pure HFO substances (although this is not a major factor compared with thelower GWP due to the C=C double bond). Compared to HFO/HFC blends, pure HFO substances arealso harder to manufacture and are also more costly.
HFO blends R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-452A are commercially available with R-448 and R-449
being the most widely used.1 There is also on-going research into blends, so the outlook and theblends available are continually evolving.

1

Blends of HFO/HFC or other substance are often referred to by ‘R’ which simply means refrigerant followed bya number depending on the nature of the blend. The ‘A’ after the number refers to it being a zeotropic
blend.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 12

Table 3-9: HFO blends that are used as refrigerants
Technical specifications
Tradenames
Honeywell Solstice® N40: 26% Solstice® N40 (R-448A)
HFC-32, 26% HFC-125, 21% HFC134a, 7% HFO-1234ze, 20% HFO1234yf
R-449A (HFO/HFC blend)
Chemours Opteon™ XP40: HFC- Opteon™ XP40 (R449A)
134a 25.7 wt%, HFC-1234yf 25.3
wt%, HFC-125 24.7 wt%, HFC-32
24.3 wt%
R-450A (HFO/HFC blend)
Honeywell Solstice® N13: 42% Solstice® N13 (R-450A)
HFC-134a and 58% HFO-1234ze
R-452A (HFO/HFC blend)
Chemours Opteon™ XP44: HFC-32 Opteon™ XP44 (R-452A)
11.0 wt%, HFC-125 59.0 wt%, HFO1234yf 30.0 wt.%
R-514A (HFO/other substance Chemours Opteon™ XP30: HFO- Opteon ™ XP30 (R-514A)
blend)
1336mzz(Z) 74.7 wt.%, trans-1-2dichloroethylene 25.3 wt.%
Sources:
Climalife(2017):
R-448A.
Availableat:
http://climalife.dehon.com/uploads/product/media/document/r-448a-fd-en-17.pdf
Chemours(2016):
Opteon™
XP40.
Availableat:https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/products/Opteon/Stationary_Refrigeration/assets/downl
oads/Opteon-XP40-R-404A-R-507-retrofit-guidelines.pdf
Honeywell (2017): Safety Data Sheet Honeywell Solstice® N13 Refrigerant (R-450A). Available at:https://msdsresource.honeywell.com/ehswww/hon/result/result_single.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=1&C001=MSDS&C997=
C100%3BE%2BC101%3BSDS_GB%2BC102%3BGB%2B1000&C100=*&C101=*&C102=*&C005=00000001641
7&C008=&C006=HON&C013=+
Chemours (2017): Safety Data Sheet Opteon™ XP44 (R-452A) Refrigerant.
Available at:https://www.3eonline.com/ImageServer/NewPdf/f27c114b-a3d0-496c-b514-cdf8fd0c29da/0123abfa-fad24dc9-b173-e9d4e5fae816.pdf
Chemours(2016):
Opteon™
XP30(R-514A)
Refrigerant.
Availableathttps://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/products/Opteon/Stationary_Refrigeration/assets/downl
oads/opteon-xp30-product-information.pdf
United Nations Environmental Program (2016): Lower-GWP Alternatives in Commercial and Transport
Refrigeration: An expanded compilation of propane, CO2, ammonia and HFO case studies. Available at:
http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/14880
HFO/HFC blend
R-448A (HFO/HFC blend)

HFO impurities
Consultation with an academic suggested that refrigerants are expected to have high purity and any
impurities present are likely to be other HFCs or HFOs. The important issue of potential impurity
release from factories that produce HFOs and the associated worker exposure and wider
environmental implications was also raised during this consultation.
Honeywell have indicated in their published literature that contamination of HFO-1234yf systems withvery low levels of HFC-134a and HFO-1225ye(Z) and unspecified fluorinated unsaturated alkene is an
issue. Honeywell recommends maintaining the generic 40 ppm limit for cumulative fluorinatedunsaturated alkene impurities, and a limit of 150 ppm for HFO-1225yeZ (Seeton and Wilson, 2010).
Further consultation with a manufacturer, indicated that under classification and labelling
requirements manufacturers have to label any classified impurity that exceeds 1000 ppm. If there isa CMR impurity present >1000 ppm then the substance has to be identified and labelled. They

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 13

indicated that the total impurities present in their products are <2000 ppm with the majority being
unreacted feedstock.
Overall, there is very little information about the identity of impurities in the academic literature andindustry literature, however, some insight is given in a published patent. This patent relates tomethods for removing halogenated ethylene impurities included in 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene(HFO-1234yf), 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene (HFO-1234ze) and 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propene(HFO-1233zd). The inventors unexpectedly found that the final HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze and HCFO1233zd products, which were obtained after the distillation of the aforementioned crude products,
still contained halogenated ethylene impurities. For example, HFO-1234yf obtained after thedehydrochlorination step contained halogenated ethylene impurities such as HFO-1141 (CH2=CHF),
HCFO-1140 (CH2=CHCl), and HCFO-1131 (CH2=CFCl and/or trans/cis-CHF=CHCl). These halogenatedethylene impurities can be present in the product stream in an amount as much as 0.1% by weight,
thereby reducing the concentration and purity. Moreover, it is well known that HCFO-1140 is a
carcinogenic agent and the toxicity of other halogenated ethylenes is unknown. From a toxicity
perspective, it is undesirable for these halogenated ethylenes to be present in the HFO-1234yf final
product. In addition, the presence of these halogenated ethylenes may cause detrimental impact on
the efficiency of the production of HFOs, such as HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze and HCFO-1233zd.
Therefore, there is a need for means by which these unsaturated impurities can be removed or atleast reduced from the HFO-1234yf product (United States Patent, Wang and Tung, 2016).
At present, other perfluorinated compounds like PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) and PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acid) have not been identified as impurities from the literature review andconsultation. Furthermore, consultation with a major manufacturer stated PFOS and PFOA cannot be
generated from the raw materials (chemically impossible) or any processes used during the
manufacture of HFOs. No information about the possible presence of PFBA in HFOs is publicallyavailable. This is the same case for HFO/HFC blends which also have a high level of purity.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 14

4 HFO emissions estimates - projected up to 2100
Overview
This section describes the projected emissions of HFO refrigerants in non-Article 5 and Article 5
countries up to 2100. MAC (mobile air conditioning) has the biggest emissions with HFO-1234yf onlyused in this sector; so for emissions it has been assumed that all HFO emissions will results in TFA(trifluoroacetic acid). It should be noted, that not all HFOs breakdown to only TFA. Two approaches
for emissions have been calculated, the BAU scenario and MIT-5.

Projected emissions
In the project brief, the sponsors of the project wished to see projected emissions through to 2100.
This created a challenge in that consumption could not be reliably forecasted by TEAP beyond 2050.
To deal with this, the authors, in conjunction with the sponsors, decided that two scenarios should bemodelled to characterise the post-2050 emissions options. The first was to consider an abrupt phaseout of HFOs in the RAC sector at 2050 (the phase-out scenario), thereby leaving any remaining
emissions to emanate from the bank of installed refrigerant over the period until the sequential
decommissioning took place at end-of-life. This was viewed as delivering the least ‘supply’ of HFOemissions into the environment while maintaining consistency with the TEAP data. The second option
was to freeze the consumption of HFOs into new equipment at the 2050 level for the next 50 years(the plateau scenario). This was seen as a relatively conservative assumption, since forecasting theacceptability of such a technology over such a long period is always fraught with uncertainty. Equally,
any forecast of on-going growth in consumption from 2050 would be speculative and unfounded.
Therefore, these two options were seen as realistic ‘bounds’ for the model.
In determining the decline in the installed bank of equipment, it was also important to assign average
life expectancies to each equipment type. Again, this was something partially addressed in the 2006
IPCC Emissions Reporting Guidelines, but expert judgement was viewed to be more appropriate owing
to the passage of time.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 15

4.2.1 Output from BAU scenarios up to 2050
The following table provides the form of output from the model for the non-A5 Business As Usualcase:
Table 4-1: Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions (BAU up to 2050)
HFO Annual Emissions (tonnes)
SectorScenario
Plateau
after
2050

Phaseout after
2050

Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total

EquipmentLife(years)
30
30
15
30

HFO
Allocation
(%)
50
20
50
50

Emissions
Rate/year
(%)
15
10
30
25

15

50

35

30
30
15
30

50
20
50
50

15
10
30
25

15

50

35

2025

2050

2075

2100

2,533
1,902
321
5,218

11,696
4,318
1,052
21,354

12,882
6.911
1,187
35,04013,1727,001
1.187
36,311

13,67623,650
2,533
1,902
321
5,218

42,25680,677
11,696
4,318
1,052
21,35447,376
103,396
2,260
1,265
0
5,756

47,376
105,047000013,67623,65042,25680,677

0
9,281

0
0

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 16

Graphical representations of the data in the table above are provided in the following figure:

TonnesNon-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(BAU to 2050, Plateau after 2050)
50,00045,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000
0Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary A/C
Mobile A/C

2025

2050

2075

2100

Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(BAU to 2050, Phase-out after 2050)
45,00040,00035,000Commercial

Tonnes

30,00025,000Industrial

20,000Transport

15,000Stationary A/C

10,000

Mobile A/C

5,000
0
2025

2050

2075

2100

Figure 4-1: Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions (BAU), plateau (top graph) and phase-out (bottom
graph) after 2050

Since the TEAP data only differentiated low-GWP refrigerants in the relevant tables, the authors
needed to make a further assessment of likely use of HFOs as part of the low-GWP ‘mix’. For example,
in the Industrial Refrigeration sector, it was expected that ammonia would be quite a dominant lowGWP refrigerant and that HFOs, based largely on cost and efficiency, would be less prevalent (in thiscase assumed at 20%). However, in other areas, the convenience of HFOs would likely make themmore popular, especially if charge sizes could be reduced without sacrificing efficiency. Under thesecircumstances, a default allocation of 50% was given, although these values can be adjusted in themodel for sensitivity purposes.
For Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, only contributions for non-Article 5 chave been calculated. This has beenused to show the example of the data contained within the TEAP report and how this data can beapplied for calculating HFO emissions.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 17

4.2.2 Output from MIT-5 scenarios up to 2050
The outputs for the MIT-5 scenario were seen as most relevant to this work for the reasons citedearlier (Section 2.6) and the following two tables and graphical representations illustrate the outputs
for both non-Article 5 and Article 5 using those assumptions:
Table 4-2: Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions (MIT-5 to 2050)
HFO Annual Emissions (tonnes)
SectorScenario
Plateau
after
2050

Phaseout after
2050

Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total

EquipmentLife(years)
30
30
15
30

HFO
Allocation
(%)
50
20
50
50

Emissions
Rate/year
(%)
15
10
30
25

15

50

35

30
30
15
30

50
20
50
50

15
10
30
25

15

50

35

2025

2050

2075

2100

3,129
1,909
421
32,963

15,336
4,329
1,256
149,354

16,2116,912
1,375
140,699

16,526
7,003
1,375
142,656

16,502
54,923
3,129
1,909
421
32,96358,365
228,641
15,336
4,329
1,256
149,354

67,025232,222
2,884
1,265
0
25,65367,025234,585000016,502
54,92358,365
228,641029,80200Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 18

Graphical representations of the data in the table above are provided in the following figure:

Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(MIT-5 to 2050, Plateau after 2050)
160,000
140,000

Tonnes120,000

Commercial

100,000

Industrial

80,000Transport

60,000Stationary A/C

40,000

Mobile A/C

20,000
0
2025

2050

2075

2100

Non-Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(MIT-5 to 2050, Phase-out after 2050)
160,000
140,000

Tonnes120,000

Commercial

100,000

Industrial

80,000Transport

60,000Stationary A/C

40,000

Mobile A/C

20,000
0
2025

2050

2075

2100

Figure 4-2: Non-Article 5 countries- HFO emissions (MIT-5), plateau (top graph) and phase-out (bottom
graph) after 2050

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 19

Table 4-3: Article 5 countries - HFO emissions (MIT-5)
HFO Annual Emissions (tonnes)
SectorScenario
Plateau

Phaseout

Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Stationary
A/C
Mobile A/C
Total

EquipmentLife(years)
30
30
15
30

HFO
Allocation
(%)
50
20
50
50

Emissions
Rate/year
(%)
20
15
30
30

15

50

40

30
30
15
30

50
20
50
50

20
15
35
30

15

50

40

2025

2050

2075

2100

2,085
5,833
92
13,491

169,169
20,223
4,287
564,598

237,429
32,197
6,412
411,646

238,51132,3986,412
400,868

3,227
24,728
2,085
5,833
92
13,491

120,305
860,582
169,169
20,223
4,287
546,598

189,288876,971
45,0816,070
088,365

189,288867,477
0
0
0
0

3,227
24,728120,305
860,5820139,51600Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 20

Graphical representations of the data in the table above are provided in the following figure:

Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(MIT-5 to 2050, Plateau after 2050)
600,000
500,000
Commercial

Tonnes400,000

Industrial
300,000

Transport

200,000

Stationary A/C

100,000

Mobile A/C

0
2025

2050

2075

2100

Article 5 countries - HFO emissions(MIT-5 to 2050, Phase-out after 2050)
600,000
500,000
Commercial

Tonnes400,000

Industrial
300,000

Transport
Stationary A/C

200,000

Mobile A/C

100,000
0
2025

2050

2075

2100

Figure 4-3: Article 5 countries - HFO emissions (MIT-5), plateau (top graph) and phase-out (bottom graph)after 2050

It can be seen by comparing these two tables that default emission factors have been considered to
be 5% higher for Article 5 countries, reflecting the fact that best practice usually permeates from thenon-A5 countries with something of a time-lag. Again, this is seen to promote a relatively conservativerisk assessment in the final analysis.

4.2.3 Discussion/comparison of the results from BAU and MIT-5 scenario up
to 2050
When comparing the BAU and MIT-5 outputs for the non-A5 contribution, it can be seen that the
major impact of the mitigation scenario is in the Stationary A/C sector, where emissions of low-GWP
refrigerants, including HFOs, are seen to climb steeply in the period to 2050. When adding the A5
contribution, the emissions could get to exceed 500,000 tonnes per year at their peak reflecting the
likely dominance of demand and consumption in what are now developing regions as their economies

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 21

mature and population factors become the key drivers. The distribution of these emissions is far fromcertain and may need closer monitoring over the coming years as the trends of the 21st century unfold.
While the modelled numbers are stated as they are calculated (i.e. to six significant figures in somecases), this should not be seen as a proxy for accuracy. The model has a number of approximations
and assumptions that need to be understood, one of which is the fact that the annual consumption
figures are linearly extrapolated between the five yearly data points provided by TEAP. Despite theselimitations, it is believed that this approach offers a sufficiently robust input to give confidence on the
outputs of any risk assessment conducted at global or regional level. The model would clearly notoffer much value in local assessments, where specific factors are likely to dominate.

The impact of ‘natural’ refrigerants on HFO consumption
When considering the future size of the market for HFO refrigerants in both domestic and commercial
implications, alternative refrigerant technologies need to be considered. The growth of alternativerefrigerant technologies will have a bearing on the predicted HFO consumption and emissions from
HFO-based technologies.
Natural refrigerants, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) (R-744) and hydrocarbons (R-290 (propane), R-1270(propylene), and R-600a (isobutane)) are witnessing a high rate of adoption by major superstore andfood retail chains in the European and North American regions.
The GWP of CO2 is 1, however, the challenge for CO2 is the high pressure needed for operation.
Therefore, engineering standards need to be high but this can be bypassed by using secondary circuit
systems in refrigeration. Hydrocarbons have a flammability issue and have a non-zero GWP but are
still very low compared to HFCs. Ammonia (R-717) is also a potential natural refrigerant with a GWP
of zero. However, there are toxicity issues associated with ammonia.
The number of CO2-based stores in the EU, Norway and Switzerland has tripled in the last 3 years andnow has 8% of the overall market share in the food retail market (see figure overleaf). Despite earlier
claims that there are no viable solutions for warmer climates, the number of new installations is
growing steeply in southern Europe also.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 22

Figure 4-1: Growth of CO2-based stores in the EU, Norway and Switzerland (estimate value for 2016)
Source: Jan Dusek, Shecco. Available at:
http://www.atmo.org/presentations/files/5907fb91732731493695377MIjnG.pdf

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 23

5 Chemical processes and degradation products
Chemical processes
The carbon double bond in HFOs (for example, see Figure 3-1,3-2 and 3-3) results in the reaction withatmospheric hydroxyl radicals being two orders of magnitude faster than with HFC-134a, which has acarbon to carbon single bond. This results in very short atmospheric lifetimes of a few days, whichmeans that these compounds have negligible GWPs. For example, the atmospheric lifetime of HFO1234yf is estimated to be approximately 6 days (Luecken et al, 2010) compared to HFC-134a with alifetime of 14 years (Solomon et al, 2016 and references therein). Moreover, as they contain no
bromine or chlorine atoms and are destroyed in the lower atmosphere, they do not contribute tostratospheric ozone depletion as seen with CFCs (Hansen et al, 2015). The atmospheric degradationof HFOs is discussed below.

5.1.1 Atmospheric dispersion and degradation mechanisms
The atmospheric dispersion of HFOs has been discussed extensively in the literature, with the primary
focus on HFO-1234yf. In the atmosphere, there are two decomposition pathways that HFO-1234yf
undergoes (Luecken et al, 2012; Russell et al, 2012):
Pathway 1, reaction with hydroxyl radicals (.OH), produces a 100% yield of trifluoroacetyl fluoride(CF3COF, TFF) whilst reaction with chlorine radicals (equation 2) produces a 92% yield of TFF.
CH₂=CFCF₃ + .OH  CF3COF + HCHO + H2O + XO2(1)

CH₂=CFCF₃ + Cl.  0.92CF3COF + 0.568*HC(O)Cl + 2XO2 + CO

(2)

There are also reactions with ozone (O3) and nitrate radical (NO3) although these are considered to beof minor importance (Henne et al, 2012b).
The products (intermediates) of pathway (1) are TFF and formaldehyde (HCHO) and pathway (2) TFF
and formyl chloride (HC(O)Cl). TFF then reacts rapidly with atmospheric moisture (H2O) to form
trifluoroacetic acid (CF3COOH, TFA):
CF3COF + H2O  CF3COOH + CO2 + HF

(3)The dominant degradation pathway of HFO-1234yf is via reaction with hydroxyl radicals with adetailed pathway presented below in Figure 5-1. The first step in the process is addition of .OH to one
or other of the carbon atoms attached to the double bond, this is the rate-determining step. This isfollowed by a series of oxidation reactions involving molecular oxygen and nitric oxide (NO) resulting
in the intermediates TFF and HCHO given in equation (1) above.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 24

Figure 5-1: Atmospheric degradation mechanism for HFO-1234yf
Source: Wallington et al (2014): Atmospheric chemistry of sort-chain haloolefins: Photochemical ozone
creation potentials (POCPs), global warming potentials (GWPs), and ozone depletion products (ODPs).
Chemosphere, 129, pp 135-141

The potential for formation of photochemical ozone at ground level is low for these compounds since
they have fewer or no carbon-hydrogen bonds than their alkyl equivalents and react slowly withatmospheric radicals. Papasavva et al discuss that HFO-1234yf also has the potential to form ozone
in the troposphere with a maximum averaged incremental reactivity of 0.267 g ozone/g VOC for theoverall atmospheric reactivity of the HFO (Papasavva et al, 2009). No photolysis of HFOs is also
expected in the troposphere (Gonzalez et al, 2016).

Degradation productsIntermediate degradation products are dependent of the type of HFO and include, CF3C(O)F (TFF),HCHO (formaldehyde), CF3C(O)H (trifluoroacetaldehyde) and HC(O)F (formyl fluoride) (Table 5-1)
(Hansen et al, 2015; Henne et al, 2012b).
For HFO-1234ze(E), the thermally unstable intermediates trifluoroacetaldehyde, CF3C(O)H and formyl
fluoride, HC(O)F do not exist for long in the environment with CF3C(O)H photolysed by sunlight in thelower atmosphere, giving it a lifetime of 4 days. It is removed four times as fast as it is formed from
HFO-1234ze(E) so cannot accumulate in the atmosphere. Formyl fluoride dissolves in environmental
water where it is rapidly hydrolysed to hydrofluoric acid, HF and formic acid, HC(O)OH.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 25

Table 5-1: Decomposition products of HFOs
HFO substance
HFO-1234yf

HFO-1234ze(E)Intermediate products
CF3C(O)F (trifluoroacetyl fluoride,
TFF), HCHO (formaldehyde)

Final products
CF3C(O)OH (trifluoroacetic acid,
TFA), CO2 (carbon dioxide), HF(hydrofluoric acid)
CO2, HC(O)OH (formic acid), HF

CF3C(O)H (trifluoroacetaldehyde),
HC(O)F (formyl fluoride)
HFO-1216
CF3C(O)F, COF2 (carbonyl fluoride) CF3C(O)OH, CO2, HF
HFO-1233zd(E)CF3C(O)F,HC(O)Cl,
HCl CO2, HF, HCl(hydrochloric acid), CF3CH=CHOH
HFO-1233zd(Z)CF3C(O)F,HC(O)Cl,
HCl, CO2, HF, HCl
CF3CH=CHOH
Source: Wallington et al (2014): Atmospheric chemistry of sort-chain haloolefins: Photochemical ozone
creation potentials (POCPs), global warming potentials (GWPs), and ozone depletion products (ODPs).
Chemosphere, 129, pp 135-141

Many studies such as those by Henne et al and Luecken et al, focus on TFA, see section below forfurther detail, when discussing degradation products of HFOs, namely HFO-1234yf, with only a minor
consideration of other decomposition products such as HF and formic acid (Henne et al, 2012a;
Luecken et al, 2010). HF and formic acid have large natural sources, for example, volcanic activity is asource of HF to atmosphere (Henne et al, 2012a). While HF might be a hazardous air pollutant, it ishighly soluble and rapidly dissolved in rainwater and will add very little to total fluoride flux in theenvironment. HF is a strong acid, however, as highlighted from consultation with an academic expert,
the buffering capacity of surface waters means HF is rapidly neutralised. Consequently, the amountof HF produced from current and expected future concentrations of HFCs and HFOs is also insignificant
with respect to acidification (Hansen et al, 2015).
There is also the potential that bothmonofluoroacetic acid and difluoroacetic acid may be produced from the degradation of HF (World
Metrological Organisation, 2010). Formic acid is ubiquitous in the gaseous atmosphere and, due toits solubility in water, is widely distributed in rain and cloud water (Chebbi and Carlier, 1996). The
final product CO₂ is a persistent greenhouse gas, however the contribution from this source isnegligible compared with the total CO₂ burden.
The final degradation products are dependent on the identity of the HFO (Table 4-1), with TFA themain decomposition product for HFO-1234yf and HFO-1216, discussed in further detail in the section
below (Wallington et al, 2014; Vollmer et al, 2015). Information from consultation indicates that HFO
blends may not result in different products compared to those of pure HFOs and HFCs, as they will besingle molecule reactions in the stratosphere. Incidentally, the breakdown of HFO-1234yf also resultsin the same decomposition products of the HFC it is replacing, HFC-134a (Minor et al, 2008).

5.2.1 TFA
A potential toxic by-product of the atmospheric degradation of HFOs is TFA which forms the maindegradation product of some HFOs, as mentioned in the above section (Hansen et al, 2015). Gaseous
TFA is rapidly partitioned into water droplets in the atmosphere and deposited on land and surface
waters via wet precipitation (rain, snow and fog). Due to TFA being a strong acid, it readily forms
trifluoroacetate salts (CF3COO-) with minerals in soil and surface waters.2 This results in accumulation
2

The stable form of TFA in the environment is the trifluoroacetate ion (CF3COO-) which will be combined withions such as sodium and calcium to form neutral salts. However, TFA is readily used as an abbreviation fortrifluoroacetic acid and its salts.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 26

in playas, salt lakes and oceans where it combines with cations such as calcium, sodium and potassium(UNEP Ozone Secretariat, 2015). It is generally regarded as environmentally stable in aerobic soil andsurface water though it may be co-metabolically degradable under anaerobic conditions (Russell et al,2012).
There are a number of anthropogenic and natural sources of TFA and TFA salts in the environment.
It’s a degradation product of several of the HCFCs, HFCs (Boutonnet et al, 1999) and HFOs, with theyield dependent on the identity of the compound. TFA is also widely used in the chemical industry
with the amounts being released to the environment highly uncertain; perfluorinated compounds andpharmaceutical products also contribute to TFA in the environment.
HFO-1234yf conversion to TFA is 1:1 on a molar and w/v basis, 100% molar yield, (Solomon et al, 2016
and references therein) which is a significantly higher yield than that of HFC-134a (Table 5-2) (Luecken
et al, 2010).
Table 5-2: Molar yields of TFA from the degradation of HFOs and HFCs
Compound
HFOs
trans-HFO-1234ze*
HFO-1234yf*

TFA molar yield (%)<10% (as cited by WMO, 2010) (Note: Wallington etal, 2014 states TFA not formed)
100% (as cited by WMO, 2010; Solomon et al, 2016
and references therein)

HFCs
HFC-134a

21% (as cited by Luecken et al, 2010)

HFC-227ea

100% (as cited by WMO, 2010)

HFC-245fa<10% (as cited by WMO, 2010)

HFC-365mfc<10% (as cited by WMO, 2010)

HFC-236fa<10% (as cited by WMO, 2010)

Sources: Luecken et al (2010): Ozone and TFA impacts in North America from degradation of 2,3,3,3Tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, pp
343–348
World Meteorological Organisation (2010): Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. World Meteorological Organization, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United Nations Environment
Programme
andtheEuropeanCommission.
Availableat:https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/documents/Ozone-Assessment-2010complete.pdf
Solomon et al (2016): Sources, fates, toxicity, and risks of trifluoroacetic acid and its salts: Relevance tosubstances regulated under the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health Part B., 19, pp 289-304(*Referenced as trans-HFC-1234ze and HFC-1234yf in WMO,2010 report)

The 2005 IPCC/TEAP assessment estimated that HFC-134a decomposition was responsible for the
production of 4,560 tonnes of TFA per year (IPCC/TEAP, 2005). The replacement of the current HFCs
by HFO is likely to increase TFA concentrations due to the higher TFA molar yields compared with HFC.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 27

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 28

6 Environmental impacts
Environmental compartments where TFA is found
TFA is found in a large number of environmental compartments summarised in the table below.
Residues of TFA have been observed in water and air samples from many locations (USA, Canada,
Australia, South Africa, Germany, Israel, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Finland, and China) and showthat TFA is a ubiquitous contaminant of the hydrosphere (Solomon, 2003).
Table 6-1: Environmental compartments where TFA is foundEnvironmental compartment

Inflow and outflow
Air
Formed in the air but rapidly partitioned to water
droplets
Clouds, rain, fog
Partitioning from air into water droplets
Soil
Inflow from dry or wet precipitation. Outflow via
runoff, soil water and groundwater
Oceans, salt lakes, and playas
Inflow only, loss of water by evaporation only
Vernal pools
Small pools formed in shallow depressions fromsnowmelt and/or spring rains. Outflow togroundwater and/or loss by evaporation
Streams and rivers
Inflow from snowmelt, glaciers, rain, runoff fromland, groundwater (springs), and water-treatment
facilities. Outflow to oceans, salt lakes, or playas
Wetlands
Inflow from snowmelt, glaciers, rain, runoff fromland, groundwater (springs), and water-treatment
facilities. Outflow to streams and rivers
Source: Solomon et al (2016): Sources, fates, toxicity, and risks of trifluoroacetic acid and its salts: Relevanceto substances regulated under the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health Part B., 19, pp 289-304

6.1.1 TFA in surface waters
In the atmosphere, a rapid partitioning of TFA into droplets of clouds, rain and fog occurs (Solomon etal, 2016). Wet precipitation (rain, snow and fog) is assumed to be the major source of TFA in thebiosphere, e. g. for Switzerland, it was calculated that wet deposition accounts for 96% of the annual
mass flux (Berg et al, 2000). TFA is found in rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands where inflow into
these water bodies occur from precipitation, glaciers, runoff from land, groundwater (springs) andwater-treatment facilities (Section 6.2.1 provides further details of concentrations found in rainwaterand snow, and surface waters in the environment). About one third of the overall TFA is dislocatedby rivers, which results in a considerable amount introduced in terrestrial environments where TFA issusceptible to leaching into the groundwater (Scheurer et al, 2017). A study indicated the TFA wasinfrequently detected in groundwater and the concentrations were low, ≥23 ng/L (Nielsen et al, 2001).
This is unexpected as TFA is poorly retained in soil and has large mobility but may be due to the slow
percolation into the groundwater samples that have been tested to date. Groundwater samples
collected in Beijing also had a low TFA concentration of 10 ng/L (Zhang et al, 2005).
Hydrothermal vents are suggested as one of the natural sources of TFA in the oceans with data
indicating that a large amount of the TFA salts in the ocean are from natural rather than anthropogenic
sources (Solomon et al, 2016). It has been suggested that more than 95% of the TFA salts found in theoceans are naturally produced (UNEP EEAP, 2014). Evidence suggests that TFA can be ‘evaporated’

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 29

from ocean surfaces into the atmosphere which includes mechanical transport as aerosol and also
vapourisation (EFCTC, 2016), although this is not indicated in Figure 6-1 of the water cycle below.
Subsequently, it is removed from the atmosphere via wet precipitation and deposited to oceans andland; dry deposition of TFA to land also occurs as stated in Table 6-1 above.
TFA in freshwaters is thought to be anthropogenic in nature with natural occurrence controversiallydiscussed. For example, TFA was not found in samples from older German and Swiss groundwater(Jordan and Frank, 1999; Berg et al, 2000). In another study, five samples of pre-industrial (>2000 yearold) freshwater from Greenland and Denmark were collected; there was no detectable TFA (<2 ng/L)
present in any of these samples (Nielsen et al, 2001). TFA in the atmosphere and precipitation isthought to be largely anthropogenic in nature with a study by Henne et al concluding that majorpresent day contributions of TFA in the atmosphere, precipitation and surface fresh waters isanthropogenic, originating from the atmospheric oxidation of HFCs (Henne et al, 2012b).
It has been postulated that high concentrations of TFA in rain positively correlate with the degree ofurbanisation/industrialisation in the catchment area (Scott et al, 2005b; Wang et al, 2014). However,Berg et al found no difference between precipitation samples collected in a densely populated
catchment close to the city of Zurich and those of a remote alpine sampling site (Berg et al, 2000).

6.1.2 TFA in soils
TFA is deposited to land (soil) via wet precipitation (wet deposition) and also dry precipitation (drydeposition) of TFA from the atmosphere to the land. Dry deposition appears to be minor incomparison with wet deposition with Berg et al calculating that wet deposition accounted for 96% of
the annual mass flux of TFA in Switzerland (Berg et al, 2000).
TFA forms salts with minerals in soil and although TFA is generally regarded as environmentally stable
in aerobic soil (Russell et al, 2012), retention is poor. However, soils with high levels of organic matter
have been shown to have a greater affinity for TFA when contrasted to soils with low levels of organic
matter. This appears to be an adsorption phenomenon, not irreversible binding. Therefore, TFA will
not be retained in soil, but will enter the aqueous environment such as rivers via surface runoff,
groundwater and ultimately terminal sinks such as oceans and salt lakes (Boutonnet et al, 1999).
Section 6.2.1 provides further details of concentrations of TFA found in soils in the environment.

6.1.3 Terminal sinks and hotspots
As seen in the figure below, TFA accumulates in playas, salt lakes and oceans (terminal sinks) where it
combines with cations such as calcium, sodium and potassium (UNEP Ozone Secretariat, 2015). In
these terminal sinks, inflow of water from rivers and streams occurs but no outflow is possible withloss of water by evaporation only (UNEP EEAP, 2015; Solomon et al, 2016).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 30

Figure 6-1: The fates of TFA and its salts in the environment
Source: Solomon et al (2016): Sources, fates, toxicity, and risks of trifluoroacetic acid and its salts: Relevanceto substances regulated under the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health Part B., 19, pp 289-304

A value of 200 ng a.e./L3 for the concentration of TFA salts is considered to be representative in theoceans. The estimated contribution from continued use of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs up to 2050 was
estimated to be a small fraction, 15.3 ng a.e./L, (<7.5%) of TFA present at the start of the millennium(UNEP EEAP, 2015). Some terminal sinks such as the Dead Sea have a concentration of 6,400 ng a.e./Lwith the large concentration here attributed to the collection of TFA salt over thousands of years,
before significant anthropogenic affects (Boutonnet et al, 1999). More detailed analysis ofconcentrations of TFA in water bodies globally and the environmental effects of this substance arepresented in Section 6.2.
Modelling studies have been conducted to determine the effects on TFA emissions if HFO-1234yf wasused in mobile air conditioning. One study which considered the replacement of HFO-1234yf with
HFC-134a as a cooling agent in mobile air conditioners predicted that about 30−40% of the European
HFO-1234yf emissions would be deposited as TFA within Europe, while the remaining fraction wasexported toward the Atlantic Ocean, Central Asia, Northern, and Tropical Africa. The largest annual
mean TFA concentrations in rainwater were simulated over the Mediterranean and Northern Africa,
with values up to 2500 ng/L, with maxima over the continent of about 2000 ng/L which occurred in
the Czech Republic and Southern Germany (Henne, 2012b). Another similar study modelled thepotential concentrations of TFA in terminal water bodies over extended periods if HFO-1234yf wasused in mobile air conditioners. After 50 years of continuous emissions, aquatic concentrations of
1,000-15,000 ng/L were predicted, with extremes of up to 50,000-200,000 ng/L in settings such as theSonoran Desert along the California/Arizona (USA) border (Russell et al, 2012).
Although TFA is a persistent toxic pollutant, it was estimated that if HFO-1234yf were used in place ofall HFC-134a that is currently in use, predicted concentrations of TFA in terminal water bodies is not

3

It is this salt form of TFA that is relevant to exposures in the environment. Where concentrations of salts were
measured as TFA acid, the abbreviation a.e. (acid equivalents) is used.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 31

expected to harm aquatic systems significantly, even considering potential emissions over extended
periods. While the environmental effects of TFA are considered to be negligible over the next few
decades, potential longer-term impacts could require future assessments due to the environmental
persistence of TFA and uncertainty in future uses of HFOs (Huret et al, 2014). A common consensus
is that more research is needed to fully understand the cycle of TFA in the atmosphere andhydrosphere and this has been highlighted as a gap in knowledge at present (Calm et al, 2012).

Environmental effects of TFA
The concentrations of TFA found in the environment are discussed below. They vary with the identityof the environmental compartment and the location, with the highest concentrations witnessed interminal water bodies.

6.2.1 Concentrations of TFA in the environment
Rainwater and snow
TFA concentrations in rainwater can be highly variable from one location to another. Measurements
in rain and snow in Switzerland have shown TFA levels from 3-1550 ng a.e./L (Berg et al, 2000). In a
study in Chile, Malawi, and Canada, ranges of concentrations of TFA in rainwater were 6-87, 4-15, and<0.5-350 ng a.e./L, respectively (Scott et al, 2005). TFA concentrations were measured in rainwater in
two cities in Japan with values in the range 29-76 ng a.e./L (Taniyasu et al, 2008). In Guangzhou, China(located in the Pearl River delta), concentrations of TFA in rainwater measured during April 2007March 2008 ranged from 46-974 ng a.e./L (Wang et al, 2014).
Soils
In terrestrial systems, the first points of contact of precipitation (rain, fog and snow) are vegetation,soil, and surface water. Once in contact with soil or surface water, TFA reacts with minerals to form
salts. Although TFA is generally regarded as environmentally stable in aerobic soil, retention is poor
(Russell et al, 2012). TFA will not be retained in soil and will enter the aqueous environment andultimately terminal water bodies (Boutonnet et al, 1999). The concentrations measured in soil are
relatively small with values in the range <0.0-1,400 ng a.e./kg dry weight (d.w.) of soil in Canada, inMalawi, <100-7,500 ng a.e./kg d.w.; in the UK, 850-5,000 ng a.e./kg d.w.; and in Chile 100–9,400 ng
a.e./kg d.w. (Solomon et al, 2016 and references therein).
Surface waters
As seen in the table below, concentrations of TFA measured in surface waters vary widely with locationand type of water body.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 32

Table 6-2: Concentrations of TFA in surface fresh waters
Location and type ofwater bodyNorthern California
Surface water

Yukon and Alaska
Surface waters
British Columbia
Surface waters
Germany
Rivers

Switzerland
RiversMidland lakes
Mountain lakes
Moor water
Drinking water
Beijing
Surface waters
Drinking water

Range ofconcentrations in
ng a.e./L

Reference

5-300

Cahill and Seiber (2000): Regional distribution of
trifluoroacetate in surface waters downwind of urban
areas in Northern California, U.S.A. Environmental
Science & Technology, 34, pp 2909–12;
Cahill et al (2001): Accumulation of trifluoroacetate inseasonal wetlands in California. Environmental Science &Technology, 35, pp 820–25

8-27

Cahill and Seiber (2000)

21-63

Cahill and Seiber (2000)

5,400-140,000

Scheurer et al (2017): Small, mobile, persistent:
Trifluoroacetate in the water cycle - Overlooked sources,
pathways, and consequences for drinking water supply.
Water Research, 126, pp 460-471

12-32837-20446-36059-17516-123

Berg et al (2000): Concentrations and mass fluxes ofchloroacetic acids and trifluoroacetic acid in rain andnatural waters in Switzerland. Environmental Science &Technology, 34, pp 2675–83

380-820
155

Zhai et al (2015): A 17-fold increase of trifluoroacetic acidin landscape waters of Beijing, China during the last
decade. Chemosphere, 129, pp 110–17. Samples taken in
2012; values had increased by 17-fold since previous
analyses in 2002 by Zeng et al. (2004): Determination of
trifluoroacetic acid in surface water of Beijing. Researcher
Environment Sciences, 17, pp 64–67

The Dead Sea (a salt lake) has a concentration of 6,400 ng a.e./L with the large concentration here
attributed to the collection of TFA salt over thousands of years, before significant anthropogenic
affects (Boutonnet et al, 1999). A modelling study predicted the potential concentrations of TFA in
terminal water bodies over extended periods if HFO-1234yf was used in mobile air conditioners. After
50 years of continuous emissions, aquatic concentrations of 1-15 µg/L (1,000-15,000 ng/L) werepredicted, with extremes of up to 50-200 µg/L (50,000-200,000 ng/L) in playas in the Sonoran Desert
along the California/Arizona (USA) border (Russell et al, 2012).
Drinking water
Exposure of humans to TFA salts via drinking water was based upon the World Health Organization(WHO) default for consumption of 2 L water per day in a 60 kg human (World Health Organization2008). The maximal concentration measured in drinking water and surface water was used as the
exposure concentration and NOEC from the rat (Boutonnet et al, 1999) was used as the toxicity value.
The margin of exposure (MoE) is calculated as 18,698,000 ng TFA salt/kg/day (normalised to the daily
dose in a 60 kg person). The value is deemed sufficiently conservative to be protective for othervertebrates in the environment (Solomon et al, 2016).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 33

Elevated concentrations of TFA of 5.4-140 µg/L were recently reported in Neckar River downstreamof Bad Wimpfen, in South-west Germany. These elevated levels of TFA led concentrations of greaterthan 20 µg/L in bank filtration based tap waters. The source of the discharge was identified as a
producer of inorganic and organic fluorinated chemicals. These values exceeded the German Federal
Environment Agency specified health-related indication value (HRIV) of 1 µg/L (now 3 µg/L) for TFA intap water. Upstream of the point of discharge the concentrations were much lower but TFA was stillpresent with concentrations around 1 µg/L (Scheurer et al, 2017).
Oceans
The concentrations of TFA in the Mid-Atlantic and the Southern Ocean off Elephant Island were all
close to 200 ng a.e./L at depths ranging from the surface to 4150 m. Those measured at various depths
in the Western and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic, and North and South Pacific were all ≤200 ng a.e./Land some were as low as 1 ng a.e./L. To conclude, a value of 200 ng a.e./L is considered to be a
representative value for TFA concentrations in the oceans (Solomon et al, 2016 and references
therein).
Acidification of freshwaters
A study by Wallington et al stated that the additional acidity in precipitation resulting from theatmospheric oxidation of HFOs will be negligible (Wallington et al, 2014) and no acidification of surface
waters and terminal water bodies will be witnessed. There have been no reports suggesting that TFA
lowers the pH of surface waters and consultation with an academic expert indicated that the buffering
capacity of surface water means TFA is rapidly neutralised. The pKa value of TFA is 0.23, making it amuch weaker acid than sulphuric acid, H2SO4 (pKa=-3) and will make negligible contribution to acidrain.

6.2.2 Toxicity of TFA
Playas and salt lakes (terminal sinks) contain more than the 35 g/L of salt found in the oceans. For
example, the Great Salt Lake in Utah has concentrations of salts that vary from 50 to 270 g/L. Thesetypes of environments are only habitable to a small number of organisms that are highly tolerant ofsalts (halophiles) (Solomon et al, 2016). Furthermore, information gathered from consultation andliterature indicates that other salts such as NaCl present in terminal sinks, namely playas and lakes,
are much higher in concentration than those of TFA salts and predicted to be for the foreseeable
future.
Regulatory activities
TFA classification, labelling and packaging
The table below summarises the self-classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) for trifluoroacetic
acid and sodium trifluoroacetate. Twenty three classification and labelling notifications list sodium
trifluoroacetate as Aquatic Acute 1 and Aquatic Chronic 1 whereas four notifications do not list aquatic
toxicity.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 34

Table 6-3: CLP classification of TFA
Hazard Class and Category CodeHazard Statement Code

Trifluoroacetic acid (CAS No. 76-05-1; EC No. 200-929-3)
H314
Skin Corr. 1A
Acute Tox. 4

H332

Aquatic Chronic 3

H412

Causes severe skin burns and eye
damageHarmful if inhaled
Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting
effects

Sodium trifluoroacetate (CAS No. 2923-18-4; EC No. 220-879-6)
Acute Tox. 2
H300

Fatal if swallowed

Aquatic Acute 1

H400

Very toxic to aquatic life

Aquatic Chronic 1

H410

Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting
effects
Sources: ECHA (2017):
Trifluoroacetic acid Classification and Labelling.
Available at:https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database/-/discli/details/47316
ECHA(2017):
Sodiumtrifluoroacetate
Classification
andLabelling.
Availableat:https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database/-/discli/details/72268

REACH registration dossier
However, ECHA (2017e) have requested that the lead registrant for TFA submit the requested
information, summarised below, in an updated registration dossier by 7 January 2021, except for the
information requested under point 1 for a sub-chronic toxicity study (90-day) which shall be submitted
in an updated registration dossier by 9 July 2018.
1. ‘Sub-chronic toxicity study (90-day), oral route (Annex IX, Section 8.6.2.; test method: EU
B.26./OECD TG 4O8) in rats with the registered substance adjusted to physiological pH;’The study records provided by the registrant does not provide the information required by Annex IX,
Section 8.6.2., because exposure duration is less than 90 days and not all tissues/organs are
histopathologically investigated and not necessarily with the same statistical power as a study
according to OECD TG 408 would require. Therefore, ECHA states that the information provided on
this endpoint for the registered substance in the technical dossier does not meet the information
requirement. Consequently, there is an information gap and it is necessary to provide information forthis endpoint.
2. ‘Pre-natal developmental toxicity study (Annex IX, Section 8.7.2.; test method: EU 8.3I./OECD
TG 414) in a first species (rat or rabbit), oral route with the registered substance adjusted tophysiological pH.’
ECHA highlight that the registrant provided study records for three non-guideline studies, that there
are methodological deficiencies in the studies and more specifically and these studies do not cover
key parameters of pre-natal developmental toxicity effects in vivo. Therefore, ECHA state that theindividual sources of information in the dossier do not provide the information required for thisendpoint.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 35

3. Pre-natal developmental toxicity study (Annex X, Section 8.7.2.; test method: EU 8.3I./OECD
TG 414) in a second species (rabbit or rat), oral route with the registered substance adjusted
to physiological pH;’
ECHA highlights that there is no information provided for a pre-natal developmental toxicity study ina second species. Therefore, the information provided on this endpoint for the registered substancein the technical dossier does not meet the information requirement. Consequently, there is an
information gap and it is necessary to provide information for this endpoint.
4. ‘Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (Annex X, Section 8.7.3.; test method:
EU 8.56./OECD TG 443) in rats, oral route with the registered substance adjusted tophysiological pH, specified as follows:- Ten weeks premating exposure duration for the parental (PO) generation;- Dose level setting shall aim to induce some toxicity at the highest dose level;- Cohort 1A (Reproductive toxicity);- Cohort 1B (Reproductive toxicity) without extension to mate the Cohort 18 animals to produce
the F2 generation.’
ECHA considers that there is not sufficient weight of evidence from several independent sources of
information which would allow to assume/conclude that the substance does not have a particulardangerous property, i.e. reproductive toxicity. Therefore, ECHA concludes that the information
provided on this endpoint for the registered substance in the technical dossier does not meet the
information requirement. Consequently, there is an information gap and it is necessary to provide
information for this endpoint.
5. ‘Identification of PNEC and risk characterisation (Annex I, Section 3.3.1. and 6.): revise PNECs
for freshwater, marine water, freshwater sediment and marine sediment using the study
giving rise to the highest concern according to Annex I, Section 3.1.5 and revise the risk
characterisation accordingly or provide a detailed justification for not using therecommendations of ECHA guidance in PNEC derivation.’
ECHA highlights issues with the way PNEC values have been calculated and the lead registrant has
been requested to revise PNECs for freshwater, marine water, freshwater sediment, marine sedimentusing the result giving rise to the highest concern, i.e. the NOEC of O.2 mg/L for Raphidocelis
subcapitata (formerly known as Selenastrum capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata).
6. ‘Exposure assessment and risk characterisation (Annex I, Sections 5. and 6.) for environment.
- Revise the exposure assessment to provide a detailed justification' including related risk
management measures, for using non-default release factor in the exposure estimation for
exposure scenarios ESl and ES2 or to apply default release factors according to ECHA Guidance
R.16.
- Revise the exposure assessment to apply a "fraction of the main source" of 100% for exposure
scenarios ES3, ES4 and ES6 in accordance with the recommendations of ECHA Guidance R.16
or to provide adequate justification for any deviation from these recommendations.
- The risk characterisation shall be revised accordingly.’
ECHA indicates that there is missing information on the risk management measures for manufactureof TFA on the plant (next words blocked out) and there are deviations on the assumed fraction used
at main source (i.e. annual use amount at a site).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 36

7. ‘Exposure assessment (Annex I, Section 5.1.1.) for human health: provide documentation for
the recommended personal protective equipment, i.e. hand and skin protection, respiratory
protection and eye/face protection;- specify the type of glove material, thickness and breakthrough times;- specify the filter type/class for the respiratory protective- specify the type and quality of protective clothing.’
ECHA highlights that specific detailed information on the recommended personal protective
equipment (PPE) is missing both from the CSR and from the information on safe use within the IUCLID
dossier. ECHA have requested the registrant provide more detailed information on the PPE above.
The updated REACH registration dossier for TFA will be available in 2021 and will address some of the
toxicity data that is inadequate or absent which is highlighted in the sections below.
Mammal toxicity
TFA salts are neutral, chemically unreactive, and there is no known specific receptor to which TFA salts
will bind to cause a biological response (Solomon et al, 2016). Potential for bioaccumulation of TFA
and its salts in mammals is highly unlikely due to the extremely low Log Kow (-0.2), it would be rapidly
eliminated via the kidneys into the urine. There has been some evidence of incorporation of TFA into
biomolecules with radiolabelled TFA being shown to bind covalently to proteins in blood of mammals(Boutonnet et al. 1999). However, TFA concentrations are not expected to rise in the food chain andtrophic magnification would not occur as TFA is covalently bound to macromolecules and would be
released during digestion and catabolism of these molecules (Solomon et al, 2016).
The acute oral NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) for TFA in rats is 250 mg a.e./kg body weight(b.w.) (Boutonnet et al. 1999). In mice, TFA exerted toxicity similar to that of hydrochloric acid. The
acute NOEC for the sodium salt of TFA in rats is ≥5000 mg/kg b.w. The 8-d chronic oral NOEL (No
Observed Effect Level) for the sodium salt of TFA in rats is 114 mg/kg b.w./d. For humans, thethreshold for respiratory irritation after a 1 min exposure is 0.25 mg a.e./L of air. Furthermore, no
carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity tests on TFA or its salts have been published and bacterial
assays for mutagenicity showed TFA salt was found to be inactive (Solomon et al, 2016).
Terrestrial toxicity
2-yr-old pine (Pinus ponderosa) seedlings were treated in fog chambers with TFA at concentrations of
150 and 10,000 ng a.e./L. They showed no adverse physiological, morphological, or photosynthetic
responses (Benesch and Gustin 2002).
The effect of sodium trifluoroacetate (NaTFA) in soil on seed germination and early plant growth ofsunflower (Helianthus annuus) and mung bean (Phaseolus aureus) was determined according to thetesting OECD 208 guideline (ECHA, 2017d). The EC504 for sunflower germination was 250 mg NaTFA/kg(208 mg TFA/kg) and for the mung bean was 770 mg NaTFA/kg. At the end of the test, 28 days after
the seeds were sown, the mean fresh weight of the sunflower shoots was significantly reduced at allconcentrations tested (at and above 1 mg/kg). Growth of mung bean was significantly reduced at andabove 10 mg/kg. Consequently, the sunflower was assigned a NOEC of <1 mg NaTFA/kg and mungbean NOEC = 1 mg NaTFA/kg dry soil.

4

The concentration that causes the measured effect in 50% of organisms.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 37

Some bioaccumulation has been seen in higher plants such as sunflower and wheat. This was related
to uptake with water and then concentration due to transpiration water loss (Tang et al, 1998 andreferences therein). Although uptake of TFA by plants has been shown, no measurements of theconcentrations of TFA in crops for human consumption, both raw and processed foods, have beenreported (Solomon et al. 2016).
From consultation with an academic expert, it was stated that even if rainwater with dissolved TFA
lands on the surface of a leaf, it is unlikely to result in adverse effects for the plant. However, it has
been noted in the literature that there is inadequate information on the toxicity of TFA and salts toterrestrial plants (Solomon et al, 2016). Therefore, doubts remain on whether increasing
concentrations in ecosystems may have implications for terrestrial plants.
There appears to be no published data for toxicity to soil macroorganisms except arthropods,
terrestrial arthropods and toxicity to birds or soil microorganisms. However, they would not be
expected to be significantly more toxic to other vertebrates than to mammals (Solomon et al, 2016).
Aquatic toxicity
TFA is not concentrated in lower aquatic-life forms such as bacteria, small invertebrates, oligochaete
worms, and some aquatic plants including Lemna gibba (duckweed). In acute toxicity tests no effectsof NaTFA (sodium trifluoroacetate) on water fleas (Daphnia magna) and zebra fish (Danio rerio) were
found at a concentration of 1200 mg/L (Berends et al, 1999).
A seven day study with duckweed (Lemna gibba) revealed an EC50 (frond increase) and EC50 (weightincrease) of 915 and 999 mg/L of TFA, respectively. In a 35 day outdoor aquatic microcosm study witha mixture of TFA salt and trichloroacetic acid, no marked effects were observed in aquatic plants,
Myriophyllum spicatum and Myriophyllum sibiricum (Hanson et al.2002).
Based on the results of five toxicity tests, Raphidocelis subcapitata (formally known as Selenastrum
capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) exhibited unique sensitivity with a NOEC of 0.12
mg/L (Tang et al, 1998; Russell et al, 2012). The current concentrations of TFA in natural surface
waters are almost 1000 times inferior (Dalang, 2010). However, this organism needs retesting toconfirm its sensitivity. Recovery of the growth of Raphidocelis subcapitata was found when TFA wasremoved from the test solutions; therefore TFA should be considered algistatic and not algicidal forthis species; the reason for the unique sensitivity of this strain is unknown (Tang et al, 1998). Algal
toxicity tests with NaTFA and Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus subspicatus, Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii, Dunaliella tertiolecta, Euglena gracilis, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Navicula pelliculosa,
Skeletonema costatum, Anabaena flos-aquae and Microcystis aeruginosa resulted in NOEC values
which were all higher than 100 mg/L (Berends et al, 1999).
To determine toxicity to microorganisms, the influence of NaTFA on the activated sludge was
evaluated. The respiration rate (oxygen consumption) of an aerobic activated sludge fed with astandard amount of synthetic sewage was measured in the presence of various concentrations of
NaTFA (10, 32, 100, 320 and 1000 mg/L) after an incubation period of 3 hours. The inhibition of thebacterial respiration activity was in the range of 3.2 to 9.7% for the test concentrations of 10 to 1000

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 38

mg/L. The maximum inhibition was 9.7% at a test concentration of 100 mg/L. However, the 3 hour
EC105, EC206 and EC50 could not be quantified (ECHA, 2017d).
There is no information in the literature on the potential toxicity effects of TFA on organisms found insalt lakes and playas. This is an issue as salt lakes are the most likely site for accumulation of TFA in
the natural environment (Solomon et al, 2016).
A summary for aquatic toxicity for different species and their associated NOEC, EC10, EC257 and EC50
values are given in the table overleaf.

5

The concentration that causes the measured effect in 10% of organisms

6

The concentration that causes the measured effect in 20% of organisms

7

The concentration that causes the measured effect in 25% of organisms

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 39

Table 6-4: Aquatic toxicity results for trifluoroacetic acid (TFAA) and sodium trifluoroacetate (NaTFA)
Aquatic organism

Testchemical

NOEC(mg/L)

EC10(mg/L)

EC25(mg/L)

EC50(mg/L)

Freshwater algae
Raphidocelis
subcapitataa

NaTFA

0.12

NA

NA

4.8

Euglena gracilis
Microcystis
aeruginosa
Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii
Scenedesmus
subspicatus
Navicula
pelliculosa
Aphanizomenon
flos-aquae
Chlorella vulgaris
Marine algae
Dunaliellatertiolecta
Phaeodactylum
tricornutum
Skeletonema
costatum
Aquatic plants
Myriophyllum
sibiricumb

NaTFA
NaTFA

112
117

NA
NA

NA
NA

>112
>117

Berends et al (1999):
Toxicityoftrifluoroacetate to aquaticorganisms.
Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., 18, pp1053–1059
Ref. as previous
Ref. as previous

NaTFA

120

NA

NA

>120

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

NA

NA

NA

>120

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

600

NA

NA

1,200

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

600

NA

NA

2,400

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

1,200

NA

NA

>1,200Ref. as previous

NaTFA

<124

NA

NA

>124

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

117

NA

NA

>117

Ref. as previous

NaTFA

2,400

NA

NA

>2,400Ref. as previous

TFAA

100

36.3

113.8

357.0

M. spicatumb
Lemna gibbac
L. gibba

TFAA
TFAA
NaTFA

30
100
300

41.8
192.8
NA

114.4
298.5
NA

312.9
618.3
1,100

Hanson et al (2004):
Haloacetic acids in theaquatic environment. Part
I. Macrophyte toxicity.
Environ. Pollut., 130, pp
371–383
Ref. as previous
Ref. as previous
Berends et al (1999):
Toxicityoftrifluoroacetate to aquaticorganisms.
Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., 18, pp1053–1059

Reference

Crustacea
Daphnia magna
NaTFA
1,200
NA
NA
>1,200Ref. as previous
Fish
Danio rerio
NaTFA
1,200
NA
NA
>1,200Ref. as previousaFormerly known as Selenastrum capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata; bEndpoint of wet
mass; cEndpoint of frond increase
TFAA=trifluoroacetic acid; TFA=trifluoroacetate; NA=not available

The table below summarises the PNEC (Predicted No-Effect Concentration) values for organisms in
different environmental compartments:

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 40

Table 6-5: Ecotoxicology summary for trifluoroacetic acidHazard for aquatic organisms
Hazard assessment conclusion
Freshwater
PNEC aqua (freshwater) = 1 mg/L
Marine water
PNEC aqua (marine water) = 0.1 mg/L
STPa
PNEC STP = 83.2 mg/L
Sediment (freshwater)
PNEC sediment (freshwater) = 4.22 mg/kg sediment dw b
Sediment (marine water)
PNEC sediment (marine water) = 0.422 mg/kg sediment dw
Hazard for air
Hazard assessment conclusion
Hazard for air
No hazard identified
Hazard for terrestrial organisms
Hazard assessment conclusion
Soil
PNEC soil = 4.7 µg/kg soil dw
Hazard for predators
Hazard assessment conclusion
Secondary poisoning
No potential for bioaccumulation
Source:ECHA(2017):
Trifluoroacetic
acid
registration
dossier.
Availableat:https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/5203/6/1
a
STP = Sewage treatment plant microorganisms; bdw = dry weight

Summary of TFA toxicity
Of the tested aquatic organisms, only the alga R. subcapitata displayed sensitivity to TFA, although
this needs to be confirmed by retesting. No published data for toxicity to soil macroorganisms except
arthropods, terrestrial arthropods, toxicity to birds or soil microorganisms have been identified. Thereis less than satisfactory information on the toxicity of TFA and salts to terrestrial plants, and no studies
have been reported for concentrations of TFA in crops for human consumption (Solomon et al. 2016).
Furthermore, there is no information on toxicity to organisms found in salt lakes and playas. This isparticularly important because salt lakes are the most likely site for accumulation of TFA in the naturalenvironment. However, these types of environments are only habitable to a small number oforganisms that are highly tolerant of salts (halophiles).
The estimated contribution of TFA to the oceans from the continued use of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs up
to 2050 was estimated to be a small fraction, 15.3 ng a.e./L, (<7.5%) of TFA present at the start of themillennium (UNEP EEAP, 2015). It has also been suggested that the additional acidity in precipitation
resulting from the atmospheric oxidation of HFOs will be negligible (Wallington et al, 2014). Evidence
gathered from the literature review, and from consultation with two academic experts, suggests thatcurrent and estimated concentrations of TFA and its salts in the environment resulting from thedegradation of HCFCs, HFCs and HFOs in the atmosphere do not present a risk to the environment.
However, due to the persistent nature of TFA, concentrations continue to rise in terminal sinks. It has
been suggested that increased monitoring of these terminal sink sites is required to develop a greater
understanding of the effect increasing concentrations of TFA may have on the environment.

Environmental effects of other decomposition products
Information gathered from consultation with two academic experts, suggests that the formation of
HF and formic acid from the atmospheric degradation of HFOs is not a significant issue for theenvironment and the same level of concern is not present as there is for TFA.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 41

Hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid
A major gap in knowledge identified during consultation was the lack of availability of data on the
stoichiometry/quantity of HF produced from HFOs. However, HF is still not expected to have any
effect on the environment.
Evidence from consultation with an academic expert indicated that HF is a strong acid, however, it is
rapidly neutralised due to the buffering capacity of water to give fluoride salts in the environment.
The additional acidity in precipitation resulting from the atmospheric oxidation of HFOs is expected tobe negligible (Wallington et al, 2014). Therefore, no acidification of surface waters and terminal water
bodies is expected.
HFOs/HCFOs will not be uniformly distributed in the atmosphere and hence the regional
concentrations of HF/HCl will be greater than the global average by perhaps an order of magnitude(i.e., 10-8-10-7 molar compared to global average of 10-9-10-8). The concentration of fluoride/chloride
produced from the degradation of HFOs will have a negligible effect on the total fluoride/chloride fluxin the environment.
Formic acid
The concentrations of formic acid produced from the degradation of HFOs are not known andinformation gathered about formic acid production was established from laboratory pathways.
However, concentrations are expected to be low and will have no impact on organisms; formic acid isa naturally occurring intermediate in the body and ubiquitous in the natural environment (Wallington
et al, 2014).
Carbonyl fluoride
Carbonyl fluoride is an intermediate formed during the degradation of some HFOs. Consultation withan academic expert, indicated that any intermediates produced from HFO degradation are very
reactive (short-lived) and will not be present in high concentrations. Furthermore, a major
manufacturer suggested during consultation that carbonyl fluoride produced from the degradation of
HFOs is not an issue as the substance is extremely short-lived and rapidly hydrolysed to HF (Tsai, 2005).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 42

7 Human health impacts
Hazards to human health
The effect of HFCs on human health has been studied and reported in the literature. Tsai (Tsai, 2005)
reports that due to the physiochemical properties of HFCs there is low toxicity to human health. For
example, for HFC-134a at an exposure level of 1000 ppm, there is NOAEL (No Observed Adverse EffectLevel) and no LOAEL (Local Observed Adverse Effect Level). Exposure to HFCs is reported by Tsai tooccur from the following activities:

Leaks or spills from the refrigeration system;
The electronic appliance recycling system; andCleaning and gas delivery pipelines.

It is also worth noting that Tsai reports there is very limited information in the literature for human
exposure to elevated HFC levels with only one study reporting moderate occupational exposure forshort periods. It was noted that repair works involving welding could lead to exposure todecomposition products.
For HFOs, there is a lack of available literature on human health hazards from exposure. Broad range
searches in PubMed resulted in no relevant studies, with Google Scholar also employed for identifying
relevant studies. Human health hazards for HFOs are addressed in material safety data sheets andstate they are asphyxiant in high concentrations and that contact with the evaporating liquid may leadto freezing of the skin or frostbite. Consultation has also confirmed that there is a lack of publicallyavailable information on the health effects of HFOs.
Under the ECHA CLP database, no health hazards have been identified for the HFO substances
registered under REACH. For the HFO substances registered under REACH, human health hazards
have been assessed and are summarised in the below table. From consultation, as part of theregistration process with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), companies arealso required to inform the US EPA what workers are exposed to.
Table 7-1: Hazard information from HFOs used as refrigerants
HFO substance
HFO-1234yf

Hazard to workers health
Considered to be low hazard for inhalation exposure, dermal exposureand eyes. No thresholds for the hazard have been identified
HFO-1234ze
No hazard has been identified for inhalation. The hazard is unknown fordermal and eye exposure
HFO-1233zd
No hazard has been identified for inhalation, dermal and eye exposure
Sources:
ECHA(2017):
Polyhaloalkene
registration
dossier.
Availableathttps://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16012
ECHA(2017):
HFO-1234ze
substance
information.
Availableat:https://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/substance-information//substanceinfo/100.104.972?_disssubsinfo_WAR_disssubsinfoportlet_backURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ech
a.europa.eu%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome%3Fp_p_id%3Ddisssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn2%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D7%26_disssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet_
sessionCriteriaId%3D
ECHA (2017): HCFO-1234zd substance information. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/substanceinformation/-/substanceinfo/100.149.148

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 43

HFO-1234yf health hazards
It is important to note, that ECHA have performed checks on the REACH dossier for HFO-1234yf andmade evaluation decisions. The decision to ask the applications to conduct a 90-day repeated acutetoxicity study in the rabbit by inhalation was annulled by the Board of Appeal (ECHA, 2013). ECHA in
2015 requested an updated Chemical Safety Report (CSR) with revised DNELs for workers and also a
revised exposure assessment for inhalation and risk characterisation for workers or to justify why
recommended assessment factors in DNEL derivation were not used (ECHA, 2015). Based on thesubstance evaluation on HFO-1234yf by Baua (Germany), more information on the mutagenicity ofthe substance has been requested (European Commission, 2015).
HFO-1234yf is presently not classified as acutely toxic and no acute Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) is
therefore appropriate. HFO-1234yf by inhalation exposure is poorly adsorbed, undergoes minimal
metabolism, and is rapidly cleared from the body; it will not bioaccumulate. In addition, no systemic
toxicity was observed in following repeated exposure and no genotoxicity was observed following invivo exposure. It is not considered an acute inhalation hazard based on an inhalation 4 hr LC50 (lethal
concentration that causes death in 50% of the subjects) of 400,000 ppm and the absence of cardiac
sensitisation at the highest concentration tested (120,000 ppm). For the worker DNEL systemic
exposure, the German MAK (Maximum Concentration at the Workplace) value of 950 mg/m3 (200ppm) is used (MAK Collection, 2015). For the MAK value, data was used from animal studies due tothe lack of human health data (ECHA, 2017a). Under the SNAP (Significant New Alternatives Policy)
program, HFO-1234yf for its approved uses does not have a significantly greater impact on humanhealth than the use of other available substitutes (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).
HFO-1234ze health hazards
As for HFO-1234yf, information on the health hazards from exposure to HFO-1234ze is limited. The
REACH dossier states that HFO-1234ze is poorly absorbed, will undergo minimal metabolism and will
be cleared rapidly from the body (ECHA, 2017b). HFO-1234ze has also been considered to pose no
greater overall risk to human health than other alternatives (US Environmental Protection Agency,2010).
HFO-1233zd health hazards
In the REACH dossier, no health hazards were identified (ECHA, 2017c) with the basis of the hazards
from a study on rats. US EPA lists the following possible side effects for this substance (USEnvironmental Protection Agency, 2014):






Serious eye irritation;
Skin irritation;
Frostbite;
Potential for central nervous system effects for example drowsiness and dizziness; andAsphyxiation in confined spaces

HFO blends health hazards
HFO blends have similar health hazards to that of the pure HFO substance. For example, HFO blend
R-452A (Opteon™ XP44) is listed in its safety data sheet as being an asphyxiant in high concentrations
and contact with the evaporating liquid can cause frostbite or freezing of the skin (BOC, 2014). HFO
blend R-448A (Solstice® N40) is also listed as a possible skin or eyes irritant, can cause frostbite, athigh concentrations can cause an irregular heartbeat and cause as asphyxiation in confined spaces.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 44

These effects are listed as being common for many refrigerants (US Environmental Protection Agency,2014).

Workers health and safety
7.2.1 Overview
Literature review and consultation have identified that manufacturing workers, refrigerant workers(such as technicians and repair workers) and recyclers may be potentially exposed to HFOs. Thissection describes the processes involved, risk management measures in place and elevated levels
and/or leaks of HFOs for workers’ health and safety. Information about ECHA’s comments on workers’
health for the REACH registration dossier is discussed in Section 7.1.

7.2.2 Manufacturing workers
Exposure
From consultation with a major HFO manufacturer, the production of HFOs is a closed process with alimited number of workers potentially exposed (process is illustrated in the below figure).

Figure 7-1: Production process for HFO-1234yf
Source: ICTT (2013): Upstream climate impacts from production of R-134A and R-1234yf refrigerants used in
mobile air conditioning systems. Available at: http://www.theicct.org/publications/upstream-climateimpacts-r-134a-and-r-1234yf

Workplace exposure is also monitored by independent hygiene specialists and also by use of sensors.
Workplace concentrations from air sampling performed by the manufacturer have resulted inconcentrations between 0 and 1 ppm (this is also required for registration with the US EPA). The
REACH dossiers also include information on the uses at industrial sites and by professional workers
which is summarised in the table overleaf.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 45

Table 7-2: Uses of HFOs at industrial sites (such as manufacturing workers)
HFO

Processes by professional workers and at industrial sites
PROC 8a: Transfer of substance or preparation (charging/discharging) from/tovessels/large containers at non-dedicated facilities;
PROC 8b: Transfer of substance or preparation (charging/discharging) from/tovessels/large containers at dedicated facilities; andPROC 9: Transfer of substance or preparation into small containers (dedicatedfilling line, including weighing)
HFO-1234ze
PROC 8a: Transfer of substance or preparation (charging/discharging) from/tovessels/large containers at non-dedicated facilities for the servicing of air
conditioning and refrigeration systems;
PROC 9: Transfer of substance or preparation into small containers (dedicatedfilling line, including weighing) for the manufacture of air conditioning andrefrigeration systems
HFO-1233zd
PROC 8a: Transfer of substance or preparation (charging/discharging) from/tovessels/large containers at non-dedicated facilities for the servicing of air
conditioning and refrigeration systems;
PROC 9: Transfer of substance or preparation into small containers (dedicatedfilling line, including weighing) for the manufacture of air conditioning andrefrigeration systems
Sources:
ECHA(2017):
Polyhaloalkene
registration
dossier.
Availableat:https://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16012
ECHA(2017):
HFO-1234ze
Substance
Information.
Availableat:https://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/substance-information//substanceinfo/100.104.972?_disssubsinfo_WAR_disssubsinfoportlet_backURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ech
a.europa.eu%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome%3Fp_p_id%3Ddisssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn2%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D7%26_disssimplesearchhomepage_WAR_disssearchportlet_
sessionCriteriaId%3D
ECHA (2017): HCFO-1234zd Substance Information. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/substanceinformation/-/substanceinfo/100.149.148
HFO-1234yf

Occupational exposure levels (OELs) have been set by the Workplace Environment Exposure Level(WEEL) committee with an OEL of 800 ppm (400 ppm for an 8 hour time weighted average) for HFOs
generally and for HFO-1234ze, the OEL is 1000 ppm.

7.2.3 Refrigerant workers
An association confirmed that HFOs and HFO/HFC blends have been evaluated as alternativerefrigerants with GWP in accordance with F-gas requirements and are subject to F-gas Regulations.
Refrigerant workers (such as refrigerant manufacturers and repair technicians) also need to beconsidered for workers’ health and safety for HFO refrigerants.
Under both the ODS and F-gas regulation in the EU, technicians need to undergo training andcertification. For handling HFOs, under the F-gas regulation:In Annex II of the 2014 F-Gas Regulation Lists the familiar HFOs and notes that they are subject toreporting under Article 19;
The text on Containment (Article 3), Leak Checks (Article 4) and Leak Detection Systems (Article 5)
all refer to ‘fluorinated greenhouse gases’; andIn Article 10 on Training and Certification relates to Equipment types (as listed in Article 4(2)) not
refrigerant types. Hence, engineers need to be certified irrespective of the refrigerant type.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 46

For stationary refrigeration and air conditioning, this is required for installation, leakage checking,
maintenance or servicing, refrigerant recovery and decommissioning (Gluckman Consulting, 2016a).
For mobile air conditioning (MAC), all technicians that are involved in F-gas recovery which is defined
under the scope of the MAC directive are required to undergo training (Gluckman Consulting, 2016b).
In the United States, refrigerant technicians are also required to undergo certification for mobile air
conditioning applications (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017).
The Federation of Environmental Trade Associations (FETA) also supplies general guidelines forrefrigerant technicians (FETA, 2015). Technicians who perform work for stationary RACHP(Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps) systems must possess an F-gas handling certificate.
The work area should also be well ventilated with fans or blowers used in confined areas for thedispersion of vapours, the available oxygen in the area should be tested (not using a leak monitor),
and an A2L (mildly flammable refrigerants) flammable rated refrigerant leakage detector andequipment for monitoring oxygen should be installed in the work areas.
For maintenance and end-of-life recovery, consultation indicated that for recovery of refrigerants(used in closed high pressure systems), minimising the workers exposure to below the OEL, theprocess is as follows:






Special equipment is connected to the recovery cylinder;
The valve is opened;
The material is recovered;
The valve is closed; andThe recovered material is taken away

In the case of HFO-1234yf, in the REACH registration dossier (ECHA, 2017a) worker activity related to
installation, servicing and maintenance is covered by the exposure scenarios which are used forindustrial workers (for example, see Table 7-2).
Recycling and reclamation workers
Recycling and reclamation workers also need to undergo relevant F-gas training. From consultation
with a reclaimer, if the recovered refrigerant material is not suitable for re-processing, the materialmust be treated at an approved waste treatment facility. This would typically involve hightemperature incineration with scrubbing and neutralisation controls to reduce exposure for workers
and the environment (the use of a wet scrubber typically has a 50-70% efficiency for reducing exposure
to the environment from the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) RMM library) (Cefic,
undated).

7.2.4 Risk management measures
Risk Management Measures (RMM) have been discussed in Section 7.1 for manufacturing andrefrigeration workers in terms of the process involved, for example the use of closed systems andtraining.
As well as the use of closed processes, other engineering measures and the use of Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) is recommended for workers handling HFOs. These are discussed in following tables
and where appropriate the efficiency of the measures to reduce workplace exposure has been
analysed using the Cefic RMM library (Cefic, undated).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 47

Table 7-3: HFO-1234yf risk reduction measures
Details
Use highly effective exhaust
ventilation
Wear
suitable
respiratory
equipment (meets EN 136, 140,
149 standards) if ventilation is
insufficient

MeasureEngineering measure
Respiratory protection

Hand protection

Wear suitable gloves (EN 374
standard) and use heatinsulating gloves

Eye protection
Skin and body protection

Wear googles (EN 166 standard)
Wear suitable personal protection
equipment

Protective measures

Efficiency
Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) has
an 80% inhalation efficiency
Full face masks (EN 136) can havean inhalation efficiency of 7597.5% depending on mask chosen;
Half face masks (EN 140): 75-95%
can have an inhalation efficiencyof 75-95% depending on mask
chosenN/A (The efficiency for chemical
resistant gloves is expressed in
duration of protection before
permeation occurs; no data isavailable for HFOs)
N/A
N/A (The efficiency for chemical
resistant clothing, boots isexpressedindurationofprotection before permeation
occurs)N/A

PPE to be used. Protective suitmust meet standards
EN 340, 463, 468, 943-1, 943-2.
Safety shoes must meet EN-ISO
20345 standard
Sources:
Cefic(undated):
RMM
Library.
Available
at:www.cefic.org/Documents/...and.../Risk%20Management%20Measures%20(RMM).xls
ECHA(2017a):Polyhaloalkene
registration
dossier.
Availableat:https://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16012
Honeywell (2017):
Solstice® yf Refrigerant (R-1234y).
Available at: http://msdsresource.honeywell.com/ehswww/hon/result/result_single_main.jsp?C001=MSDS&C102=GB&C101=SDS_G
B&C100=E&P_LANGU=E&C013=&C997=C100;E%2BC101;SDS_GB%2BC102;GB%2B1000&P_SYS=1&C008=&
C006=HON&C005=000000011078&

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 48

Table 7-4: HFO-1234ze risk reduction measures
MeasureEngineering measure

Details
Use local exhaust ventilation

Respiratory protection

Wearsuitable
respiratory
equipment(positive-pressure
suppliedairrespirator)
if
ventilation is insufficient

Hand protection

Use heat insulating gloves (Viton)

Efficiency
Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) has
an 80% inhalation efficiency
Inhalation efficiency of 90-95%
depending on mask chosen

N/A (The efficiency for chemical
resistant gloves is expressed in
duration of protection before
permeation occurs; no data isavailable for HFOs)
Eye protection
Wear googles
N/A
Skin and body protection
Wear impervious clothing (cold N/A (The efficiency for chemical
insulating gloves/faceresistant clothing, boots isshield/eye protection)
expressedindurationofprotection before permeation
occurs)
Sources:
Cefic(undated):
RMM
Library.
Available
at:www.cefic.org/Documents/...and.../Risk%20Management%20Measures%20(RMM).xls
ECHA (2017): HFO-1234ze registration dossier. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/registrationdossier/registered-dossier/15736/

Table 7-5: HFO-1233zd risk reduction measures
MeasureEngineering measure

Respiratory protection

Details
Use local exhaust ventilation;
perform filling operations only atstations with exhaust ventilation
facilities
Wear
suitable
respiratory
equipment if ventilation is
insufficient

Efficiency
Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) has
an 80% inhalation efficiency in
reducing exposure

Respiratory equipment can havean inhalation efficiency of 75%97.5% depending on equipment
chosenHand protection
Use gloves (Viton (R) Vitoject 890) N/A (The efficiency for chemical
resistant gloves is expressed in
duration of protection before
permeation occurs; no data isavailable for HFOs)
Eye protection
Wear googles
N/A
Skin and body protection
Use protective footwear
N/A
Sources:
Cefic(undated):
RMM
Library.
Available
at:www.cefic.org/Documents/...and.../Risk%20Management%20Measures%20(RMM).xls
ECHA (2017): HFO-1233zd registration dossier. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier//registered-dossier/10762/1
Honeywell Refrigerants (2017):
Solstice® zd.
Available at https://www.honeywellrefrigerants.com/americas/product/solstice-zd/

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 49

Table 7-6: HFO blends risk reducing measures (HFO blend 452A)
MeasureEngineering measure

Respiratory protection
Hand protection

Eye protection

Details
Consider the use of a work permit
system;ensureadequate
ventilation; check pressurised
systems for leaks; use permanentleak tight connections; use oxygen
detectors
Not required
Use gloves (EN 388 standard)

Use Safety eyewear, goggles orface shield (EN166 standard)

Efficiency
N/A

N/A
N/A (The efficiency for chemical
resistant gloves is expressed in
duration of protection before
permeation occurs; no data isavailable for HFOs)
N/ASkin and body protection
Use protective footwear
N/A
Sources:
BOC(2014):
SafetyData
Sheet
OpteonXP
44.
https://www.boconline.co.uk/internet.lg.lg.gbr/en/images/Refrigerant-R-452A-XP4410022546410_139210.pdf?v=3.0

Available

at:

7.2.5 Accidental release and elevated levels and/or leaks of HFOs
The literature review has identified a lack of available studies on workers’ health to elevated levels of
HFOs. The main source of information has been REACH registration dossiers and material safety data
sheets which discuss accidental release measures for accident release and/or leaks of HFOs. No
studies have been identified from literature review and consultation for the effect to human healthfrom elevated HFO levels and/or HFO exposure. For leakages, levels of a maximum of 1 ppm havebeen measured at pipes (source of leakage) by an HFO manufacturer.
Accidental release measures recommendations are as follows for HFO-1234yf (ECHA, 2017a,
Honeywell 2017):








Full protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus are to be used;
People are to be kept away from the leak/spill and also upwind of the leak/spill;
The area of the leak/spill is to be ventilated;
For cleaning the leak/spill explosion-proof electrical equipment and/or low sparking hand tools
should be used and the leak/spill allowed to evaporate;
Prevent the substance from entering drains;
Pay attention to the spreading of the gas particularly at ground level and also pay attention to thewind direction; andInform the responsible authorities if there is a gas leakage, entry into soil or drains or entry into
waterways.

DuPont (DuPont, 2012) also recommend that for leaks, nearby electricity sources may produce anundesirable spark and that power should be interrupted at a remote location from the leak. For areas
where leaks occur, mechanical ventilation should be provided.
From information gathered during consultation with a manufacturer, established guidelines based on
industrial hygiene regulations, for example, the guidelines of the European Agency for Safety and
Health at work, are followed for accidental release or leaks. Furthermore, the consultation revealed

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 50

that workers are exposed to HFO levels far below the OELs and if a worker was exposed to levels above
the OEL they would be taken out of the process and given sufficient ventilation and aspiration.
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze also have available refrigeration concentration levels of 0.058 kg/m3 and0.061 kg/m3 respectively; a Quantity Limit with Minimal Ventilation (QLMV) of 0.060 kg/m3 and 0.063
kg/m3 respectively; and a Quantity Limit with Adequate Ventilation (QLAV) of 0.14 kg/m3 and kg/m3
respectively (FETA, 2015).

7.2.6 Fire/explosion products and impact on workers’ health and safety
The fire/explosion products for HFOs and HFO/HFC blends that have been identified as being used as
refrigerants are summarised in the table overleaf. Generally, the decomposition products are as
follows (note these equations are not balanced and are shown for clarity):
C3H2F4 (HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze)  COF2 + COx + HF + others(1)

C3H2F3Cl (HFO-1233zd)  CO + CO2 + -C(=O) X (X=halide) +HCl +HF(2)

HFO blends (C3H2F4 based)  COx + HF + COF2 + CxFy

(3)

where COF2 is carbonyl fluoride; COx is carbon oxides; CO is carbon monoxide; HF is hydrogen fluoride;
C(=O) X are carbonyl halides; HCl is hydrochloric acid; and CxFy are fluorocarbons.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 51

Table 7-7: Thermal (fire/explosion) decomposition products of HFOs
HFO

Decomposition products
Carbonyl fluoride (COF2), carbon oxides (COx),
hydrogen fluoride (HF), fluoride pyrolysis products
HFO-1234ze
Carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO 2),
carbonyl halides, hydrogen halides and pyrolysis
products that contain fluorine
HFO-1233zd
Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonyl
halides, gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl) andgaseous hydrogen fluoride
Blends (HFO-1234yf based blends)
Carbon oxides, fluorocarbons, hydrogen fluoride andcarbonyl difluoride
Sources:
BOC(2014):
SafetyData
Sheet
OpteonXP
44.
Availableat:https://www.boconline.co.uk/internet.lg.lg.gbr/en/images/Refrigerant-R-452A-XP4410022546410_139210.pdf?v=3.0
BOC(2015):
SafetyData
Sheet
OpteonXP
40.
Availableat:https://www.boconline.co.uk/internet.lg.lg.gbr/en/images/Refrigerant-R449A10022608410_168682.pdf?v=4.0
ECHA (2017): HCFO-1234zd registration dossier. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier//registered-dossier/10762
ECHA(2017):
Polyhaloalkene
registration
dossier.
Availableathttps://www.echa.europa.eu/web/guest/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16012
Honeywell (2017):
Solstice® yf Refrigerant (R-1234y).
Available at: http://msdsresource.honeywell.com/ehswww/hon/result/result_single_main.jsp?C001=MSDS&C102=GB&C101=SDS_G
B&C100=E&P_LANGU=E&C013=&C997=C100;E%2BC101;SDS_GB%2BC102;GB%2B1000&P_SYS=1&C008=&
C006=HON&C005=000000011078&
Honeywell (2017):
Solstice® ze Refrigerant Safety Data Sheet.
Available at https://msdsresource.honeywell.com/ehswww/hon/result/result_single.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=1&C001=MSDS&C997=
C100%3BE%2BC101%3BSDS_GB%2BC102%3BGB%2B1000&C100=*&C101=*&C102=*&C005=00000001609
5&C008=&C006=HON&C013=+
HFO-1234yf

Carbonyl fluoride (COF2) is a toxic gas that can be very toxic through inhalation, can cause severe burns
and eye damage, and causes damage to organs (PubChem, undated). Carbonyl fluoride is alsohydrolysed to hydrogen fluoride (HF) which can be toxic by inhalation (Tsai, 2005). Carbonyl fluorideis short lived; however, exposure could still occur.
Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is an extremely toxic gas and exposure can occur via the inhalation or dermalroute. Dermal contact occurs mainly in an occupational setting) and can cause severe skin burns,
whilst exposure to high levels can cause lung and heart damage and in extreme cases, death (SEPA,
undated). Tests performed by JRC (Joint Research Centre, 2014) found no HF above concentrationsof 1 ppm at high ignition temperatures in refrigerant release tests. Greenpeace in their HFO position
paper (Greenpeace, 2016) have also expressed concern over the potential formation of HF from the
combustion of HFOs. Further information on HF and its environmental effects are discussed in section
6.3.
DuPont (DuPont, 2012) state that for HFO-1234yf, fire or explosion may occur if the concentration ofvapour in the air are within the flammable range of the substance and an adequate energy level
ignition source is available (potential ignition sources should be kept away from equipment with HFO1234yf) and also HFO-1234yf should not mixed with air, oxygen or other oxidisers above atmosphericpressure. HFO-1234yf also has an auto ignition temperature of 405 oC (DuPont, 2012).
The JRC of the European Commission has studied the ignition of HFO-1234yf refrigerants in vehicles(Joint Research Centre, 2014). No refrigerant ignitions occurred at high engine compartment

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 52

temperatures and refrigerant ignition only occurred at extreme conditions and involved combining
elements that were unlikely to occur. JRC also discuss results from a report by KBA (Kraftfahrt
Bundesamt) and other studies where refrigerant ignition only occurred above 700 oC. Fromconsultation, in the case of combustion there is also convection which would result in combustion
going up into the air whilst HFO emissions in fires have not been measured.
Following on from this, the combustion of HFO-1234yf has recently been studied (Magnusson et al,2016) in small scale laboratory combustion experiments. From the combustion experiments, almost
a quarter to half of the HFO-1234yf remained unreacted, with carbonyl fluoride, carbon dioxide,hydrogen fluoride and water the major combustion products. Saturated and unsaturated
fluorocarbons were also emission products at lower concentrations. The full list of products formed
and their concentrations are listed in the below table.
Table 7-8: Combustion products of HFO-1234yf
Chemical formula
Chemical Compound
Emission factor [mg/g fuel]HFO-1234yf
220-480
Carbonyl fluoride
COF2
170-360
Carbon dioxide
CO2120-320
Hydrogen fluoride
HF
70-240Water
H2O
60-170Carbon monoxide
CO5-80
Hexafluoroethane
C2F6
15-33
Tetrafluoromethane
CF4
6-24
1,1-Difluoroethene
C2F2H
2.4-6.6
Trifluoromethyl acetylene
C2F3H
0.2-2
Pentafluoroethane
C2F5H
0.6-1.6
Trifluoromethane
CF3H
0.6-1.4
Fluoroethene
C2FH3
0.5-1.2
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
C2F4H2
0.7-1.1
1,1,2,2,2-Pentafluro-1-propene
C3F5H
0.2-1
Octafluoropropane
C3F8
0.3-0.9
Tetrafluoroethene
C2F4
0.2-0.8
Trifluoroethene
C2F3H
0.2-0.5
1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane
C3F6
0.2-0.4
3,3,3-Trifluropropene
C3F3H30.1-0.4
Hexafluoropropene
C3F6
0.04-0.3
Acetylene
C2H2
0.08-0.27
Bis(trifluoromethyl)acetylene
C4F6
0.03-0.2
1,1,1-Trifluoroethane
C2F3H30.04-0.08
1,2-Difluoroethene
C2F2H2<0.06
Non identified compounds (six 2.5-3.9
non identified compounds)
Source: Magnusson, R. et al (2016): Identification and brief toxicological assessment of combustion productsoftherefrigerant
HFO-1234yf.
Availableat:https://www.tolycka.se/index.php/files/17/Bilbraender/401/foir4285.pdf

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 53

8 Risk assessment
Overview
This section describes the results of the risk assessment performed for HFO refrigerant use up to theyear 2100, using the projected emissions from the MIT-5 approach (Section 4). As part of this section,
the inputs/outputs for the EUSES model are described and the assumptions that have been made forthe model are discussed. TFA has been modelled as the decomposition product of HFO-1234yf. The
results and conclusions are also discussed.
It should be noted that TFA is a REACH registered substance with a harmonised CLP classification as
indicated below:
Table 8-1: CLP classification of TFA
Hazard Class and Category
Code
Skin Corrosive 1A
Acute Toxic 4
Aquatic Chronic 3

Hazard Statement
Code
H314
H332
H412

Hazard Statement language
Causes severe skin burns and eye damage
Harmful if inhaled
Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects

However, ECHA (2017e) have requested that the lead registrant for TFA to submit requested
information, which is summarised below, in an updated registration dossier by 7 January 2021, except
for the information requested under point 1 for a sub-chronic toxicity study (90-day) which shall be
submitted in an updated registration dossier by 9 July 2018.
1. ‘Sub-chronic toxicity study (90-day), oral route (Annex IX, Section 8.6.2.; test method: EU
B.26./OECD TG 408) in rats with the registered substance adjusted to physiological pH;’The study records, provided by the registrant does not provide the information required by Annex
IX,Section 8.6.2., because exposure duration is less than 90 days and not all tissues/organs are
histopathologically investigated and would not necessarily have the same statistical power as a study
according to OECD TG 408 would require. Therefore, ECHA states that the information provided on
this endpoint for the registered substance in the technical dossier does not meet the information
requirement. Consequently, there is an information gap and it is necessary to provide information forthis endpoint.
2. ‘Pre-natal developmental toxicity study (Annex IX, Section 8.7.2.; test method: EU 8.3I./OECD
TG 414) in a first species (rat or rabbit), oral route with the registered substance adjusted tophysiological pH.’
ECHA highlight that the registrant provided study records for three non-guideline studies, that there
are methodological deficiencies in the studies and more specifically and these studies do not cover
key parameters of pre-natal developmental toxicity effects in vivo. Therefore, ECHA states that theindividual sources of information in the dossier do not provide the information required for thisendpoint.
3. Pre-natal developmental toxicity study (Annex X, Section 8.7.2.; test method: EU 8.3I./OECD
TG 414) in a second species (rabbit or rat), oral route with the registered substance adjusted
to physiological pH;’

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 54

ECHA highlights that there is no information provided for a pre-natal developmental toxicity study ina second species. Therefore, the information provided on this endpoint for the registered substancein the technical dossier does not meet the information requirement. Consequently, there is an
information gap and it is necessary to provide information for this endpoint.
4. ‘Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (Annex X, Section 8.7.3.; test method:
EU 8.56./OECD TG 443) in rats, oral route with the registered substance adjusted tophysiological pH, specified as follows:- Ten weeks premating exposure duration for the parental (PO) generation;- Dose level setting shall aim to induce some toxicity at the highest dose level;- Cohort 1A (Reproductive toxicity);- Cohort 1B (Reproductive toxicity) without extension to mate the Cohort 18 animals to produce
the F2 generation.’
ECHA considers that there is not sufficient weight of evidence from several independent sources of
information which would allow it to assume/conclude that the substance does not have a particulardangerous property, i.e. reproductive toxicity. Therefore, ECHA concludes that the information
provided on this endpoint for the registered substance in the technical dossier does not meet the
information requirement. Consequently, there is an information gap and it is necessary to provide
information for this endpoint.
5. ‘Identification of PNEC and risk characterisation (Annex I, Section 3.3.1. and 6.): revise PNECs
for freshwater, marine water, freshwater sediment and marine sediment using the study
giving rise to the highest concern according to Annex I, Section 3.1.5 and revise the risk
characterisation accordingly or provide a detailed justification for not using therecommendations of ECHA guidance in PNEC derivation.’
ECHA highlights issues with the way the PNEC values have been calculated and the lead registrant has
been requested to revise PNECs for freshwater, marine water, freshwater sediment, marine sedimentusing the result giving rise to the highest concern, i.e. the NOEC of O.2 mg/L for Raphidocelis
subcapitata (formerly known as Selenastrum capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata).
6. ‘Exposure assessment and risk characterisation (Annex I, Sections 5. and 6.) for environment.
- Revise the exposure assessment to provide a detailed justification' including related risk
management measures, for using non-default release factor in the exposure estimation for
exposure scenarios ESl and ES2 or to apply default release factors according to ECHA Guidance
R.16.
- Revise the exposure assessment to apply a "fraction of the main source" of 100% for exposure
scenarios ES3, ES4 and ES6 in accordance with the recommendations of ECHA Guidance R.16
or to provide adequate justification for any deviation from these recommendations.
- The risk characterisation shall be revised accordingly.’
ECHA indicates that there is missing information on the risk management measures for the
manufacture of TFA on the plant (next words blocked out) and there are deviations on the assumed
fraction used at main source (i.e. annual use amount at a site).
7. ‘Exposure assessment (Annex I, Section 5.1.1.) for human health: provide documentation for
the recommended personal protective equipment, i.e. hand and skin protection, respiratory
protection and eye/face protection;- specify the type of glove material, thickness and breakthrough times;

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 55

- specify the filter type/class for the respiratory protective- specify the type and quality of protective clothing.’
ECHA highlights that the specific detailed information on the recommended personal protective
equipment (PPE) is missing from both from the CSR and from the information on safe use within the
IUCLID dossier. ECHA have requested the registrant provide more detailed information on the PPE
above.
It is suggested that these developments for the TFA REACH registration dossier are followed.

VEGA results
Selected results of the prediction of the properties TFA from its structure using VEGA are discussed in
the following table. The full VEGA output is included in Annex 3. It should be noted, that these results
are only indicative and would require further investigation.
Table 8-2: VEGA results for TFA
Test

Prediction
Non-Mutagen

Mutagenicity
Carcinogenicity

Possible
carcinogen

non-Developmental toxicity andestrogen receptor binding
Skin sensitizer
Eco-toxicity: fish and crustacean
BCF
Log Pow
Biodegradable

non-toxicity and nonactive
Non-sensitizer
Non-toxicant (both)Non-bioaccumulativeNon-bioaccumulativeNonreadilybiodegradable

Comment
Low-moderate-high reliability, models all
suggest non-mutagenicity
Uncertain,
low-moderatereliability
carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenicity is
indicated
Low reliability
Moderate reliability
Moderate reliability
Low-moderate reliability
High-moderate reliability
Low-moderate-high reliability

8.2.1 VEGA prediction and applicability domain comments
For all models the predictions were based on six similar compounds; however the compounds wereidentified as being moderately similar and not necessarily optimal for the models. Some of theexperimental results also disagreed with some of the predicted values. Also, some of the compounds
used in a model were also used in a model which predicted the same and different endpoints. Highreliability is expected to be within the applicability domain of the model, moderate reliability could be
could be out of the applicability domain of the model and low reliability is expected to be outside theapplicability domain of the model.
Attempts to generate additional QSAR information (and read across) for the physical chemical
properties, environmental fate and transport, ecotoxicological information and human health hazard
potential of TFA could be investigated using the OECD QSAR Toolbox, EPI Suite and other QSAR
software.
Mutagenicity
A total of five mutagenicity models were run in VEGA (with some crossover):Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 56







CONSENSUS 1.0.1 produced a consensus score of 0.47 (non-mutagenic);
CAESAR 2.1.13 predicted non mutagenicity (high reliability);
SarPy/IRFMN 1.0.7 predicted non mutagenicity (moderate reliability);
ISS 1.0.2 predicted non mutagenicity (low reliability); andKNN/Read-Across 1.0.0 predicted non mutagenicity (low reliability).

Carcinogenicity
A total of four carcinogenicity models were run in VEGA:CAESAR 2.1.9 predicted carcinogenicity (low reliability);
ISS 1.0.2 predicted non-carcinogenicity (low reliability);
IRFMN/Antares 1.0.0 predicted carcinogenicity (moderate reliability); andIRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX 1.0.0 predicted possible non-carcinogenicity (low reliability).

Developmental toxicity and estrogen receptor binding
A total of two developmental/reproductive toxicity models and two estrogen receptor binding models
were run in VEGA:CAESAR 2.1.7 predicted non-toxicity (low reliability);
Toxicity library (PG) 1.0.0 predicted non-toxicity (low reliability);
Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN) predicted inactive (low reliability);
andEstrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0 predicted possible non-active (highreliability).

Skin sensitizer
One skin sensitizer model was run in VEGA:CAESAR 2.1.6 predicted non-sensitizer (moderate reliability)

Toxicity
Fish Acute toxicity
A total of four models were run in VEGA:SarPy/IRFMN 1.0.2 predicted non-toxic (moderate reliability);
KNN/Read-Across 1.0.0 predicted toxicity of 177.19 mg/L (moderate reliability);
NIC 1.0.0 predicted toxicity of 244.67 mg/L (moderate reliability); andEPA 1.0.7 predicted toxicity of 290.52 mg/L (moderate reliability).

Daphnia Magna toxicity
A total of 2 models were run in VEGA:EPA 1.0.7 predicted toxicity of 56.96 mg/L (moderate reliability); andDEMETRA 1.0.4 predicted toxicity of 180.87 mg/L (moderate reliability).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 57

Bee
No predictions for bees were possible in VEGA.
BCF model
A total of three models were run in VEGA:CAESAR 2.1.14 predicted low bioaccumulation (0.2 log(L/kg)) (moderate reliability);
Meylan 1.0.3 predicted low bioaccumulation (0.5 log(L/kg)) (low reliability); andKNN/Read-Across 1.1.0 predicted low bioaccumulation (0.27 log(L/kg)) (low reliability).

Log Pow
A total of three models were run in VEGA:

Meylan/Kowwin 1.1.4 is predicted to be non-bioaccumulative (Log P: 0.5) (high reliability);
MLogP 1.0.0 is predicted to be non-bioaccumulative (Log P: 0.37) (high reliability); andALogP 1.0.0 is predicted to be non-bioaccumulative (Log P: 0.86) (moderate reliability).

Biodegradable
A total of four models were run in VEGA:Ready Biodegradability model IRFMN 1.0.9 predicted non-readily biodegradable (moderatereliability);
Persistence (sediment) model IRFMN 1.0.0 predicted non-persistence (low reliability);
Persistence (soil) model IRFMN 1.0.0 predicted non-persistence (high reliability); andPersistence (water) model IRFMN 1.0.0 predicted non-persistence (moderate reliability).

EUSES model inputs
The EUSES model is primarily used for non-polar organic compounds; however EUSES has been used
to perform risk assessments for inorganic compounds and other substances. Suggestions for how todeal with difficult substances in EUSES have been recommended (RIVM, 2000), while the contributors
to the development of the EUSES model have recognised that improvements could be made to themodel and have suggested updates that should be made to EUSES (RIVM, 2014). For example, thisincludes suggestions for acid dissociation constants (pKa).
TFA posed a challenge principally as if more additional data was available this would have allowed fora more complete prediction of the environmental and human health risks of TFA. Also, HFO-1234yf is
the parent compound that is being produced and the one that will be emitted, whereas TFA is thebreakdown substance. The breakdown of HFO-1234yf to TFA will usually occur in the atmosphere,
away from the other sources of distribution which is the case for other substances (e.g. emission
directly to wastewater and surface water). Assuming that a higher fraction of release and emission to
air of TFA may lead to inaccurate RCR values for soil. The outputs of this model should therefore beused with caution.
For the EUSES model inputs (for the EU), information has been provided from the REACH registration
dossier (ECHA, 2017d) for TFA, the Sigma Aldrich Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for TFA (Sigma Aldrich, 2017)and other information sources which are indicated where relevant. An example of the inputs for the

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 58

risk assessment is provided in Annex 1. Assumptions are also stated where these have been made forthe input information. Default values available in EUSES have also been utilised and these are stated
where used. The inputs used in the risk assessment model are discussed in the following sections.

8.3.1 Assumptions and potential issues
A number of assumptions have had to be made during the EUSES process; a precautionary approachhas been used which represents a worst case scenario. This includes the following:The toxicity value for microorganisms is lower (i.e. more toxic) than that of (some) aquatic
species, 832 mg/L in OECD 209 test compared to 1,200 mg/L in most aquatic toxicity tests; andAlso, the LC50 test result for plants of 250 mg/kg dwt is lower than both of these toxicity values.

This could be leading to the Risk Characterisation Ratio (RCR) values for sediment and the sewage
treatment plants to be higher than expected. It would anticipate that these have been overestimated,
perhaps by an order of magnitude. The reason for this is that from information obtained for Parts 1
and 2 of the study, HFO’s are gases and when emissions occur they will be transported. HFOs are
more likely to be used and manufactured in urban or close to urban environments, however whenemissions occur they will be transported away from these environments where they will breakdown
in TFA and therefore TFA will be deposited in a different environment, an environment that may not
be connected to STPs.

8.3.2 Physico-chemical properties
The physio-chemical properties that have been used for TFA for the model are described in the below
table.
Table 8-3: Physico-chemical properties
Molecular Weight
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour Pressure
Water solubility
Octanol-water partition coefficient

114.02-15.2 °C
71.78 °C
15800 Pa (25°C)
1E+05 (set to maximum)-0.2

Sources:
ECHA(2017):
Trifluoroacetic
acid
registration
dossier.
Availableat:https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/5203/6/1and
Sigma
Aldrich(2017):
Trifluoroacetic
acid
SDS.
Availableat:https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/MSDS/MSDS/DisplayMSDSPage.do?country=GB&language=en&productNumb
er=T62200&brand=SIAL&PageToGoToURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigmaaldrich.com%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%
2Fsial%2Ft62200%3Flang%3Den

Partition coefficients and bioconcentration factors
The partition coefficients and bioconcentration factors that have been used for TFA are discussed in
the overleaf table.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 59

Table 8-4: Partition coefficients and bioconcentration factors
Partition coefficient
Solids-waterAir-water

Bioconcentration factors

Biota-water

Factors
Chemical class for Koc-QSAR: non-hydrophobic(default QSAR); default non-hydrophobic values
have been used, however a better indication of solidwaterHenry’s law constant: 7.13E-03 pa.m3.mol-1; Default
environmental temperature, solubility and vapour
pressure values have been used
Default bioconcentration factors used for human
exposure and predator exposure:
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms: 0.848
l.kgwwt-1
Bioconcentration factor for fish: 1.41 l.kgwwt-1
Bioaccumulation factor for meat: 7.94E-07
Bioaccumulation factor for milk: 7.94E-06
Default bioconcentration factor for aquatic biota
used: 1.41 l.kgwwt-1

TFA has been identified as having a low surface tension, a low Log Pow, and has also been shown tohave low potential for bioaccumulation in other studies (as shown in the TFA REACH registration
dossier) (ECHA 2017d).
Furthermore two studies submitted as part of the REACH registration dossier suggest that:“TFA-anion poorly adsorbs to the different soil components because after 16 hours of agitating in asoil/water system less than 3% of the initial amount of TFA had disappeared from the water phase.
Trifluoroacetate can be considered as a mobile organic compound in soils.”“Concentrations of trifluoroacetate (TFA) in the environment are expected to increase because it is anatmospheric degradation product of CFC replacement compounds that will receive widespread use.
TFA possesses high water solubility and its movement in the biosphere will be closely linked with thehydrologic cycle. Surface waters and sediment pore waters will receive loadings directly throughprecipitation and runoff and indirectly via soil-and ground-water inputs. Studies were conducted toassess whether TFA could be metabolized under aerobic conditions by microbial communities infreshwater surface sediments. Sediment samples were collected to a depth of 2 -3 mm from flowingwater mesocosms in which organisms were pre-exposed to 30 µg TFA/L over a 2.5 year period andfrom control mesocosms that received no TFA. The sediment-associated microbial communities were
tested for ability to incorporate of 2 -[14C]TFA (added at 43 µg/L) in time course experiments. The
communities pre-exposed to TFA in the mesocosms showed a low, but statistically significant level ofradiolabel incorporation. The cell-specific rate of incorporation for communities sampled from the
TFA mesocosms increased nearly 20 -fold during the 2.5 year experiment, from 1.15 x 10^-13 to 2.22
x 10^-12 µg/cell/day. Communities from the control mesocosm never showed statistically significant
incorporation. Communities pre-exposed to TFA from 1.5 years also incorporated [14C]TFA when
exposed to concentrations as low as 2 µg/L. These results indicate a low level of incorporation of thexenobiotic TFA by natural microbial communities and thus their potential to serve as a point for TFA
to enter into the food web.”Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 60

In the Solvay TFA SDS (Solvay, 2015) the following information on mobility in soil is supplied:
Mobility in soil
Adsorption potential (Koc)
TFA is not expected to adsorb on soil (source is unpublished internal reports).
Known distribution to environmental compartments
The Ultimate destination of the product is water.
Koc estimation
Soil adsorption coefficient data was not identified for TFA (although data may be available), however,
several models have been developed for calculating Koc and most of these are based on the Kow. Sucha model (including models for different chemical classes) has been proposed by Sabljic et al 1995:

Using this equation, a low Koc (low sediment adsorption/high sediment to water) is expected.

8.3.3 Degradation and transformation rates
Characterisation of biodegradation
TFA is not biodegradable from the results in VEGA (Section 4.2). For STP (Sewage Treatment Plants),
water/sediment, air and soil; the default values in EUSES have been used. Default values were also
used for the removal rate constants in soil was used. Using 0 (zero) as a biodegradation end point
provides a more precautionary output.

8.3.4 Release estimate
Emission estimates from Section 3 (MIT-5 approach) have been used as the basis for input for this partof the risk assessment along with information from the REACH registration dossier (ECHA, 2017d).
Characterisation and tonnage
TFA is registered under REACH as being manufactured and/or imported into the EEA in the tonnage
range of 1,000-10,000 tonnes so is a high production chemical (>1,000 tonnes per annum). For the
production volume of the chemical in the EU; 10,000 tonnes per year has been used as the upper
tonnage data publically available.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 61

Table 8-5: Characterisation and tonnage information used in the model (2025)
Required characterisation and tonnage information
Fraction of EU production volume for region
Regional production volume of substanceContinental production volume of substance
Volume of chemical imported to EU
Volume of chemical exported from EU
Tonnage of substance in Europe

Details
100% has been assumed
10,000 tonnes per year
10,000 tonnes per year (based on highest REACH
tonnage band)
Assumed 0
Assumed 0
10,000 tonnes per year

Table 8-6: Characterisation and tonnage information used in the model (2100 plateau)
Required characterisation and tonnage information
Fraction of EU production volume for region
Regional production volume of substanceContinental production volume of substance
Volume of chemical imported to EU
Volume of chemical exported from EU
Tonnage of substance in Europe

Details
100% has been assumed
100,000 tonnes per year
100,000 tonnes per year (based on increased
production)
Assumed 20,000
Assumed 0
120,000 tonnes per year

Table 8-7: Characterisation and tonnage information used in the model (2100 phase-out)
Required characterisation and tonnage information
Fraction of EU production volume for region
Regional production volume of substanceContinental production volume of substance
Volume of chemical imported to EU
Volume of chemical exported from EU
Tonnage of substance in Europe

Details
100% has been assumed
10 tonnes per year
10 tonnes per year (based on reduced production)
Assumed 0
Assumed 0
10 tonnes per year

For the 2100 plateau model, it has been assumed that there will be some importing of TFA. For the2100 phase-out model, it has been assumed that a small quantity of TFA may still be produced within
the EU.
Use patterns for the emission input data
The usage/production title that has been used in the model is HFO/TFA various usage. The mainindustrial categories that have been used in the model are:

Category 5: Personal domestic use; andCategory 6: Public domain

The main use category used in the model is category 29: Heat transferring agents.
As part of further work, the following categories could also be investigated:Category 3: Chemical industry-chemicals used in synthesis; andCategory 15/0: Others- defined as waste recycling operations and other.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 62

Regional and continental total emissions
From the literature review performed in Parts 1 and 2 of the study; emissions of HFO will be emitted
to the air with decomposition to TFA in the atmosphere which will reach the ground throughprecipitation. Using the projected emissions of HFOs presented in Section 3, it has been assumed thatthe continental levels of emissions will be half of the non-Article 5 countries and regional emissions of
the EU will be a third of the continental value. The values have been used as precautionary worst casescenarios.
In the risk assessment, it has also been assumed that 95% of the emissions will be emitted to the air
and using the non-Article 5 countries emissions there would also be secondary emissions. In the risk
assessment model, this has been assumed to be 0.5% to wastewater, 1.5% to surface water, 1.5% toindustrial soil and 1.5% to agricultural soil (within EUSES emission enter different compartments). The
emission values used are presented in the following tables.
Table 8-8: Continental HFO-1234yf/TFA total emissions – plateau
Emission
Total continental emissions to air
Total continental emissions to wastewater
Total continental emissions to surface water
Total continental emissions to industrial soil

Unit
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day

Total continental emissions to agricultural soil

kg/per/day

2025
71,475
376
1,129

2050
297,547
1,566
4,698

2075
302,207
1,591
4,772

2100
305,282
1,607
4,820

1,129
1,129

4,698
4,698

4,772
4,772

4,820
4,820

2025
71,475
376
1,129

2050
297,547
1,566
4,698

2075
38,783
204
612

2100
0
0
0

1,129
1,129

4,698
4,698

612
612

0
0

2025
23,825
125
376

2050
99,182
522
1,566

2075
100,736
530
1,591

2100
101,761
536
1,607

376
376

1,566
1,566

1,591
1,591

1,607
1,607

2025
23,825
125
376

2050
99,182
522
1,566

2075
12,928
68
204

2100
0
0
0

376
376

1,566
1,566

204
204

0
0

Table 8-9: Continental HFO-1234yf/TFA total emissions – phase-out
Emission
Total continental emissions to air
Total continental emissions to wastewater
Total continental emissions to surface water
Total continental emissions to industrial soil
Total continental emissions to agricultural soil

Unit
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day

Table 8-10: Regional HFO-1234yf/TFA total emissions – plateau
Emission
Total continental emissions to air
Total continental emissions to wastewater
Total continental emissions to surface water
Total continental emissions to industrial soil
Total continental emissions to agricultural soil

Unit
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day

Table 8-11: Regional HFO-1234yf/TFA total emissions – phase-out
Emission
Total continental emissions to air
Total continental emissions to wastewater
Total continental emissions to surface water
Total continental emissions to industrial soil
Total continental emissions to agricultural soil

Unit
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day
kg/per/day

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 63

Local emissions
For an episode release in 2025, the worst case assumption has been used. This assumption involves
10,000 tonnes (highest REACH registration tonnage) being produced in the EU. For the number ofplants manufacturing HFOs, three plants have been assumed (there is limited information on
manufacturing) and it has been assumed that each plant would manufacture the same volume of HFOs
and would manufacture HFOs for 225 days a year. Also, it has been assumed that 50% of an entire
day’s production is emitted to air as part of an episode, 7,407 kg/day with zero emissions to waste
water. This has also been modified for 2100 plateau and 2100 phase-out.

8.3.5 Regional, continental and global distribution
For distribution, published values have been used, in particular, the Switzerland river waters levels.
The data points in a variety of media require further investigation.
Table 8-12: Regional, contribution and global distribution
Distribution
Rainwater and snow

Soils

Geographical information
Switzerland

Values used
3-1,550 ng a.e./L; 0.000328 mg/L

Chile, Malawi and Canada

6-87, 4-15, and <0.5-350 ng a.e./L,
respectively

Japan

29-76 ng a.e./L

Guangzhou, China

46-974 ng a.e./L

Canada<0.0-1,400 ng a.e./kg dry weight(d.w.)<100-7,500 ng a.e./kg d.w.
850-5,000 ng a.e./kg d.w. 0.005
mg used for all sediments,
including marine
100–9,400 ng a.e./kg d.w.

MalawiUK

Chile
Surface waters
wetlands)(rivers,

lakes,

Germany
Switzerland

Oceans-540-140000 ng a.e./L *used for
fresh waterRivers = 12-328
Midland lakes = 37-204
Mountain lakes = 46-360
Moor water = 59-175
Drinking water = 16-123(values in ng a.e./L)
200 ng a.e./L is considered to be a
representative valuea.e= acid equivalents

Local concentrations and depositions
Automatic calculations in EUSES were used.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 64

Local PECs (production)
Automatic calculations in EUSES were used.

8.3.6 Exposure
Secondary poisoning
There is no readily available information in the literature on the secondary poisoning andconcentrations in fish and earthworms.

8.3.7 Human exposed to or via the environment
Regional and local concentration in wet fish, meat and milk
Information about regional concentrations in wet fish, root tissue of plant, leaves of plant and in grass
is not readily available (Rollins et al, 1989).
However, drinking water concentrations have been identified as being (the upper Switzerland value
was used, more information is provided in section 6.2.1):
Table 8-13: Drinking water
Location
Switzerland
Beijing

Concentration (ng a.e./L)
16-123155

Meat, milk and cattle intake information has not yet been identified; however, default model values
have been calculated.

8.3.8 Microorganisms in a STP
The values in the table below were generated in accordance with OECD 209 Guidelines and measured
the influence of sodium trifluoroacetate on activated sludge.
Table 8-14: Microorganisms in a STP
Parameter
EC50
EC10
NOEC

Concentration (mg/L)
> 832
> 832
> 832

8.3.9 Aquatic organisms
Freshwater
The table overleaf describes the LC50 and NOEC values for three freshwater aquatic organisms whichhave been used for the risk assessment.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 65

Table 8-15: Freshwater aquatic organisms
Species
LC50 / NOEC concentration (mg/L)
Zebrafish (Danio rerio) (fish)>1,200 mg/L/ 1,200 mg NaTFA salt/L
Water fleas (Daphnia magna) (crustacean)>1,200 mg/L (EC50) / 1,200 mg NaTFA salt/L
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (algae)*
0.62 mg/L (EC50) TFA#
Note:*Known as Raphidocelis subcapitata and Selenastrum capricornutum also

However, there is some uncertainty surrounding the freshwater algae data in the table above. In the
conclusion of the REACH registration dossier (ECHA, 2017d) it was indicated that due to the low
number of replicates, EC50 for 72h values could only be considered as rough estimates. Solomon(Solomon et al 2016) also suggested that the alga species used in the test was unusually sensitive andthat retesting is needed.
All fresh water and marine algae data from the ECHA REACH registration dossier is indicated in thetable below.
Table 8-16: Algae toxicity
Type ofinformation

Water

Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)

Fresh
water

Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)

Species

EC50 / NOEC concentration (mg/L)

Klimischreliability
level

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

0.74 (EC50) (NaTFA) / 0.62 (EC50)(TFA)*

2

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

1.2 (EC50) (TFA)

2

Fresh
water

Desmodesmus
subspicatus>99.9 (EC50) (TFA)

2

Fresh
water

Chlorella vulgaris>999 (EC50) (TFA)
999 (NOEC) (TFA)

1

Fresh
water

Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii>99 (EC50) (TFA)
99 (NOEC) (TFA)

1

Marinewater

Dunaliella tertiolecta

103 (EC50) (TFA)<103 (NOEC) (TFA)

1

Marinewater

Phaeodactylum
tricornutum>97 (EC50) (TFA)
97 (NOEC) (TFA)**

1

Fresh
water

Microcystis
aeruginosa>97 (EC50) (TFA)
97 (NOEC) (TFA)**

2

Fresh
water

Navicula pelliculosa

2

Marinewater

Skeletonema
costatum

999 (EC50) (TFA) (biomass)
1,997 (EC50) (TFA) (growth rate)499 (NOEC) (TFA)
499 (NOEC) (TFA)
1,997 (EC50) (TFA)
1,997 (NOEC) (TFA)

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 661

Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)
Read-across(sodium
trifluoroacetate)

Fresh
water

Anabaena
aquae

flos-

1,997 (EC50) (TFA)(120 h)499 (NOEC) (TFA) (120 h)
0.3 (LOEC) (TFA)***
0.1 (NOEC) (TFA)

1

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

No EC50, NOEC or LOEC calculated

2

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

1.2 (EC50) (TFA) ****
0.25 (NOEC) (TFA)

2

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

120 (EC50) (TFA-Na)
1,200 (EC20) (TFA-Na)

2

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

2

Fresh
water

Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata

Biocentration: The final conclusions
are that the radioactive labelled TFA
was accumulated around ten times by
the algal cells from the media ; nomore than 2 - 4 % conversion of TFA to
DFA or MFA did occurred.
24.7 (EC50) (TFA) (biomass)
145 (EC50) )TFA) (growth rate)
6 (NOEC) (TFA)

TFA

2

4

*Due to the low number of replicates, EC50 for 72h values can only be considered as rough estimates**Limit test, not toxicity at the maximum range***A study was realised in agreement with OECD Guideline 201 with deviations. The validity criteria were all fulfilled. However thehighest concentration tested resulted in an inhibition of only 6% of the growth rate which doesn't allow to derive an EC50 value****Not GLP and some important information is missing on the test parameter

As indicated, some of the endpoints were based on limit tests and within these tests an EC 50 was notdetermined and the result was indicated as being a greater than expected value. The only algae
species to record a result of <10 mg/L was Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. In one of thePseudokirchneriella subcapitata studies the highest inhibition of growth recorded was only 6%. Someof the studies also appear to be limit tests and a greater than expected result has been indicated. For
these tests the EC50 concentration is likely to be higher than the result indicated.
As these toxicity values vary significantly and that these would have a significant outcome on themodel, a range of EC50 values have been used in the model. The values that have been used are themost toxic fresh water and marine water algae results, the median results and the average result (limit
tests and greater than results were used when determining the average and median values). A
summary of the values is presented in the table overleaf.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 67

Table 8-17: Fresh water toxicity to algae (mg/L)
Endpoint

Most toxic

EC50
NOEC

0.62
0.1

Average value(range)441 (0.62 – 1997)
275 (0.1 – 999)

MedianLeast toxic

99
98

1997
999

MedianLeast toxic

103
103

1997
1997

Marine water
Table 8-18: Marine water toxicity to algae (mg/L)
Endpoint

Most toxic

EC50
NOEC

>97
97

Average value(range)732 (97 – 1997)
732 (97 – 1997)

No other marine water data was given in the REACH registration dossier and there is a lack of available
information in other literature.
Freshwater sediment
No data was given in the REACH registration dossier and there is a lack of available information inother literature.
Freshwater sediment
No data was given in the REACH registration dossier and there is a lack of available information inother literature.

8.3.10 Terrestrial
An EC50 for terrestrial plants has been established (presented below).
Table 8-19: Terrestrial plants
Species
Plants

EC50 concentration (mg NaTFA/kg)
250 mg NaTFA/kg

There is no other terrestrial data or long term NOEC studies listed in the REACH registration dossier.

8.3.11 Birds
No toxicity tests have been published for birds.

8.3.12 Mammals
Repeated dose
The oral NOAEL has been established using a rat test species with the value given overleaf.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 68

Table 8-20: Repeated dose oral NOAELSpeciesRat (Sprague-Dawley)

Oral NOAEL (mg/g bw/day)
1,000

There is a lack of available information with the LOAEL and CED values not available in the REACH
registration dossier. No dermal data is available in the registration dossier and no inhalatory LOAEL
has been assigned due to it having a Klimisch score of Level 4.
Fertility
The fertility oral NOAEL has been established using a rat test species with the value given below.
Table 8-21: Fertility oral NOAELSpeciesRat

Oral NOAEL (mg/g bw/day)
1,000

Maternal-tox
The maternal toxicity oral NOAEL has been established using a rat test species with the value given
below.
Table 8-22: Maternal toxicity oral NOAELSpeciesRat

Oral NOAEL (mg/g bw/day)
150

Development-tox
The development toxicity oral NOAEL has been established using a rat test species with the value given
below.
Table 8-23: Development toxicity oral NOAELSpeciesRat

Oral NOAEL (mg/g bw/day)
150

Carc (threshold)
There is no information available on the REACH registration dossier.
Carc (non-threshold)
There is no information available on the REACH registration dossier.
Acute
No value was assigned for acute toxicity due to it having a Klimisch score of Level 4 (the LC50 was 10
mg/L in rats, in a 2 hour exposure test).
Predator
There is no information available on the REACH registration dossier.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 69

Bio-availability
There is no information available on the REACH registration dossier.

8.3.13 Humans
No human data is publically available for the following aspects (however, some mammalian data isavailable and has been indicated in 8.3.12 Mammals):







Repeated dose;
Fertility;
Maternal toxicity;
Development toxicity;
Carcinogenicity (threshold); andBioavailability.

8.3.14 Environmental effects assessment
The pre-populated data in EUSES has not been amended for the environmental effects assessment.
Data from ECHA REACH registration dossier (ECHA, 2017d) data has been used for the following:The STP data has been used (STP (PNEC STP): 83.2 mg/L; Assessment factor: 10);The PNEC sediment data (fresh) has been used (Sediment (freshwater PNEC sediment): 4.22
mg/kg sediment dw); andThe PNEC sediment data (marine) has been used (Sediment (marine water PNEC sediment):
0.422 mg/kg sediment dw).

8.3.15 Risk characterisation
Additional data is required to produce a risk characterisation.

EUSES assessment results
Preliminary results for the risk assessment for HFO refrigerants for the following scenarios have beenobtained for the following:










For 2025 (highest algae toxicity data);
For 2100 plateau in HFOs from 2050 (highest algae toxicity data);
For 2100 phase-out of HFOs in 2050 (highest algae toxicity data);
For 2025 (median algae toxicity data);
For 2100 plateau in HFOs from 2050 (median algae toxicity data);
For 2100 phase-out of HFOs in 2050 (median algae toxicity data);
For 2025 (average algae toxicity data);
For 2100 plateau in HFOs from 2050 (average algae toxicity data); andFor 2100 phase-out of HFOs in 2050 (average algae toxicity data).

The 2025 data is predicted to be the same for both the 2025 plateau and 2025 phase-out scenarios.
This data and the emissions data for 2100 plateau and 2100 phase-out is based on the emissions data
for non-A5 countries which is discussed in Section 4 (Table 4-2).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 70

The emission assumptions for the EU used are based on 50% of non-A5 country emissions. The model
outputs for the 2100 plateau and 2100 phase-out scenarios are presented the Annex.
The model outputs include Risk Characterisation Ratios (RCR) and Margin of Safety (MOS) information.
The RCR is the ratio of Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) to Predicted No-EffectConcentration (PNEC), this is calculated for environmental compartments (fresh water, marine, freshwater sediment, marine sediment, soil, sewage treatment plants (STP)) and species (marine fish,
marine top-predators and worms). An RCR of >1 equates to a risk.
For the human end-point, the MOS is the ratio of the estimated no-effect or effect level parameter tothe estimated exposure level for human sub-populations. MOS values have been calculated based
upon the available endpoints for TFA; these are repeated dose toxicity (inhalation) repeated dose
toxicity (total), fertility (inhalation), fertility (total), maternal toxicity (inhalation), maternal toxicity(total), developmental toxicity (inhalation) and developmental toxicity (total). Carcinogenicity, nonthreshold and lifetime cancer risk have not been calculated due to a lack of carcinogenicity data.
However, the VEGA QSAR data, calculated based on substances with a similar chemicals structure,suggests that that substance is not expected to be carcinogenic (however further QSAR data orlaboratory studies could be conducted). A low MOS equates to a risk, a MOS value of at least 100 is
generally considered to be protective.
RCR and MOS values that equate to a risk are highlighted using red text. The source of the RCR and
MOS is shown by the usage/step.

8.4.1 Assessment for 2025 (same in plateau and phase-out)
For 2025, as shown in Tables 8-24 to Table 8-26, there is expected to be a risk developing in a numberof compartments from the emissions of TFA from a number of sources.
The highest RCR values calculated appear to be for soil, however it is anticipated that these have been
overestimated, perhaps by orders of magnitude. The reason for this is that most emission has been
assumed to be emitted to the air and TFA is assumed to be deposited into various environmental
compartments, with one of the biggest being soils (urban, agricultural and natural). Although TFA is
predicted to be mobile, it is unknown how volatile it is and the model assumes that this will be limited.
Therefore, due to high levels of atmosphere emissions and volumes entering soils (one of the main
initial compartments TFA enters) the risk here is assumed to be higher compared to othercompartments. Also, as indicated previously, toxicity to plants and microorganisms is higher in than
it is in some aquatic species.
Table 8-24: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2025 (highest algae toxicity
data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
1.28
15.5
12.8
15.5
6.81
9.14
1.2
1.91
1.06 0.0491
production
E+03
E-03
E-04
E-05
E-05
Personal/
13.8
16.5
13.8
16.5
61.4
9.85
1.88
2.58
1.2
4.52
domestic
E-03
E-03
E-05
E-05 E-04
Light
52.3
55
52.3
55
63
0.0386 1.07
1.78
1.03 4.6
industrial
E-04
E-05
E-05 E-04
use
Regional
0.529
3.23
10
100
59.6
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 71

Table 8-25: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2025 (median algae toxicity
data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
8.01
0.097
0.0801 0.097
42.6
9.14
1.2
1.91
1.06 0.0491
production
E-03
E-03
E-04
E-05
E-05
Personal/
0.0861 0.103
0.0861 0.103
0.384
9.85
1.88
2.58
1.2
4.52
domestic
E-03
E-03
E-05
E-05 E-04
Light
0.328
0.345
0.328
0.345
0.395
0.0386 1.07
1.78
1.03 4.6
industrial
E-04
E-05
E-05 E-04
use
Regional
3.31
0.0202 0.0628 0.628
0.373
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

Table 8-26: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2025 (average algae toxicity
data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
1.8
0.0218 0.018
0.0218 9.57
9.14
1.2
1.91
1.06
0.0491
production
E-03
E-03
E-04
E-05
E-05
Personal/
0.0193 0.0231 0.0193 0.0231 0.0863 9.85
1.88
2.58
1.2
4.52
domestic
E-03
E-03
E-05
E-05
E-04
Light
0.0736 0.0774 0.0736 0.0774 0.0886 0.038 1.07
1.78
1.03
4.6
industrial
6
E-04
E-05
E-05
E-04
use
Regional
7.44
4.54
0.0141 0.141
0.0838E-04
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

The algae toxicity has an impact on the RCR of all the environmental compartments; however the risk
to fish, marine fish, marine top predators and worms appears to be low.
There also appears to be a risk to most of the environmental compartments, with light industrial use
being a particular contributor. Assuming that there are emissions/releases to the environment fromproduction facilities, this is where the risk is likely to be the highest, and the largest risk could possibly
be to fresh water fish.
As shown in Table 8-27, in 2025, the MOS is greater than 100 for all toxicological endpoints, the lowest
MOS was identified for maternal toxicity (total) and development toxicity (total).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 72

Table 8-27: Margin of Safety (MOS) for humans exposed to or via the environment, assessment for 2025
Usage/step
Chemicalproduction
Personal/
domesticLight
industrial use
Regional

Repdose
Inh.
7.55
E+10
6.29
E+06
4.6
E+06
4.27
E+11

Repdose
Total
6.32
E+03
2.27
E+05
1.81
E+05
1.38
E+08

Fert.
Inh.
7.55
E+10
6.29
E+06
4.6
E+06
4.27
E+11

Fert.
Total
6.32
E+03
2.27
E+05
1.81
E+05
1.38
E+08

Mater.
Inh.
1.13
E+10
9.44
E+05
6.89
E+05
6.4
E+10

Mater.
Total
947
3.4
E+04
2.72
E+04
2.07
E+07

Devel.
Inh.
1.13
E+10
9.44
E+05
6.89
E+05
6.4
E+10

Devel.
Total
947
3.4
E+04
2.72
E+04
2.07
E+07

Note: Carcinogenic threshold, non-threshold and CLR is not applicable
Repdose = Repeat dose toxicity; Fert = Fertility toxicity; Mater. = Maternal toxicity; Devel. = Developmental toxicity; Inh. =Inhalation

8.4.2 2100 plateau
For the 2100 plateau, as shown in Tables 8-28 to 8-30, there is expected to be a risk developing in a
number of compartments from the emissions of TFA from a number of sources. The most significant
changes between 2025 and 2100 plateau are the increasing risk from all uses, in particularly lightindustrial use sources. However, despite significant increases of TFA in the environment, the RCR
calculated for species suggests that in the environment there is limited risk to species, with the biggest
risk being to fresh water fish and worms close to production facilities.
Table 8-28: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2100 plateau (highest algae
toxicity data)
Fresh
Fr.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
1.21
121
1.21
1.21
1.73
9.01
0.0131 0.0131 2.62
0.123
production
E+03
E+04
E+04 E+04
E+04
E-03
Personal/
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
590
13.6
0.24
0.024
4.8
2.26
domestic
E+04
E+04
E+04 E+04
E-03
E-03
Light
3.85
3.85
3.85
3.85
1.18
28.7
0.0693 6.94
1.4
4.27
industrial use E+04
E+04
E+04 E+04
E+03
E-03
E-03
E-03
Regional
0.529
3.23
10
100
59.6
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

Table 8-29: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2100 plateau (median algae
toxicity data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
7.57
75.8
75.7
75.8
108
9.01
0.0131 0.0131 2.62
0.123
production
E-03
Personal/
114
114
114
114
3.7
13.6
0.24
0.024
4.8
2.26
domestic
E-03
E-03
Light
241
241
241
241
7.37
28.7
0.0693 6.94
1.4
4.27
industrial use
E-03
E-03
E-03
Regional
3.31
0.02020.0628 0.628 0.373
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 73

Table 8-30: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2100 plateau (average algae
toxicity data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
1.7
17
17
24.3
9.01
9.01 0.0131 0.0131 2.62
0.123
production
E-03
Personal/
25.6
25.7
25.6
25.7
0.83
13.6 0.24
0.024
4.8
2.26
domestic
E-03
E-03
Light
54.2
54.2
54.2
1.66
28.7
28.7 0.0693 6.94
1.4
4.27
industrial use
E-03
E-03
E-03
Regional
7.44
4.54
0.0141 0.141 0.0838
E-04
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

As shown in Table 8-31, in 2100 plateau, although a number of MOS have decreased by an order ofmagnitude, all MOS are greater than 100 for all toxicological endpoints. The lowest MOS was
identified for maternal toxicity (total) and development toxicity (total), and in particular the biggest
risk might be close to production facilities and from personal/domestic use.
Table 8-31: Margin of Safety (MOS) for humans exposed to or via the environment, 2100 Plateau
Usage/step
Chemicalproduction
Personal/domesticLightindustrial use
Regional

Repdose
Inh.
6.26
E+10
3.15
E+06
3.06
E+06
4.27
E+11

Repdose
Total
2.43
E+03
2.8
E+03
9.05
E+03
1.38
E+08

Fert.
Inh.
6.26
E+10
3.15
E+06
3.06
E+06
4.27
E+11

Fert.
Total
2.43
E+03
2.8
E+03
9.05
E+03
1..8
E+08

Mater.
Inh.
9.4
E+09
4.72
E+05
4.6
E+05
6.4
E+10

Mater.
Total
364
420
1.36
E+03
2.07
E+07

Devel.
Inh.
9.4
E+09
4.72
E+05
4.6
E+05
6.4
E+10

Devel.
Total
364
420
1.36
E+03
2.07
E+07

Note: Carcinogenic threshold, non-threshold and CLR is not applicable
Repdose = Repeat dose toxicity; Fert = Fertility toxicity; Mater. = Maternal toxicity; Devel. = Developmental toxicity; Inh.
= Inhalation

8.4.3 2100 phase-out
In 2100 phase-out, very small levels of TFA production and emissions are still assumed to occur,
however as shown in Tables 8-33 and 8-34 (median and average algae toxicity data), in 2100 phaseout, there is not expected to be a risk as no RCR is greater than 1. Due to the persistence of TFA, there
will still be levels of TFA present in the environment. However, these levels are not expected to posea risk to species.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 74

Table 8-32: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2100 phase-out (median algae
toxicity data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
0.0508 0.525
0.508
0.525
0.424 0.0601 8.84
9.55
2.59
4.9
production
E-04
E-05
E-05
E-04
Personal/
0.0116 0.0285
0.0116 0.0285 0.378 9.85
3.13
1.02
8.82
4.46
domestic
E-04
E-05
E-05
E-06
E-04
Light
0.256
0.273
0.273
0.273
0.383 0.03
8.64
1.57
9.93
4.48
industrial use
E-05
E-05
E-06
E-04
Regional
3.31
0.02020.0202 0.628
0.373
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

Table 8-33: Risk characterisation result for the environment, assessment for 2100 phase-out (average algae
toxicity data)
Fresh
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Usage/stepMarine Fr. sed.
Soil
STP
Fish
Worm
water
sed.
fish
top
Chemical
0.0114 0.118
0.114
0.118
0.0951 0.060 8.84
9.55
2.59
4.9
production
1
E-04
E-05
E-05
E-04
Personal/
2.6
6.39
2.6
6.39
0.848
9.85
3.13
1.02
8.82
4.46
domestic
E-03
E-03
E-03
E-03
E-04
E-05
E-05
E-06
E-04
Light
0.0574 0.0612
0.0574 0.0612 0.086
0.03
8.64
1.57
9.93
4.48
industrial use
E-05
E-05
E-06
E-04
Regional
7.44
4.54
0.0141 0.141
0.0838E-04
E-03
Fr. sed. = Fresh water sediment; Mar. Sed. = Marine sediment; Mar. fish = Marine fish, Mar. top = Marine top predator

As shown in Table 8-34, in 2100 phase-out, the MOS is large for all toxicological endpoints and all
endpoints are greater than 100. The lowest MOS still exist for both maternal toxicity (total) anddevelopment toxicity (total).

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 75

Table 8-34: Margin of Safety (MOS) for humans exposed to or via the environment, 2100 phase-out
Usage/step
Chemicalproduction
Personal/
domesticLight
industrial use
Regional

Repdose
Inh.
6.26
E+10
1.26
E+07
2.3
E+07
4.27
E+11

Repdose
Total
6.57
E+06
4.51
E+05
6.13
E+05
1.38
E+08

Fert.
Inh.
6.26
E+10
1.26
E+07
2.3
E+07
4.27
E+11

Fert.
Total
6.57
E+05
4.51
E+05
6.13
E+05
1.38
E+08

Mater.
Inh.
9.4
E+09
1.89
E+06
3.45
E+06
6.4
E+10

Mater.
Total
9.85
E+04
6.76
E+04
9.19
E+04
2.07
E+07

Devel.
Inh.
9.4
E+09
1.89
E+06
3.45
E+06
6.4
E+10

Devel.
Total
9.85
E+05
6.76
E+04
9.19
E+04
2.07
E+07

Note: Carcinogenic threshold, non-threshold and CLR is not applicable
Repdose = Repeat dose toxicity; Fert = Fertility toxicity; Mater. = Maternal toxicity; Devel. = Developmental toxicity; Inh.
= Inhalation

8.4.4 Discussion
Risk to the environment
TFA, as previously identified is not expected to be bioaccumulative and has not been shown to exhibit
toxicological properties of concern. However, the substance is very persistent and concentrations of
TFA will only be expected to increase. In the 2100 plateau, this might be particularly concerning as
the precipitation is likely to cause a significant increase in levels of TFA not only in the expected final
compartment (the aquatic environment) but also those compartments which TFA enters (soils) on its
way to entering its final compartment. TFA has also been shown to cause some toxicity to plants andsoil organisms. There are also some data points that are currently missing due to a lack of available
information and these are discussed in Section 8.5.
Risk to humans
The margin of safety for human health is reduced in 2100 for the plateau of HFO emissions from 2025.
Therefore, phasing out HFOs (and therefore TFA) or using emission reduction strategies along withusing best practise measures that help ensure efficient capturing of HFO/TFA during recycling
operations will help to reduce the risk to human and environmental health. The largest risk to humanhealth is likely to be close to areas of production facilities and urban areas where it is used in devices
for personal and domestic use.
For some data points, there is a lack of information and these are discussed in Section 8.5.
Comparison with other risk assessments
Solomon et al (2016) compared the risks of TFA in various environments based on a comparison of
exposure values and toxicity values. The toxicity values used were the most sensitive NOECs, a marginof exposure (MoE), and the ratio of the exposure concentration to the toxicity study was also
calculated. It is concluded that there are de minimis risks from TFA for humans and terrestrial
vertebrates, furthermore as the MoEs are extremely large, and even if exposures increase in the near
future, these risks would likely still be de minimis. It is also noted that although the risks to humans
and environment from the current (and near future) amounts of TFA in the environment are judged
to be de minimis, TFA is persistent and concentrations continue to increase in terminal sinks.
Boutonnet et al (1999) evaluated the toxicity in stream mesocosms, algae, higher plants, fish, animals
and humans. The findings support the idea that there is very low toxicity in all of these systems andStudy on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 76

that the effect of TFA on seed germination and plant growth has been evaluated in a variety of plants,
and concentrations tested did not affect germination or growth.
Furthermore, the European Food Safety Association (EFSA) have provided an opinion for the settingof Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) of TFA in various crops (EFSA, 2014). TFA is a metabolite of a plant
protection product. The EFSA study considered dietary exposure from other sources including HFCs.
EFSA highlight how Christoph (2002) indicates the highest concentrations of TFA were found in sites
close to industrial locations. EFSA concluded that the exposure of the plant protection productsaflufenacil and its metabolite TFA via the diet will not result in consumer exposure exceeding thetoxicological reference values derived for the parent compound saflufenacil and its metabolite, and istherefore is unlikely to pose a public health concern.
Our environment risk assessment supports this view, the risk to environmental organisms (based on
the studies that are available) and human health appears to be low. However, concentrations in theenvironment will only increase; in particular this is anticipated to occur in terminal sinks. Based on aconsiderable increase in the emission of HFO/TFA, under the 2100 plateau assumption, theconcentrations of TFA entering the environment may increase significantly. The risk under thisassumption would therefore increase. The risk to aquatic organisms in 2100 (and other organisms)
may also increase due to changes in the climate, sea/ocean temperatures, increased acidity,
decreased dissolved oxygen and other factors (Brierley et al, 2009).
Alternative software
The ECHA document, Guidance on information requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment:
Chapter R.16: Environmental exposure assessment (ECHA, 2016), sets out software for the modellingof environmental risk.
EUSES is indicated as being a decision-support system for the evaluation of the risks of substances tohumans and the environment. Also, the system is based on the EU Technical Guidance Documents(TGDs; EC-TGD, 2003) for the risk assessment of new and existing substances and biocides and the
EUSES software package as implemented in the ECHA Chesar tool. The ECHA document outlines theuse of EUSES and the modelling parameters.
Alternatives to EUSES for performing risk assessments include:








Chesar 3.3 (ECETOC’s Targeted Risk Assessment (TRA)) tool that calculates the risk of exposure
from chemicals to workers, consumers and the environment is included within Chesar 3.3;
USEtox®2.0 which is a scientific consensus model endorsed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative for characterizing human and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals. The main
output is a database of recommended and interim characterisation factors including fate,exposure, and effect parameters;
FOCUS which is a model designed for pesticides. However the model could be used to predict
the fate of TFA in soils. In EUSES the RCR of TFA in soil was an calculated to be >1;
CHARM. This model is for use in the offshore oil and gas sector where there are deliberate(permitted) localised discharges of chemicals from oil and gas production operations to themarine environment, although this model could be used some additional sediment data would
be required for sediment toxicity. The standard conditions for discharge in CHARM are basedon a single point of discharge in standard waters, deep water for oil and shallower waters forgas operations, although if these are modified the output may become unreliable;
DREAM (Dose related Risk and Effect Assessment Model (DREAM). This software is used in
the offshore oil and gas sector and able to account for releases of complex mixtures ofStudy on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 77



chemicals, i.e. such as those associated with produced water and drilling discharges, themodel is again based on discharges specific to offshore oil and gas operations; andUS EPA models. The US EPA has a range of models, risk tools and databases)

Basic PEC:PNEC calculation
A basic PEC:PNEC approach is highlighted below.
Table 8-35: PNEC calculation for TFA
Compartment
PNEC-Fresh water (most toxic algae)

PNEC-Fresh water (median toxic algae)

PNEC-Fresh water (average toxic algae)

PNEC-Marine water
PNEC-STP microorganism
PNEC-soil
PNEC-plants

Ecotoxicology dose
descriptors
Danio rerio >1,200 mg/L
Daphnia magna >1,200
mg/l
Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata 0.62 mg/L
Danio rerio >1,200 mg/L
Daphnia magna >1,200
mg/L
Algae 99 mg/L
Danio rerio >1,200 mg/L
Daphnia magna >1,200
mg/L
Algae 441 mg/L
Phaeodactylum
tricornutum >97 mg/L
>832 mg/L
Phaseolus aureus >250
mg/L

Assessment
factorPNEC value(mg/L)

10

0.062

100

0.0062

10

9.9

100

0.99

10

44.1

100

4.41

1000

0.097

1000
1000

0.832
0.25

The lowest PNEC value is 0.0062 mg/L.
Table 8-36: Regional, contribution and global distribution, use as Predicted Environmental Concentration(PEC)
Geographical
Distribution
ValuesHighest value (mg/L)
information
Rainwater and snow
Switzerland
3-1,550ng
a.e./L;
0.000328
0.000328 mg/L
Chile,
Malawi
CanadaSoils

6-87, 4-15, and <0.5-350
ng a.e./L, respectively

0.00035

Japan

29-76 ng a.e./L

0.000076

Guangzhou, China

46-974 ng a.e./L

0.000974

Canada<0.0-1,400 ng a.e./kg dryweight (d.w.)<100-7,500 ng a.e./kg
d.w.
850-5,000 ng a.e./kg d.w.
0.005 mg used for all

MalawiUK

andStudy on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 780.00140.00750.005

sediments,
includingmarine100–9,400 ng a.e./kg
d.w.

Chile

Surface waters (rivers,
lakes, wetlands)

Germany
Switzerland

Oceans-540-140000 ng a.e./L*used for fresh waterRivers = 12-328
Midland lakes = 37-204
Mountain lakes = 46-360
Moor water = 59-175
Drinking water = 16-123(ng a.e.L)
200ng
a.e./Lisconsidered to be a
representative value

0.00940.14

0.000360.0002a.e= acid equivalents

Table 8-37: Drinking water
Location
Switzerland
Beijing

Concentration (ng a.e./L)
16-123155

Concentration (mg a.e./L)
0.000123
0.000155

The upper environmental concentrations (PEC) identified in the soils of Malawi and Chile and thesurface waters of Germany were equivalent to 0.0075, 0.0094 and 0.14 mg/L a.e. These levels would
be greater than the freshwater PNEC of 0.0062 (but not a soil PNEC as one has not been calculated
based on a data gap) and would equate to their being an environmental risk. The freshwater PNEC of
0.0062 is based on the most toxic algae study although, the other less toxic (median and average)
study data gives a PNEC higher than the upper PEC.
As TFA has been shown to be non-biodegradable, it is anticipated to be a substance that will continue
to build up in the environment as more TFA is emitted to the environment. Therefore, the risk to theenvironment may only increase in the future; the risk will increase if emissions of TFA increase in the
future.

Identified data gaps
A number of data gaps/additional considerations have been identified for TFA in the risk assessment.
These are:











LC50 and NOEC for earthworms;
EC50 and NOEC for soil microorganisms;
LC50 and NOEC for other terrestrial species;
LC50, EC10 and NOEC for marine sediment organisms;
LC50, EC10 and NOEC for fresh-water sediment organisms;
LC50 and NOEC for fish (marine);
L(E)C50 and NOEC for crustaceans (marine);
EC50 and NOEC for algae (marine);
NOEC for fish (freshwater);
NOEC for crustaceans (freshwater);Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 79















NOEC for algae (freshwater);
LC50 and NOEC for birds;
NOAEL, LOAEL, CED, NOEC and LOEC carcinogenicity (threshold) data for mammals;
Carcinogenicity (non-threshold) data for mammals;
Acute toxicity data for mammals;
Although some mammalian data is available, any additional data concerning repeated dosedata, fertility, maternal-toxicity, development-toxicity and carcinogenicity could improve therisk assessment for human health ;Consider running a batch of algae tests using different fresh water and marine algae species
to identify whether Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata is unusually sensitive
More accurate data on EU emission rates, concentrations during emissions, and routes of
exposure;More accurate for concentrations in root, leaf, milk and meat;
Physical property information on the volatilizing properties of TFA, volatilization from water
surfaces is not expected to be an important fate process but it may be higher from dry soil
surfaces; andPerform a mass balance.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 80

9 Conclusions
HFO-1234yf is the most widely used HFO refrigerant and is being commonly used as a replacement for
HFC-134a in mobile air conditioning units. The substance is registered under REACH. HFO-1234ze and
HFO-1233zd are also used and have been registered under REACH; both HFO-1234yf and HFO-1233zd
have also been registered by the US EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A number ofother HFO refrigerants were identified as being used or likely to be used, such as HFO-1224yd and
HFO-1336mzz, as were a number of HFO/HFC blends. It was established that the impurities present
in HFO refrigerants would likely be other HFOs or HFCs, and not other perfluorinated compounds suchas PFOS and PFOA, which cannot be generated during the manufacture of HFOs.
Market drivers for the uptake of HFOs globally depend on the phase-down strategies adopted forremaining ODSs and HFCs, together with the future role of ‘natural’ refrigerants as alternative lowGWP options to HFOs. TEAP has conducted several studies on likely scenarios and these have been
leveraged for this work (particularly TEAP XXVII/4 – Annex 4). However, consumption projections only
exist up to 2050, so two additional scenarios have been modelled for the period from 2051 – namely
a consumption freeze until 2100 and an abrupt phase-out at 2050. The outcome in even the abrupt
phase-out case shows legacy emissions beyond 2050 in view of the lifetime of installed equipment
and the servicing tail. However, the two scenarios beyond 2050 are believed to display the best andworst cases, providing that the assumptions about demand until 2050 (as shown in the TEAP analysis)
are viewed as plausible.
The atmospheric lifetime of HFO-1234yf is estimated to be approximately 6 days (Luecken et al, 2010)
compared to HFC-134a with a lifetime of 14 years (Solomon et al, 2016 and references therein). The
final atmospheric degradation products of HFOs are dependent on the identity of the HFO, forexample, the degradation of HFO-1234yf produces a 100% molar yield of TFA. The degradation
products of other HFOs are HF, HCl, formic acid and carbon dioxide.
In the atmosphere, a rapid partitioning of TFA into droplets of clouds, rain and fog occurs (Solomon etal, 2016). Wet precipitation (rain, snow and fog) is assumed to be the major source of TFA in thebiosphere, e. g. for Switzerland, it was calculated that wet deposition accounts for 96% of the annual
mass flux (Berg et al, 2000). TFA is found in a wide range of water bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes
and wetlands where inflow into these water bodies occur from precipitation, glaciers, runoff fromland, groundwater (springs) and water-treatment facilities where it forms trifluoroacetate salts(CF3COO-) with minerals such as calcium and sodium. About one third of the overall TFA is dislocatedby rivers, which results in a considerable amount introduced in terrestrial environments where TFA issusceptible to leaching into the groundwater (Scheurer et al, 2017). There have been few studies on
TFA concentrations in groundwater to date but of the few studies that have been conducted,
concentrations have been low. This is unexpected as TFA is poorly retained in soil and has large
mobility, but may be due to the slow percolation into the groundwater samples that have been tested
to date. TFA concentrations in the environment vary with compartment and location with the highest
concentrations witnessed in terminal water bodies such as salt lakes, playas and oceans. In
freshwaters, TFA is thought to be solely anthropogenic in nature; however, TFA found in oceans isboth natural and anthropogenic in source.
Of the tested aquatic organisms, only the alga Raphidocelis subcapitata (formally known as
Selenastrum capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) displayed sensitivity to TFA,
although this needs to be confirmed by retesting. However, there is no published data for toxicity tosoil macroorganisms except arthropods, terrestrial arthropods or for to birds or soil microorganisms.
There is less than satisfactory information on the toxicity of TFA and salts to terrestrial plants, and nostudies have been reported for concentrations of TFA in crops for human consumption (Solomon etStudy on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 81al. 2016). Furthermore, there is no information on toxicity to organisms found in salt lakes and playas.
This is particularly important because salt lakes are the most likely site for accumulation of TFA in thenatural environment.
A number of knowledge gaps need to be addressed to conclude that TFA will have negligible effect on
the environment. Generally, more research is needed to fully understand the cycle of TFA in theatmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also a lack of information on the amounts of TFA used globallyor other potential sources of TFA in the environment i.e. other chemicals with TFA as a degradation
product.
The environmental effects of degradation products of HFOs other than TFA are suggested to beminimal. HF is a strong acid but the buffering capacity of surface waters means HF is rapidly
neutralised. The concentration of fluoride/chloride produced from the degradation of HFOs (HF/HCl)will have a negligible effect on the total fluoride/chloride flux in the environment. The concentrationsof formic acid produced from the degradation of HFOs are expected to be low and will have no impact
on organisms; formic acid is a naturally occurring intermediate in the body and ubiquitous in thenatural environment (Wallington et al, 2014). CO₂ is a persistent greenhouse gas, however thecontribution from this source is negligible compared with the total CO₂ burden.
In regards to human health impacts, ECHA have identified a number of factors needing updating in
the REACH dossier for HFO-1234yf. This includes an updated Chemical Safety Report (CSR) withrevised DNELs for workers, also a revised exposure assessment for inhalation and risk characterisation
for workers or to justify why recommended assessment factors in DNEL derivation were not used, andmore information is required on the mutagenicity (ECHA, 2017a). No health hazards have been
identified, although information is limited for the health hazards and further work is required (ECHA,
2017e).
However, different algae effect concentrations were identified for particular algae species, this was
Raphidocelis subcapitata (formally known as Selenastrum capricornutum and Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata). The effect concentration identified in tests for this algae species were orders ofmagnitudes lower than that identified for other freshwater and marine algae. In literature it wassuggested that this algae may be unusually sensitive and that retesting is needed. Within the REACH
registration dossier for some of the TFA Raphidocelis subcapitata studies it was also suggested that
due to the low number of replicates, EC50 for 72h values can only be considered as rough estimates.
Some of the other studies submitted as part of the REACH registration dossier also appears to limit
tests, some missed important parameters, and in another test the highest concentration used as thegreater than EC50 only equated to 6% growth inhibition.
A risk assessment was performed for HFO refrigerant use up to the 2100 which was based on the mostcommonly used HFO substance, HFO-1234yf, and its degradation product, TFA. The risk assessment
was performed using EUSES and with a basic PEC:PNEC analysis also performed. The outcome of therisk assessment supported similar conclusions identified in literature, these being that toxicity risk of
TFA to organisms and human health appears to be low.
Due to some of the uncertainty and variable results identified for algae, three different sets of EUSES
models were run for the scenarios 2025, 2100 phase-out and 2100 plateau, these were with highest
algae toxicity data (i.e. most toxic algae data), median average toxicity data and average algae toxicity
data. The most toxic algae data result in the highest RCR developed as part of the EUSES risk
assessment, the RCRs were significantly higher than median and average algae risk assessments. Noneof the RCR values for organisms were calculated as being >1, as anticipated this came closest in the2100 plateau scenario. The 2100 plateau scenario also suggests the highest RCR for TFA enteringvarious environmental compartments. In comparison the 2100 phase-out scenario has the lowest
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 82

RCR, however some risk will still remain in the environment due to the long term persistence of TFA
and the levels of TFA that have been emitted in previous years. Equally, the lowest MOS for humanhealth was calculated as part of the 2100 plateau scenario, the lowest being for maternal anddevelopmental toxicity. However, the MOS in 2100 plateau was still greater than 100.
Ultimately it appears that TFA is expected to become concentrated in terminal sinks due to TFA being
highly persistent. The risk, therefore, increases if emissions of HFO-1234yf to the environment
increase. Therefore, phasing out HFOs (and consequently TFA), or emission reduction strategies alongwith best practise measures that help ensure efficient capturing of HFO/TFA during recycling
operations, will help reduce the risk to human and environmental health.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 83

10 Further work
Identified knowledge gaps
From the results of the literature review and consultation, a number of knowledge gaps requiring
further work have been identified and are listed below:
Substance information
The literature review identified some HFOs that may be used as refrigerants in the future but
there is little information available on whether research is ongoing for these refrigerants orwhether they will be commercially available in the future;

HFO blends and their degradation mechanism need to be further researched; andThe impurities present in HFO refrigerants, such as other HFOs or HFCs, are not identified bymanufacturers with only the purity of the named refrigerant being stated.

Chemical processes and degradation productsIn the case of the decomposition of HFO-1234ze, the main decomposition product is listed bya few sources (for example US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016; and Solomon et al,2016) as TFA; however, the Wallington study (Wallington et al, 2014) lists TFA as anintermediate product; and

HFO blends and their degradation mechanism need to be further researched.

HFO emissions


HFO emissions data needs to be readily available and updated on a regular basis;When considering the future size of HFO refrigerant market, and consequent emissions, ananalysis of the proportion of the market occupied by other low-GWP (‘natural’ refrigerants
such as CO2) needs to be taken into consideration; andAdditional modelling of HFO emissions could possibly predict dispersion of degradation
products and potential hotspots for TFA.

Environmental effects


There is a lack of case studies investigating the environmental effects of HFO degradation
products. For example, periodic temporal monitoring of TFA concentrations in well-known
terminal water bodies such as Mono Lake, California, USA and Pyramid Lake, Nevada, USA,and appropriate endorheic basins in Europe would provide an early indication of the rate of
TFA accumulation following the large-scale use of HFO-1234yf in MAC;



More temporal and spatial measurements of TFA in flowing waters and oceans would provide
information on trends in concentrations of TFA in these environments;

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 84



There have been few studies on TFA concentrations in groundwater and the potential forbioaccumulation in this compartment. This needs to be addressed due to potential
implications for drinking water;Further to the previous point, increased sampling of drinking water supplies is needed;There is inadequate information on the toxicity of TFA and salts to terrestrial plants. Thereappears to be no data for toxicity to soil macroorganisms except arthropods, terrestrial
arthropods, toxicity to birds or soil microorganisms. The inadequacies for toxicity data for TFA
has been highlighted by ECHA and information has been requested to update the registration
dossier;

Although uptake of TFA by plants has been shown, no measurements of the concentrationsof TFA in crops for human consumption have been reported;

There is no information on toxicity to organisms found in salt lakes and playas. This latter
uncertainty is particularly important because salt lakes are the most likely site foraccumulation of TFA in the natural environment;

There is limited information on the environmental effects of decomposition products of HFOs
other than TFA, where the focus of studies have been;More research is needed to fully understand the cycle of TFA in the atmosphere andhydrosphere which has been highlighted as a gap in knowledge at present; and

There is a lack of information on the amounts of TFA used globally or other potential sourcesof TFA in the environment.

Human health impacts
The effect of HFOs on human health need to be studied. There is a lack of publically available
information on adverse health effects, the effects of exposure to elevated levels of HFOs andpotential side effects of HFOs for workers;Thermal decomposition products of HFOs are known, but are not well understood (forexample concentrations that could present issues; and

Information lacking on stoichiometry of intermediate and final products produced from thedegradation of HFOs.

Risk assessment
The risk assessment could be repeated when the REACH registration dossier for TFA has been
fully updated by 2021; and

Other models could be identified to repeat the risk assessment in the future.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 85

11 References
Ashai Glass (2014): AGC Develops AMOLEA™, a New Refrigerant for Air-conditioning Systems with a
Low Environmental Impact of About One-sixth that of Conventional Products. Available at:
http://www.agc.com/en/news/pdf/20140319e.pdf
Ashai Glass (2017): Amolea® 1224yd Technical Information.
chemicals.com/file/AMOLEAyd_Tech_English_C.PDF

Available at: http://www.agc-

Benesch, J. A. and Gustin, M.S. (2002): Uptake of trifluoroacetate by Pinus ponderosa via atmosphericpathway. Atmospheric Environment 36, pp 1233–35
Berg, M., Müller, S.R., Mühlemann, J., Wiedmer, A., Schwarzenbach, R.P. (2000): Concentrations andmass fluxes of chloroacetic acids and trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in Switzerland.
Environmental Science & Technology, 34, pp 2675–83
Boutonnet J.C., Bingham P., Calamari D., Rooij C.D., Franklin J., Kawano T., Libre J-M, McCulloch A,
Malinverno G., Odom J.M., Rusch G.M., Smythe K., Sobolev, I., Thompson, R., Tiedje, J.M. (1999):
Environmental risk assessment of trifluoroacetic acid. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, pp
59-124BOC(2014):
SafetyData
Sheet
OpteonXP
44.
Available
https://www.boconline.co.uk/internet.lg.lg.gbr/en/images/Refrigerant-R-452A-XP4410022546410_139210.pdf?v=3.0

at:Brierley, A.S. and Kingsford, M.J. (2009): Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms andEcosystems,
In
Current
Biology,19(14),
ppR602-R614.
Availableat:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.046
Calm,
J.M.
(2012):
Refrigerant
Transactions.
Again.
2012.
Availableat:
http://www.jamesmcalm.com/pubs/Calm%20JM,%202012.%20Refrigerant%20Transitions%20...%20
Again.%20ASHRAE-NIST%20Refrigerants%20Conference.pdf
Cefic (undated): RMM Library. Available at: http://www.cefic.org/Search-Results/?q=RMM+library
Chebbi, A. and Carlier, P. (1996): Carboxylic Acids in the Troposphere, Occurrence, Sources and Sinks:
A Review. Atmos. Environ., 30(24), pp 4233-4249
Christoph E.H. (2002): Bilanzierung und Biomonitoring von Trifluoracetat und anderen
Halogenacetaten. Dissertation der Fakultät Biologie, Chemie und Geowissenschaft der Universität
Bayreuth, February 2002
Dalang, F. (2010): HFO-1234yf in the environment.
content/uploads/2013/08/HFO_1234yf_ang.pdf

Available at: http://www.oz-chill.com/wp-

DuPont (2012): General Information for Use and Handling of HFO-1234yf.
https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/assets/downloads/Chemours_HFO1234yf_Handling_Guidelines.pdf

Available at

ECHA (2013): Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency 29 April 2013.
Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13575/a_005_2011_boa_decision_en.pdf

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 86

ECHA (2015): Decision on a Compliance Check of a Registrant Pursuant to Article 41(3) of Regulation(EC) No 1907/2006. Available at: https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/30275d00-10484acf-9a12-f0044e9e5575
ECHA (2016): Guidance on information requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.16:
Environmental
exposure
assessment.
Availableat:https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r16_en.pdf
ECHA(2017a):Polyhaloalkene
substance
information.
https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.104.879

Available

at:

ECHA (2017b): HFO-1234ze substance information. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/substanceinformation/-/substanceinfo/100.104.972
ECHA (2017c): HCFO-1234zd substance information. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/substanceinformation/-/substanceinfo/100.149.148
ECHA(2017d):Trifluoroacetic
acid
REACH
registration
dossier.
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/5203/1

Available

at:

ECHA (2017e): Decision on a compliance check (decision number: CCH-D-2114358335-47-01/F).
Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/4760f27a-a3b3-6d9a-c7ee-ed3828b85cb4
EFCTC (European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee) (2016): Special Review on Understanding TFA.
Available at: https://www.fluorocarbons.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EFCTC-Special-Reviewon-TFA-2017_07_11F.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (2010): Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 25 for Significant
New Alternatives Policy Program. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-0616/pdf/2010-14510.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (2014): Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 29 for
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201410-21/pdf/2014-24989.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (2015): Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings ofSubstitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam
Products under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section
608 Venting Prohibition for Propane. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201609/documents/snap_status_change_rule_2_2060_as80.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (2016): Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings ofSubstitutes ; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam
Products under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section
608 Venting Prohibition for Propane. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-1201/pdf/2016-25167.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (2017): Section 609 Technician Training and Certification Programs.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mvac/section-609-technician-training-and-certification-programs
European Commission (2003): Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive
93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 87

on Risk Assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Available at:https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/16960216/tgdpart2_2ed_en.pdf
European Commission (2015): Commission Implementing Decision of 7.9.2015. Available at:https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/e23a2e0e-d456-48f0-9d24-2fb4bbf49dca
European Environment Agency (2015): Emissions of fluorinated gases (F-gases). Available at:https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/fluorinated-gases-f-gases-emissions-2#tabchart_1
European Environment Agency (2016): Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2015. Report No 33/2016.
Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases
European Food Safety Authority (2014): Reasoned opinion on the setting of MRLs for saflufenacil invarious crops, considering the risk related to the metabolite trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). EFSA Journal,
12(2):3585,58
EU Science Hub (2016): The European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances. Available at:https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/scientific-tool/european-union-system-evaluation-substances
FETA (2015): An introduction to A2L refrigerants and their use in Refrigeration, Air Conditioning andHeat Pump applications. Available at http://www.refcom.org.uk/media/1202/an-introduction-to-a2lrefrigerants-final.pdf
Gluckman Consulting (2016a): Information Sheet 21- Training and Certification Requirements forRefrigeration,
Air-Conditioning
andHeat
Pumps.
Availableat
http://www.gluckmanconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IS-21-Training-andCertification-RACHP-v2.pdf
Gluckman Consulting (2016b): Information Sheet 22- Training and Certification Requirements for
Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems.
Available at: http://www.gluckmanconsulting.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/IS-22-Training-and-Certification-MAC-v2b.pdf
Gonzalez, S., Jimenez, E., Albaladejo, J. (2016): Assessment of the atmospheric loss processes initiatedby OH radicals and sunlight, and the radiative efficiency for a series of hydrofluoroolefins,
CF3(CF2)x=1,3,5CHCH2. Chemosphere, 151, pp 45-54
Hanson, M., Sibley, P.K., Solomon, K.R., Mabury, S., Muir, D. (2002): Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) andtrifluoroacetic acid (TFA) mixture toxicity to the macrophytes Myriophyllum spicatum andMyriophyllum sibiricum in aquatic microcosms. Science of the Total Environment, 21, pp 247–59
Hansen, E., Pedersen, P.H., Christensen, F.M., Feilberg, K.L., Warming, M. (2015): Danish Ministry of
the Environment Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of selected fluorinated greenhouse gases.
Part
of
the
LOUS-review.
Environmental
project
No.
1655.
Availableat:
http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/02/978-87-93283-82-4.pdf
Henne, S., Shallcross, D. E., Reimann, S., Xiao, P., Boulos, S., Gerecke, A.C., Brunner, D. (2012a):
Environmental Impacts of HFO-1234yf and Other HFOs. ASHRAE/NIST Refrigerants Conference.
Availableat:
http://library.eawagempa.ch/empa_publications_2012_open_access/EMPA20120557.pdf

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 88Henne, S., Shallcross, D. E., Reimann, S., Xiao, P., Brunner, D., O'Doherty, S., Buchmann, B. (2012b):
Future Emissions and Atmospheric Fate of HFC-1234yf from Mobile Air Conditioners in Europe.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, pp 1650−1658
Huret, N. and Legras, B. (2014): Assessment for Decision-Makers Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2014 World Meteorological Organization United Nations Environment Programme.
Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52897915.pdf
Im, J., Walshe-Langford, G.E., Moon, J.W., Loffler, F.E. (2014): Environmental fate of the next
generation refrigerant 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf). Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, pp 131817
IPCC/TEAP (2005): Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues
Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/specialreports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf
Joint Research Centre (2014): JRC technical and scientific support to the research on safety aspects of
the use of refrigerant R1234yf on MAC systems. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_MEMO-14-168_en.htm
Jordan, A. and Frank, H. (1999): Trifluoroacetate in the environment. Evidence for sources other than
HFC/HCFCs. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, pp 522e527
Kajihara, H., Inoue, K., Yoshida, K., Nagaosa, R. (2010): Estimation of environmental concentrations
and deposition fluxes of R-1234-YF and its decomposition products emitted from air conditioning
equipment to the atmosphere. International Symposium on Next-generation Air Conditioning andRefrigeration Technology, 2010. Available at: http://www.r744.com/assets/link/NS24.pdf
Luecken, D. J., Waterland R.L, Papasavva, S., Taddonio, K. N., Hutzell, W. T., Rugh, J. P., Andersen, S.
O. (2010): Ozone and TFA impacts in North America from degradation of 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene(HFO-1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, pp 343–348
Magnusson R., Hägglund L., Gustafsson A., Bergström, U., Lejon, C. (2016): Identification and brief
toxicological assessment of combustion products of the refrigerant HFO-1234yf. Available athttps://www.t-olycka.se/index.php/files/17/Bilbraender/401/foir4285.pdf
MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety (2015): 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluorpropen [MAK Value
Documentation].
Availableat
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/3527600418.mb75412d0059/full
Minor, B. and Spatz, M. (2008): HFO-1234yf low GWP refrigerant update. International Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Conference. Available at: http://www.aa1car.com/library/hfo1234yf_info_honeywell.pdf
Monfortte, R. and Caretto, L. (2009): FIAT: Safety Issues in the Application of a Flammable Refrigerant
Gas in MAC Systems: the OEM Perspective
NASA (2015): Factsheet: Ozone Depletion by Hydrofluorocarbons. Available at:
http://conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/pubs/Observer%20Publications/NasaHFC_Factsheet.pdf

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 89

Nielsen, O.J., Scott, B.F., Spencer, C., Wallington, T.J., Ball, J.C. (2001): Trifluoroacetic acid in ancient
freshwater. Atmospheric Environment, 35, pp 2799-2801
Ozone Secretariat (2017):
reporting/data-centre

Data Access Centre.

Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/en/data-

Papasavva, S., Luecken, D. J., Waterland, R. L., Taddonio, K. N., Andersen, S.O. (2009): Estimated 2017refrigerant emissions of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234yf) in the United States resulting fromautomobile air conditioning. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, pp 9252-9
PubChem(undated):
Carbonyl
fluoride.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Carbonyl_fluoride#section=Top

Availableat:

RIVM (2000): The risk evaluation of difficult substance in USES 2.0 and EUSES. Available at:
http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=567264d3-83bc-4d43-b7998507b28e57d4&type=org&disposition=inline
RIVM (2014): Identification and preliminary analysis of update needs for EUSES. Available at:https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13630/echa_2014_253_euses_report_en.pdf
Russell, M. H., Hoogeweg, G., Webster, E. M., Ellis, D. A., Waterland, R. L., Hoke, R. A. (2012): TFA from
HFO-1234yf: accumulation and aquatic risk in terminal water bodies. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 31, pp
1957-65
Sabljic A., Güsten H., Verhaar H., and Hermens J., (1995). QSAR modelling of soil sorption.
Improvements and systematics of log Koc vs. log Kow correlations. Chemosphere 31, 4489-4514.
Scheurer, M., Nӧdler, K., Freeling, F., Janda, J., Happel, O., Riegel, M., Müller, U., Storck, F, R., Fleig,
M., Lange, F.T., Brunsch, A., Brauch, H-J. (2017): Small, mobile, persistent: Trifluoroacetate in thewater cycle - Overlooked sources, pathways, and consequences for drinking water supply. Water
Research, 126, pp 460-471
Scott, B.F., Spencer, C., Martin, J.W., Barra, R., Bootsma, H.A., Jones, K.C., Johnston, A.E., Muir, D.C.G.
(2005): Comparison of haloacetic acids in the environment of the northern and southern hemispheres.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, pp 8664-8670
Seeton, C.J. and Wilson, D.P. (2010): Countdown to R1234yf Industry Preparation. Available at:
http://www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2010/W7.pdf
SEPA(undated):
Hydrogenfluoride.
http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=7

Available

Sigma Aldrich (2017):
Trifluoroacetic acid Safety Data Sheet.
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/t62200?lang=en&region=GB

Available

at:

at:

Solomon, K.R., Tang, X., Wilson, S.R., Zanis, P., Bais, A.F. (2003): Changes in tropospheric composition
and air quality due to stratospheric ozone depletion. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2003, 2, 62–67
Solomon, K.R., Velders, G.J., Wilson, S.R., Madronich, S., Longstreth, J., Aucamp, P.J., Bornman, J.F.
(2016): Sources, fates, toxicity, and risks of trifluoroacetic acid and its salts: Relevance to substances
regulated under the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthPart B, 19, pp 289-304

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 90

Solvay (2015): Trifluoroacetic acid SDS. Available at: https://www.solvay.us/en/binaries/P21945USA_CN_EN-237941.pdf
Tang, X., Madronich, S., Wallington, T., Calamari, D. 1998: Changes in tropospheric composition andair quality. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 46, pp 83–95
Taniyasu, S., Kannan, K., Yeung, L.W.Y., Kwok, K.Y., Lam, P.K.S., Yamashita, N. (2008): Analysis oftrifluoroacetic acid and other short-chain perfluorinated acids (C2-C4) in precipitation by liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: Comparison to patterns of long-chain perfluorinatedacids (C5-C18). Anal. Chim. Acta., 619, pp 221–230
TEAP (2016):
TEAP Task Force Report (XXVII/4).
Available at:
http://conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/mop/mop28/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/TEAP_TFX
XVII-4_Report_September2016.pdf
Tsai, W-T (2005): An overview of environmental hazards and exposure risk of hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs). Chemosphere, 61, pp 1539-1547
United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (UNEP, EEAP)(2014): Environmental Effects Of Ozone Depletion And Its Interactions With Climate Change: 2014
Assessment. Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EEAP/eeap_report_2014.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel Environmental(UNEP, EEAP) (2015): Effects of Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change Progress
Report, 2015. Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/EEAP-ProgressReport-2015.pdf
UNEP Ozone Secretariat (2015): Ecological Issues on the feasibility of managing HFCs: Focus on TFA
Inter-sessional informal meeting, 12-13 June 2015. Available at: http://conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg36/presession/Intersessional%20Informal%20Briefs/informal%20brief_ecological%20effects_intersessional_June%202015_final.docx
VEGA Hub (undated): About VEGA Hub. Available at: https://www.vegahub.eu/about-vegahub/
Vollmer, M.K., Reimann, S., Hill, M., Brunner, D. (2015): First observations of the fourth generation
synthetic halocarbons HFC-1234yf, HFC-1234ze(E), and HCFC-1233zd(E) in the atmosphere. Environ.
Sci. Technol., 49, pp 2703-8
Wang, Q., Wang, X., Wang, D. (2014): Rainwater trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in Guangzhou, South China:levels, wet deposition fluxes and source implication. Sci. Total. Environ., 468-469, 272-279
Wang, H. and Tung, H. Sung (2016): Methods for removing halogenated ethylene impurities in 2,3,3,3tetrafluoropropene
product.
Availableat:https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/92/1c/7b/57722a19cf5819/US9447004.pdf
Wallington, T.J., Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Nielsen, O.J. (2014): Atmospheric chemistry of sort-chain
haloolefins: Photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCPs), global warming potentials (GWPs), andozone depletion products (ODPs). Chemosphere, 129, pp 135-141

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 91

World Health Organization (2008): Guidelines for drinking-water quality incorporating 1st and 2nd
addenda,Vol.1, Recommendations. Technical. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
World Meteorological Organisation (2010): Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report
No. 52. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. World Meteorological Organization, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United
Nations Environment Programme and the European Commission. Available at:https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/documents/Ozone-Assessment-2010complete.pdf
Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Hu, J., Ye, P., Zeng, Z. (2005): Monitoring of trifluoroacetic acid concentrationin environmental waters in China. Water Research, 39, pp 1331-9

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 92

Annex 1 Consultation questions
HFO refrigerants and their degradation products
Based on the outputs of the literature review, relevant questions were devised for consultation, which
are as follows:
From our literature review, we have identified HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze as being used as
refrigerants. Are there emerging HFOs that are likely to be used as refrigerants in the future?
From our literature review, we have identified a number of HFO blends (R-448, R-449, R-450 and R452). Are there other blends that are being used or likely to be used as refrigerants? What is thecomposition of these blends?
Do blends of HFOs with HFCs/other substances have technical advantages over purely HFO-based
refrigerants? What are these advantages?
In the sub-sectors that you operate in, do you envisage HFO/HFC blend refrigerants will form a greater
proportion of the market in the future compared with purely HFO-based refrigerants?
In the sub-sectors that you operate in, what is the projected demand for purely HFO based and
HFO/HFC blends refrigerants?
For the HFO substances that you have knowledge of, besides trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), are there otherdecomposition products that are of interest for each HFO substance? How are these decomposition
products dispersed in the atmosphere and in land/water? For the decomposition products (TFA andothers) do you have information on their environmental dispersion and toxicological profiles?
For the sub-sectors that you operate in, are you aware of any of the following, and if you are, please
can you supply details:
Charge levels for HFO refrigerants;
Leakage rates of HFO refrigerants;
Estimates of installed capacities for HFO refrigerants; andProjected emissions for HFO refrigerants

What substance impurities are present in your purely HFO-based refrigerants? Do these impurities
have any hazards associated with them? Do these impurities contribute to emissions?
What substance impurities are present in your HFO/HFC blend refrigerants? Do these impurities have
any hazards associated with them? Do these impurities contribute to emissions?
For individual HFO substances under REACH, the impurities need to be identified. For HFO blends, isthere any industry obligation to identify the impurities present or is it sufficient to state the level ofpurity of the main refrigerant?
Are there any studies that you think would be of interest for this part of the study?

Environmental and human health impacts of HFOs and their degradation products
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 93Based on the outputs of the literature review, relevant questions were devised for consultation todetermine the environmental effects of HFOs and degradation products, which are as follows:
From our literature review, we have identified TFA, HF and formic acid as some of the final
decomposition products of HFO degradation. Are there other decomposition products of HFOs thatare likely to have an environmental impact? Would HFO blends have any additional effects?
What will be the final environmental sinks for TFA, and other identified decomposition products,
produced from the degradation of HFOs? Are some ecosystems more likely to be effected than others?
From our literature search, studies suggest that the future production of TFA from the breakdown of
HFOs will have a small effect on the total concentration of TFA in the environment. Do you agree with
this? Is there uncertainty in this assumption, what’s the worst case scenario?
Are the concentrations of TFA resulting from the decomposition of HFOs likely to have an effect onaquatic systems and the wider environment?
Are there any particular organisms or plants vulnerable to TFA accumulation in ecosystems? Are there
any particular organisms or plants vulnerable to other degradation products of HFOs such as HF andformic acid?
Is HF produced from the decomposition of HFOs expected to contribute significantly to the total fluoride
flux in the environment? Is the HF produced likely to cause acidification of ecosystems?
Are the concentrations of formic acid produced from the decomposition of HFOs likely to have an
impact on ecosystems?
Are you aware of any substances/impurities that are produced during the manufacture of HFO
refrigerants that may have an environmental impact if released?
During maintenance and at the end-of-life of an article containing HFO refrigerant, are there any
environmental impacts associated with the recycling and/or disposal of the article?
For HFO emissions are you aware of any projected emissions for HFOs when used as refrigerants orgenerally? If you are, please can you supply details.
Are there any studies that you think would be of interest for this part of the study?

Based on the outputs of the literature review, relevant questions were devised for consultation todetermine the human health effects of HFOs and degradation products, which are as follows:
What are the associated health effects for workers involved in the production of HFO refrigerants?
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 94

What concentrations of HFOs, and other associated hazardous compounds, are workers exposed to?
Is there a breakdown per task/activity?
What types of personal protection equipment and local exhaust ventilation is provided for workers?
What are the established guidelines followed by workers for the containment of HFOs after an
accidental release or leakage?
From our literature review we have identified the hazardous decomposition products of HFO-1234yf
as: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonyl halides, hydrogen halides and toxic pyrolysis productsthat contain fluorine. What are the concentrations of these? Is there additional information on the
toxic pyrolysis products that contain fluorine?
For HFO-1234ze, the OEL set by Honeywell is 1000pm 8 hour TWA. How is this measured, and if
workers exceed this limit, what is the procedure? Are there OELs in place for other HFO substancesand blends?
From our literature review we have identified the hazardous decomposition products of HFO-1234ze
as: hydrogen fluoride, fluorocarbons and other fluorine containing compounds. What are theconcentrations of these?
What are the associated health effects for workers who are involved in the production of articles
containing HFO refrigerants?
Are leakage rates associated with HFO refrigerants used in articles likely to have an environmental
impact? Are there any organisms particularly vulnerable if exposed to leaked refrigerants?
Are there any regulations for end-of-life recycling/disposal of the refrigerant? If so, what are theobligations?
During maintenance and at the end-of-life of an article containing HFO refrigerant, are there any
human health effects or environmental impacts associated with the recycling and/or disposal of thearticle?
Are there any studies that you think would be of interest for this part of the study?

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 95

Annex 2 Detailed information about methodology
A2.1 Overview of the methodology
The methodology for the study has been divided into the following stages which are discussed in moredetail below:Task 1: Grey literature search;
Task 2: Academic literature search;
Task 3: Screening of the literature using DistillerSR®; andTask 4: Consultation

Additionally, the methodology employed for the calculation of the projected emissions and for therisk assessment of HFO refrigerants are also discussed in more detail below:Task 5: Project emissions up to 2100; andTask 6: Risk assessment up to 2100

For Tasks 5 and 6, the scenarios which have been modelled for post 2050 emissions are:

Emissions are stabilised after 2050; orThere is a phase-out of HFO refrigerants after 2050

A2.2 Task 1: Grey literature
Relevant studies for the grey literature were identified from a comprehensive Google search and alsoa targeted search of relevant agencies, associations and manufacturers of refrigerants; these aredetailed below:










European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) substance information portal;
Manufacturer websites. This included Arkema, BOC, Chemours, Dupont, Honeywell and
MexiChem Flour;
Met Office;Multilateral fund;United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel(TEAP) reports;
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP)
reports;
United Nations International Development Organisation (UNIDO);
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA); andWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Additional grey literature has also been searched based on consultation responses. The grey literature
has been screened for relevance and the relevant data extracted using DistillerSR®, as discussed in
Section 2.4. Based on the outcome of one consultation, and after the literature review, the patent
database was subsequently searched for impurity information.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 96

A2.3 Task 2: Academic literature
Based on the results obtained from searching the grey literature, the academic literature has beenreviewed for relevant studies. Search terms were developed in PubMed. These search terms werebroad in scope to ensure a wide range of relevant literature was retrieved. The following search terms
were used when searching the literature for HFO substance information, HFO emissions, and chemical
processes and degradation products: (((((((((((((((((((((hydrofluoroolefins) OR HFO)) OR((hydrofluorocarbons refrigerant) OR hfc refrigerant))) )))) OR hfo refrigerant OR hfc refrigerant))) OR((hydrofluorocarbons emission) OR hfc emission)) AND English[Language]). This search term resulted
in 1307 studies being identified. Google Scholar was also reviewed for relevant studies.
For searching literature for environmental and human health impacts, the following search terms wereused: ((((((TFA OR trifluoroacetic acid)) AND environmental impact) AND English[Language])) OR
environmental impact of hydrofluoroolefins) OR environmental impact of hfo which resulted in 660
studies being identified for the environmental effects and for worker exposure the following searchterms were used: (((((((hydrofluoroolefins) OR hfos) AND health)) OR ((hydrofluoroolefin release) OR
hfo release)) OR ((hydrofluoroolefin exposure)) which resulted in 214 studies being identified. Google
Scholar was also reviewed for relevant studies.
The academic literature has been screened for relevance and the relevant data extracted using
DistillerSR®, as discussed in Section 2.4.

A2.4 Task 3: Selection of relevance and data extraction- DistillerSR®
A2.4.1 Screening of the literature
The literature identified during the grey literature and academic literature searches has been scoped
for relevance to the study. The selection for relevance stage has been a two stage process based on
templates created in DistillerSR®:
1) Screening the title and abstract (Level 1 screening): The titles and abstract were screened forrelevance.
The question for Level 1 screening was: Is the study reporting onhydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) or HFCs? If the study was relevant or if it was unsure if the study
was relevant, these proceeded to Level 2. If the study was on HFCs only, the study waspreceded to Level 2 for further checking. Studies which were neither on HFOs or HFCs did notproceed further. For part 2 screening, the question asked was: Is the study reporting onhydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) or TFA? If unsure, take a precautionary approach? If the study was
relevant or if it was unsure if the study was relevant, these proceeded to Level 2. Studies thatwere neither on HFOs or TFA did not proceed further.
2) Screening the full text (Level 2 screening). Six questions were asked at this stage in order todetermine the relevance for Part 1. These were: 1) Does the study report on HFOs or HFCs?;
2) Does this study report on any of the following aspects of HFOs: Use of HFOs in refrigerants,
chemical processes associated with HFOs, emissions, degradation products (including TFA)
and/or sinks and hotspots?; 3) If the study only concerns HFCs, is past/future emissions data
present and usable for the study?; 4) Would the study be relevant for Part 2 of this study?; 5)
Would the study be relevant for Part 3 (Risk Assessment)?; and 6) Is the study ineligible to be
used for the report for any reason?
For Part 2 of the study, four questions were asked to determine the relevance for Part 2 ofthe study. These were: 1) Does this study report on any of the following aspects of HFOs:
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 97

environmental effects of TFA, decomposition of HFOs and the effect on vulnerable organisms
and ecosystems, sinks, hazards to health for elevated levels and leaks, workers health/safety
and fire/explosion products?; 2) Would the study be relevant for Part 3 (Risk Assessment)?; 3)
Is the study unusable for the report for any reason?; and 4) Why is the study not usable (ifanswered yes to previous answer)?

A2.4.2 Data extraction
For studies that were relevant after screening, the relevant data was extracted using DistillerSR®. For
HFO substance information, HFO emissions, and chemical processes and degradation products, thedata extraction has been based on the information required for analysis below:









Assessing the HFO substances that are used/or likely to be used as refrigerants;
The chemical processes that are related to the atmospheric fate of individual HFO substances.
This includes the atmospheric dispersion, degradation mechanisms and deposition of subsequentdegradation products;
Projected emissions in selected future years with a rough indication of geographical distribution;
Assessing the degradation products which are most likely to be formed as a result of the use of
HFOs;
How the degradation products disperse in the atmosphere and are deposited to land and water
bodies;
Where the final sinks and hotspots for TFA and other degradations are; andAssessing to what extent impurities in commercially available HFOs substances would contributeto pollutant emissions.

For environmental and human health impacts, the data extraction has been based on the information
required for analysis below:The environmental effects of HFOs and their degradation products including the effects of TFA;
The environmental effects for vulnerable organisms and ecosystems in locations where pollutants
can reach high levels;
Hazards to health and possible environmental effects related to the accidental release of HFOs or(elevated levels of) regular leaks; andWorkers health and safety and fire/explosion decomposition products, but not safety aspects.

A2.4.3 Literature review outputs
The figure overleaf summarises the results of the grey and academic literature review for determining
the HFO substances that are used or likely to be used as refrigerants, their related emissions,degradation products of HFOs and their atmospheric dispersion. Additional documents were also
received from the consultation process after the review of the literature:

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 98

Figure A2-1: PRISMA flowchart for the screening of the identified grey and academic literature for the firstpart of the study. Source: Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group (2009).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

The figure overleaf summarises the results of the grey and academic literature review for assessing
the environmental and health effects of HFOs and their degradation products. Additional documents
were also received from the consultation process after the review of the literature:

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 99

Figure A2-2: PRISMA flowchart for the screening of the identified grey and academic literature for thesecond part of the study. Source: Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group(2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS
Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

A2.5 Task 4: Consultation
Eight stakeholders were contacted for consultation for the study. These included academic experts,
a non-government organisation, a HFO refrigerant manufacturer, a HFO refrigerant reclaimer and arefrigeration industry association. Questions asked during the consultations are listed in Annex 1.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 100

A2.6 Task 5: Assessing HFO projections
A2.6.1 Introduction
The TEAP Task Force Report (XXVII/4) from September 2016 is the most appropriate source forcalculating HFO emissions. This was the final TEAP report leading into the Kigali negotiations. The
report provides valuable consumption information that we can convert through existing modelling
techniques into emission estimates.
The report contains tabulated projected consumption by refrigerant category and RAC (Refrigeration& Air Conditioning) sub-sector in 5 year intervals. From this, it is possible to interpolate for theintervening years and build-up a picture of growth of HFO use, subject to the following:Annex 4 only records low-GWP refrigerants as a category, so this would include CO2, ammonia
and hydrocarbons, as well as HFOs;
Table 2-7 indicates that low-GWP in the terms of the Report means <300 GWP; andTables 2-3 & 2-4 give various pure substances and blends that could qualify.

Annex 4 of the TEAP report also maps at least two Mitigation Scenarios which could be followed interms of likely low-GWP (Mitigation 5 scenario (MIT-5) and Business As Usual (BAU)). MIT-5 assumes
the completion of conversion of key non-Article 5 RAC equipment by 2025 and the commencementof similar conversions in Article 5 countries by the same date.
MIT-5 was viewed as the most representative scenario in respect of the Kigali Amendment thateventually emerged, although even this was marginally too aggressive. However, an over-aggressiveschedule would inflate the consumption and emissions of low-GWP alternatives such as HFOs andthereby make the environmental risk assessment appropriately conservative by over-stating
consumption and resulting emissions.
Before considering the methodology used for emissions forecasting in detail (see Sections 2.6.2 & 4.2),
it is important to also consider the various means by which such emissions models can be verified, atleast partially. The most obvious method of verification is by comparison with measured emissions in
the atmosphere and the information sources available are highlighted in the following section.
The European Environment Agency reports on the supply, production and emissions of F gases, withthe latest publically available report being for the year 2015. The emissions of F-gases accounted for
3% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions in the EU; however owing to confidentiality reasons data
is not available for individual substances in the report with only the total for all relevant F-gases
reported (European Environment Agency, 2016).
Emissions of HFCs are reported by the European Environment Agency up to 2012 (European
Environment Agency, 2015) with emissions of HFCs in 2010 being 81.57 million GWP SAR tonnes, 84.11
million GWP SAR tonnes in 2011 and 85.9 million GWP SAR tonnes in 2012. No information is available
for HFO emissions.
HFO emissions are available in the academic literature which is discussed in more detail in the table
overleaf.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 101

Table A2-1: HFO emissions data in the literature
Emission
scenarioFor
2020,
emissionsfrom
HFO1234yf
forvehicles

HFO
substance
HFO-1234yf

Measuredemissions
N/A

Projected HFOemissions11.0 Gg yr-1 – 19.2
Gg yr-1 in Europe
11.4 Gg yr-1 to24.7 Gg yr-1 for
U.S in 2017

Global HFOemissions

HFO-1234yf,
HFO1234ze(E),
HFO-1216,
HCFO1233zd(Z),HCFO1233zd(E)N/AGlobalassumptionof
HFO emissions of
100 kt per year

Globalemissions

HFOs
generalN/A

Global emissionsof HCFCs, HFCs,
HFEs,
and
unsaturated
HFCs (HFOs) arearound 100 kt per
year

in

Methodology
used
Detailed European
emission
inventorywasdeveloped
for2020 for mobile air
conditioning;acompleteconversion from
HFC-134a to HFO1234yf
wasassumed and twoemission scenarios
developed
HFO emissions are
assumed to be
similar to current
HFC emissions

Emissions
havebeen calculatedusing the box
model.
Futureemissionsarecalculated using afixed annual bankrelease fraction.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 102

Reference
Henne, S. et al(2012a):Environmental
Impacts of HFO1234yf
and
Other
HFOs.
ASHRAE/NIST
Refrigerants
Conference

Wallington, T.J.
et al (2015):
Atmosphericchemistryofshort-chain
haloolefins:photochemicalozone creation
potentials(POCPs), global
warming
potentials(GWPs),
andozone
depletion
potentials(ODPs).
Chemosphere,
129, pp 135-41
World
MeteorologicalOrganization.
Scientific
Assessment of
Ozone
Depletion:
2010,
GlobalOzone
Research andMonitoring
Project–Report
No. 52

Table A2-1: HFO emissions data in the literature
Emission
scenario
Air emissions
measured at
two locationsin Switzerland(Jungfraujoch
andDubendorf)
for20112014

HFO
substance
HFO-1234yf

HFO1234ze(E)MeasuredemissionsJungfraujoch:For
20112013: below
limitof
detection;
2014: 0.003
mean ppt
Dubendorf:
For
2013:
mean
of
0.0032ppt
and for 2014:0.136 ppt

Projected HFOemissions
From modelling,
emissionsinEurope in 2020
estimated to be
0.073-15
ppt(mean: 1.5 ppt)
for summer and
0.76-29
ppt(mean: 4.1 ppt)
forcompleteconversion in cars
to HFO-1234yf

Methodology
usedMeasurements
collected at highaltitude(Jungfraujoch) anda laboratory rooftop (Dubendorf)
and analysed by
Gas
ChromatographyMass
Spectrometry (GCMS)

Estimated
15,172
tonnes/year
2050

Future emissions
calculated fromdischarge of HFO1234yf from air
conditioningateach life cycle
stage;
assumedfrom 2011 HFO1234yf is usedinsteadof
CFCs/HFCs in all air
conditioning
equipment.

Jungfraujoch:
2011: 0.013
ppt
2012: 0.014
ppt
2013: 0.041
ppt
2014: 0.035
ppt

Reference
Vollmer, M. et
al (2015): First
observations ofthefourthgeneration
synthetic
halocarbons
HFC-1234yf,
HFC-1234ze(E),andHCFC1233zd(E)intheatmosphere.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol., 49, pp
2703-8Dubendorf:
2013: 0.704
ppt
2014: 0.928
ppt
Emissions of
HFO-1234yf
in Japan as
refrigerants(discussed infurther detailbelow)

HFO-1234yf

N/A

as
in

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 103

Kajihara, H. etal(2010):
Estimation ofenvironmental
concentrations
and deposition
fluxes of R1234-YF and its
decomposition
products
emitted fromair conditioning
equipment totheatmosphere.
International
Symposium on
Nextgeneration Air
ConditioningandTable A2-1: HFO emissions data in the literature
Emission
scenario

HFO
substance

Measuredemissions

Projected HFOemissions

Methodology
used

Reference
Refrigeration
Technology,
2010

Of course, it should be noted that atmospheric concentration measurements are only useful invalidating levels of emission if the modelling of steady state concentrations can be achieved with someconfidence. This requires an accurate knowledge of the atmospheric lifetime of each species of HFO
refrigerant. The reason why the HFOs have low GWPs is that their average atmospheric lifetime isshort. When dealing with short-lifetimes, the actual values can be hard to determine accurately andmay vary between geographic locations, depending on the prevailing atmospheric conditions. Thatsaid, the tracking of atmospheric concentrations still remains a key tool in ‘grounding’ emissions
forecasts.
In the Kajihara study on refrigerant emissions in Japan, HFO-1234yf refrigerant emissions are
discussed in further detail in the table below for the three types of air conditioners used (Kajihara etal, 2010).
Table A2-2: HFO-1234yf refrigerants emissions in Japan in 2050
Life-cycle stage of A/C
Total
Production
Use and Disposal
Refrigerants
Refrigerants(tonnes/
Type of A/Cfilling at A/Cfilling at A/C
year)
Consumer use
Disposal
production
operation(tonnes/year)(tonnes/year)
factory
location(tonnes/year) (tonnes/year)
Home
8
1903
4454
6366
Instituti- Stores
5
724
1238
1967
onal
Buildings 2
24
1380
2005
3410
Facilities 1
2
632
722
1357
Mobile
34
1713
325
2072
Total
50
26
6352
8744
15172
Emission coefficients 0.002
for 0.0222
for 0.02 for home, 0.73 for home, used (-/year)
home,buildings and 0.03 for stores, 0.72
forinstitutional
0.0225for 0.035
for institutional, andand 3 [g/car] facilities
buildings, 0.045 0.232 for mobile
for mobile
for facilities, and15~100[g/car/year]
Source: Kajihara, H. et al (2010): Estimation of environmental concentrations and deposition fluxes of R1234-YF and its decomposition products emitted from air conditioning equipment to the atmosphere.
International Symposium on Next-generation Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology, 2010

In correspondence with a manufacturer, HFO-1233zd(E) emissions in terms of organic chlorine havebeen investigated. In the article from the manufacturer, it is noted that emissions from foams andrefrigerants are different, and that if 80% of the HFO-1233zd(E) is used as a blowing foam, then 0.3
ppt of chlorine would be loaded into the atmosphere if consumption is over 200,000 tonnes per year

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 104(assuming a background atmospheric loading of 3300 ppt of organic chlorine). No emission estimatesare given for their use as refrigerants.
In addition to these published papers, Anthesis-Caleb has worked with UNDP on a series of country
level reports which have been based on national HFC Surveys. The countries have been exclusively
developing countries supported by funding from the Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). Since HFC
use in these countries is largely restricted to the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning sectors, themodelling work, based on the 2006 IPCC Reporting Guidelines, has provided a good proxy for theconversion of HFC consumption patterns to related emissions.
The overall impact from an environmental perspective can be a little more complex than might at firstbe perceived, since HFCs (and later HFOs) will ultimately be replacing refrigerants that may havehigher GWPs (e.g. HCFC-22). Therefore, the level of greenhouse gas emission from the sector may
well decrease over time in GWP-weighted terms. However, to assess the impact of potential
breakdown products, it is important to go back to the release by weight of the refrigerants themselves.
The following graph for Chile shows the emissions of specific HFCs anticipated to be released in the
period to 2030. This analysis also includes the HCFC-22 which will continue to be released from theinstalled base of equipment, despite its on-going replacement in new equipment.

Figure A2-3: Chilean Climate Emissions

For an individual species, the relationship between consumption and emissions is likely to looksomething like the following:

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 105

Figure A2-4: Chile: Consumption versus Emissions for HFC-134a

In this instance, the graph illustrates that as the use of HFC-134a moves away from totally emissive
applications to contained applications, annual consumption does not have to equal emissions. Indeed,a bank (or reservoir) of HFC builds up in installed equipment and will have its own emission
characteristics. As is inferred for HCFC-22 in the earlier graph, annual emissions can outstrip annual
consumption when a refrigerant is being phased-out.

A2.6.2 Methodology
The study team used the Tier 2 methodology set out in the 2006 IPCC Reporting guidelines as a basis
for calculating emissions of HFOs and used the expertise of Anthesis-Caleb (Coordinating Lead Authors
for the ODS Substitutes Chapter of those Guidelines) to develop appropriate high-level models to takeadvantage of the consumption data contained in Annex 4 of the TEAP XXVII/4 Task Force Report. Since
the default emission factors and other assumptions contained in the 2006 Guidelines are now over 10
years old, the following questions were submitted to associations in order to aid the study team in
calculating projected emissions:
For the sub-sectors that you operate in, are you aware of any of the following, and if you are, please
can you supply details:
Charge levels for HFO refrigerants;
Leakage rates of HFO refrigerants;
Estimates of installed capacities for HFO refrigerants; andProjected emissions for HFO refrigerants

In general, awareness of this type of data at the sub-sector level was relatively low amongst
respondents, and even where it was available, the regional specificity of the data needed to berecognised when considering whether to apply it to a model which was working on only two global
regions (Article 5 and non-Article 5). In the end, expert judgement was used to allocate default
Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 106emission factors to the various RAC sub-sectors by region. However, the model is sufficiently versatile
to be able to adjust those emission factor assessments and thereby allow for further sensitivity
analyses to be conducted, should it be required. In keeping with the need to maintain a conservative
outlook on atmospheric emissions, relatively high default emission factors were used, seeking toreflect the fact that they cover a range of equipment, some of which might be quite old and leaky.
Although the facility exists in the model to reduce the default emission factors year-on-year as thebase load of equipment is replaced with newer, and less emissive, equipment, this was not applied in
the period up to 2050 (the extent of the data from TEAP). An example of the consumption data usedwithin Annex 4 of the TEAP Report is shown overleaf.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 107

Table A2-3: Consumption data (tonnes) used in Annex 4 of the TEAP report for non-A5 BAU
SectorSubstance

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Domestic

2035

2040

HFC-134a
1876
1451
957
954
862
999
1158
HC-600a
362
415
545
786
1156
1340
1553
Commercial
HFC-134a
2256
2373
2400
2395
2104
2013
2334
R-404A + R-507
15305
16093
11907
7478
5667
5457
6326
Low-GWP
0
0
4373
9213
13988
18396
21326
Industrial
HFC-134a
1041
1113
1148
1188
1233
1343
1484
R-404A + R-507
603
743
491
378
218
193
213
R-22
1323
675
455
306
206
139
0
Low-GWP
6649
8898
11269
13764
16735
19994
23621
Transport
HFC-134a
222
213
302
371
483
585
679
R-404A + R-507
1176
1540
917
833
705
626
588
Low-GWP
0
0
557
756
1014
1314
1662
Stationary A/C
HFC-134a
4032
4468
1422
994
226
0
0
R-410A
39385
77354
94230
114001131319151966176170R-407C
11195
26802
26172
30349
31368
32918
34890
Low-GWP
0
0
8770
13597
19034
25337
32644
Mobile A/C
HFC-134a
69670
68359
48425
38118
27509
24564
28477
Low-GWP
0
0
18218
32849
49939
63812
73975
Source: TEAP (2016): TEAP Task Force Report (XXVII/4). Available at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop28/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/TEAP_TFXXVII-4_Report_September2016.pdf

Further information on emissions is discussed in Section 4 where HFO emissions are projected up to 2100.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 108

2045

2050

1342
1801
2705
7334
24723
1661
203
0
27625
787
543
2065
0
204229
37176
41115
33013
85758

1556
2087
3136
8502
28661
1875
178
0
32207
912
491
2532
0
236758
39826
50935
38271
99417

A2.7 Task 6: Risk assessment for HFOs
Approach to Assessment
This risk assessment has considered the exposure of the environment to TFA, including the basis fordetermining the exposure of humans via the environment. Although there is a range of HFO
compounds used in the EU, this risk assessment considers the main breakdown product TFA. Althoughadditional exposure assessments could be conducted, encompassing the use of the various otherproducts and their breakdown products, it is anticipated that the assessment of TFA will provide aworst case assessment.
The methodology used for the risk assessment is as follows using EUSES:•••

Estimate overall emissions by industry sector (organotin production, glass coating, stabilisers,
catalysts and biocides);For each sector, estimate emissions by TFA and life-cycle stage (for example, emissions of TFA
from different sources); andDetermine the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) at a regional level for each of
the TFA compounds using the EUSES model

Further information on the inputs for the risk assessment model is discussed in Section 8.

A2.7.1 VEGAThe VEGA platform has been employed to access the QSAR (Quantitative Structure Activity
Relationship) models for TFA. The use of QSAR models allows the prediction of the properties of a
substance from its structure (VEGA Hub, undated). For TFA, this has been used to examine themutagenicity, carcinogenicity, development toxicity, fish toxicity, daphnia toxicity, and persistence.
Other QSAR models can be used to predict the properties of TFA.

A2.7.2 EUSESThe EUSES (European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances) software has been employed
for assessing the environmental and human risks from HFO emissions (EU Science Hub, 2016). The
EUSES model generates predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) from estimated releases fromuse patterns (based on emissions, which is further discussed in section 3) and substance properties(further discussed in Section 4). However, modelling of fluorinated compounds has been challenging.
In this assessment a number of challenges were also identified, the calculated values should be usedwith caution.

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 109

Annex 3 TFA VEGA output

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 110Prediction and Applicability Domain analysis for models:

Mutagenicity (Ames test) CONSENSUS model 1.0.1
Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (CAESAR) 2.1.13
Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7
Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2
Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0
Carcinogenicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.9
Carcinogenicity model (ISS) 1.0.2
Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0
Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX) 1.0.0
Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.7
Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity library (PG) 1.0.0
Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN) 1.0.1
Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0
Skin Sensitization model (CAESAR) 2.1.6
Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.2
Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0
Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (NIC) 1.0.0
Fathead Minnow LC50 96h (EPA) 1.0.7
Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (EPA) 1.0.7
Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (DEMETRA) 1.0.4
Bee acute toxicity model (KNN/IRFMN) 1.0.0
BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14
BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3
BCF model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.1.0
Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9
Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0
Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0
Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0
LogP model (Meylan/Kowwin) 1.1.4
LogP model (MLogP) 1.0.0
LogP model (ALogP) 1.0.0

Mutagenicity (Ames test) CONSENSUS model 1.0.1

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:
Prediction is NON-Mutagenic with a consensus score of 0.47, basedon 4 models.

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Used models: 4
Predicted Consensus Mutagen activity: NON-Mutagenic
Consensus Score: 0.47
Model Caesar assessment: NON-Mutagenic (good reliability)
Model ISS assessment: NON-Mutagenic (low reliability)
Model SarPy assessment: NON-Mutagenic (moderate reliability)
Model KNN assessment: NON-Mutagen (low reliability)
Remarks:none

page 1

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (CAESAR) 2.1.13

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Mutagenic, the result appears reliable. Anyhow,
you should check it through the evaluation of the information given in
the following sections. Anyway some issues could be not optimal:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been foundCompound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: NON-Mutagenic
Structural alerts: Reliability: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

page 2

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (CAESAR) 2.1.13

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 1997 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 3517 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Compound #3
CAS: 354-33-6
Dataset id: 3738 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.794
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Compound #4
CAS: 631-64-1
Dataset id: 2999 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value: Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #5
CAS: 811-97-2
Dataset id: 1244 (Test set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Compound #6
CAS: 420-46-2
Dataset id: 2300 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
Similarity: 0.773
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic

page 3

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (CAESAR) 2.1.13

page 4Global AD Index
AD index = 0.902
Explanation: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.814
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Mutagenic, but the result shows some criticalaspects, which require to be checked:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal
The following relevant fragments have been found: SM150

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: NON-Mutagenic
No. alerts for mutagenicity: 0
No. alerts for non-mutagenicity: 1
Structural alerts: SM150
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

page 5

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 1997 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SM85; SM106
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 3517 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150
Compound #3
CAS: 354-33-6
Dataset id: 3738 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.794
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150
Compound #4
CAS: 631-64-1
Dataset id: 2999 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value: Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SM93
Compound #5
CAS: 811-97-2
Dataset id: 1244 (Test set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150

page 6

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7

Compound #6
CAS: 420-46-2
Dataset id: 2300 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
Similarity: 0.773
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150

page 7

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7

page 8Global AD Index
AD index = 0.811
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.814
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.652
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.7(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts:

Fragment found: SM150

Sarpy alert n. 150 for NON-Mutagenicity, defined by the SMARTS: C(F)(F)C
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 3517 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150
CAS: 354-33-6
Dataset id: 3738 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.794
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150
CAS: 811-97-2
Dataset id: 1244 (Test set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Alerts (found also in the target): SM150

page 9

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2

page 10Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Mutagenic, but the result may be not reliable. A
check of the information given in the following section should bedone, paying particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value- some atom centered fragments of the compound have not beenfound in the compounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1infrequent fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: NON-Mutagenic
Structural alerts: Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2

Compound #1
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 846 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #2
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 300 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #3
CAS: 75-88-7
Dataset id: 819 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CCl
Similarity: 0.751
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: Mutagenic
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #4
CAS: 302-17-0
Dataset id: 769 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.739
Experimental value: Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic
Compound #5
CAS: 814-80-2
Dataset id: 815 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(O)C
Similarity: 0.712
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic

page 11

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2

Compound #6
CAS: 1314-62-1
Dataset id: 771 (Training set)
SMILES: O=[V](=O)O[V](=O)=O
Similarity: 0.693
Experimental value: NON-Mutagenic
Predicted value: NON-Mutagenic

page 12

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2

page 13

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.53
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.777
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.515
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.485
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.85
Explanation: some atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in the compounds of the
training set or are rare fragments (1 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) 1.0.2(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

page 14

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

page 15

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Mutagen, but the result may be not reliable. A
check of the information given in the following section should bedone, paying particular attention to the following issues:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental
values that disagree with the predicted value

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: NON-Mutagen
Molecules used for prediction: 4
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 4686 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-Mutagen
Predicted value: Mutagen
Compound #2
CAS: 75-96-7
Dataset id: 4676 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.832
Experimental value: Mutagen
Predicted value: Mutagen
Compound #3
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 5212 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON-Mutagen
Predicted value: NON-Mutagen
Compound #4
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 4795 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Mutagen
Predicted value: NON-Mutagen
Compound #5
CAS: 354-33-6
Dataset id: 2860 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.794
Experimental value: NON-Mutagen
Predicted value: NON-Mutagen
Compound #6
CAS: 406-90-6
Dataset id: 3021 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)COC=C
Similarity: 0.79
Experimental value: Mutagen
Predicted value: NON-Mutagen

page 16

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

page 17

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.641
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.818
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.501
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.505
Explanation: some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Carcinogenicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.9

page 18

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is Carcinogen, but the result may be not reliable. A checkof the information given in the following section should be done,
paying particular attention to the following issues:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not adequate- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value- model class assignment is uncertain- predicted substance falls into a neuron that is populated by nocompounds of the training set

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Carcinogen activity: Carcinogen
P(Carcinogen): 0.513
P(NON-Carcinogen): 0.487
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Carcinogenicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.9

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 761 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Compound #2
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 219 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Compound #3
CAS: 811-97-2
Dataset id: 729 (Training set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: NON-Carcinogen
Compound #4
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 487 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: NON-Carcinogen
Compound #5
CAS: 75-88-7
Dataset id: 148 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CCl
Similarity: 0.751
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Compound #6
CAS: 306-83-2
Dataset id: 376 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.745
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogenpage 19

Carcinogenicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.9

page 20

Global AD Index
AD index = 0
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.818
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.481
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not adequate.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.481
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.
Model class assignment reliability
Pos/Non-Pos difference = 0.026
Explanation: model class assignment is uncertain.
Neural map neurons concordance
Neurons concordance = 0.5
Explanation: predicted substance falls into a neuron that is populated by no compounds of the training set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Carcinogenicity model (ISS) 1.0.2

page 21

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Carcinogen, but the result may be not reliable. A
check of the information given in the following section should bedone, paying particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Carcinogen activity: NON-Carcinogen
Structural alerts: Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Carcinogenicity model (ISS) 1.0.2

Compound #1
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 846 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #2
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 300 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #3
CAS: 75-88-7
Dataset id: 819 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CCl
Similarity: 0.751
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): SA8 Aliphatic halogens
Compound #4
CAS: 302-17-0
Dataset id: 769 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.739
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): SA56 Alkyl halides
Compound #5
CAS: 814-80-2
Dataset id: 815 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(O)C
Similarity: 0.712
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: NON-Carcinogenpage 22

Carcinogenicity model (ISS) 1.0.2

Compound #6
CAS: 1314-62-1
Dataset id: 771 (Training set)
SMILES: O=[V](=O)O[V](=O)=O
Similarity: 0.693
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: NON-Carcinogenpage 23

Carcinogenicity model (ISS) 1.0.2

page 24

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.623
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.777
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.515
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.485
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0

page 25

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is Carcinogen, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental
values that disagree with the predicted value
The following relevant fragments have been found: Carcinogenity
alert no. 125

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: CarcinogenNo. alerts for carcinogenicity: 1
Structural alerts: Carcinogenity alert no. 125
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 771 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57
Compound #2
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 219 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57
Compound #3
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 943 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 58; Carcinogenity alert no. 59
Compound #4
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 733 (Training set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (found also in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 125
Compound #5
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 1058 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C([O-])C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.776
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57

page 26

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0

Compound #6
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 486 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57

page 27

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0

page 28

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.723
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.806
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.648
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.648
Explanation: some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts:

Fragment found: Carcinogenity alert no. 125
Structural alert for carcinogenity defined by the SMARTS: CCF
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 733 (Training set)
SMILES: FCC(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.779
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (found also in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 125
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 1398 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(C(F)(F)F)Cl
Similarity: 0.758
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (found also in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 125
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 148 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CCl
Similarity: 0.751
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Carcinogen
Alerts (found also in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 125
Alerts (not found in the target): Carcinogenity alert no. 57

page 29

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX) 1.0.0

page 30

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is Possible NON-Carcinogen, but the result may be notreliable. A check of the information given in the following section
should be done, paying particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not adequate- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Mutagen activity: Possible NON-CarcinogenNo. alerts for carcinogenicity: 0
Structural alerts: Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 912 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogen
Compound #2
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 627 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogen
Compound #3
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 242 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogen
Compound #4
CAS: 75-88-7
Dataset id: 617 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CCl
Similarity: 0.751
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogen
Compound #5
CAS: 302-17-0
Dataset id: 598 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.739
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogen
Compound #6
CAS: 1314-62-1
Dataset id: 599 (Training set)
SMILES: O=[V](=O)O[V](=O)=O
Similarity: 0.693
Experimental value: Carcinogen
Predicted value: Possible NON-Carcinogenpage 31

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX) 1.0.0

page 32

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.498
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.794
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.312
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not adequate.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.312
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.7

page 33

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Toxicant, but the result may be not reliable. A
check of the information given in the following section should bedone, paying particular attention to the following issues:- no similar compounds with known experimental value in the training
set have been found- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value- 1 descriptor(s) for this compound have values outside the descriptor
range of the compounds of the training set.
- a prominent number of atom centered fragments of the compound
have not been found in the compounds of the training set or are rarefragments (1 unknown fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted developmental toxicity activity: NON-Toxicant
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.7

Compound #1
CAS: 51-21-8
Dataset id: 116 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C1NC=C(F)C(=O)N1
Similarity: 0.632
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #2
CAS: 52-67-5
Dataset id: 206 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(N)C(C)(C)S
Similarity: 0.621
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #3
CAS: 866-84-2
Dataset id: 229 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CC(O)(C(=O)O)CC(=O)O
Similarity: 0.609
Experimental value: NON-Toxicant
Predicted value: NON-Toxicant
Compound #4
CAS: 127-07-1
Dataset id: 132 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(N)NO
Similarity: 0.608
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #5
CAS: 99-66-1
Dataset id: 289 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(CCC)CCC
Similarity: 0.595
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #6
CAS: 127-48-0
Dataset id: 284 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C1OC(C(=O)N1C)(C)C
Similarity: 0.591
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant

page 34

Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.7

page 35

Global AD Index
AD index = 0
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.626
Explanation: no similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = False
Explanation: 1 descriptor(s) for this compound have values outside the descriptor range of the compounds ofthe training set..
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.6
Explanation: a prominent number of atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in thecompounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1 unknown fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) 2.1.7(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has never been found in the model's training set

page 36

Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity library (PG) 1.0.0

page 37

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Toxicant, but the result may be not reliable. A
check of the information given in the following section should bedone, paying particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Developmental and Reproductive activity: NON-Toxicant
Matching library description: Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity library (PG) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 440 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(=O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #2
CAS: 71133-14-7
Dataset id: 445 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(=O)C(Cl)(Cl)Br
Similarity: 0.818
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #3
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 439 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(=O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #4
CAS: 631-64-1
Dataset id: 438 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(=O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #5
CAS: 684-16-2
Dataset id: 504 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(=O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.783
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant
Compound #6
CAS: 5589-96-8
Dataset id: 446 (Training set)
SMILES: OC(=O)C(Cl)Br
Similarity: 0.773
Experimental value: Toxicant
Predicted value: Toxicant

page 38

Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity library (PG) 1.0.0

page 39

Global AD Index
AD index = 0
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.83
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN)

page 40

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is Inactive, but the result may be not reliable. A check of
the information given in the following section should be done, paying
particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- 1 descriptor(s) for this compound have values outside the descriptor
range of the compounds of the training set.

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted activity: Inactive
Classification tree final node: 4
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN)

Compound #1
CAS: 631-64-1
Dataset id: 8 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value: Inactive
Predicted value: Inactive
Compound #2
CAS: 455-24-3
Dataset id: 395 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)c1ccc(cc1)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.679
Experimental value: Inactive
Predicted value: Inactive
Compound #3
CAS: 52-68-6
Dataset id: 1 (Training set)
SMILES: O=P(OC)(OC)C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.657
Experimental value: Inactive
Predicted value: Inactive
Compound #4
CAS: 402-45-9
Dataset id: 170 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)c1ccc(O)cc1
Similarity: 0.655
Experimental value: Active
Predicted value: Inactive
Compound #5
CAS: 107-21-1
Dataset id: 22 (Training set)
SMILES: OCCO
Similarity: 0.632
Experimental value: Inactive
Predicted value: Inactive
Compound #6
CAS: 455-19-6
Dataset id: 396 (Training set)
SMILES: O=Cc1ccc(cc1)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.63
Experimental value: Inactive
Predicted value: Inactive

page 41

Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN)

page 42

Global AD Index
AD index = 0
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.724
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = False
Explanation: 1 descriptor(s) for this compound have values outside the descriptor range of the compounds ofthe training set..
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is Possible NON-active, the result appears reliable.
Anyhow, you should check it through the evaluation of theinformation given in the following sections.
The following relevant fragments have been found: ER possible nonactivity alert no. 9

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted ER-mediated effect: Possible NON-active
No. alerts for activity: 0
No. alerts for possible activity: 0
No. alerts for non-activity: 0
No. alerts for possible non-activity: 1
Structural alerts: ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Reliability: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

page 43

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 88 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CF
Similarity: 0.855
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: Possible NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Compound #2
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 122 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20
Compound #3
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 158 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20
Compound #4
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 152 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20
Compound #5
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 121 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20

page 44

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0

Compound #6
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 153 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CO
Similarity: 0.73
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: Possible NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 3

page 45

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0

page 46

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.91
Explanation: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.828
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts:

Fragment found: ER possible non-activity alert no. 9

Fragment related to possible non-activity for ER-mediated effect, defined by the SMARTS: C(=O)
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 88 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CF
Similarity: 0.855
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: Possible NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 122 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20
CAS: N.A.
Dataset id: 158 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: NON-active
Predicted value: NON-active
Alerts (found also in the target): ER possible non-activity alert no. 9
Alerts (not found in the target): ER non-activity alert no. 20

page 47

Skin Sensitization model (CAESAR) 2.1.6

page 48

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Sensitizer, but the result shows some criticalaspects, which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value- some atom centered fragments of the compound have not beenfound in the compounds of the training set or are rare fragments (2infrequent fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted skin sensitization activity: NON-Sensitizer
O(Active): 0.47
O(Inactive): 0.53
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:noneSkin Sensitization model (CAESAR) 2.1.6

Compound #1
CAS: 144-62-7
Dataset id: 169 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(=O)O
Similarity: 0.735
Experimental value: Sensitizer
Predicted value: Sensitizer
Compound #2
CAS: 50-21-5
Dataset id: 127 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(O)C
Similarity: 0.712
Experimental value: NON-Sensitizer
Predicted value: NON-Sensitizer
Compound #3
CAS: 87-69-4
Dataset id: 196 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(O)C(O)C(=O)O
Similarity: 0.654
Experimental value: Sensitizer
Predicted value: Sensitizer
Compound #4
CAS: 818-61-1
Dataset id: 110 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCCO)C=C
Similarity: 0.644
Experimental value: Sensitizer
Predicted value: Sensitizer
Compound #5
CAS: 56-81-5
Dataset id: 102 (Test set)
SMILES: OCC(O)CO
Similarity: 0.629
Experimental value: NON-Sensitizer
Predicted value: NON-Sensitizer
Compound #6
CAS: 64-67-5
Dataset id: 75 (Test set)
SMILES: O=S(=O)(OCC)OCC
Similarity: 0.618
Experimental value: Sensitizer
Predicted value: Sensitizer

page 49

Skin Sensitization model (CAESAR) 2.1.6

page 50

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.604
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.723
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.488
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.85
Explanation: some atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in the compounds of the
training set or are rare fragments (2 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Skin Sensitization model (CAESAR) 2.1.6(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

page 51

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.2

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l), but the result showssome critical aspects, which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- some atom centered fragments of the compound have not beenfound in the compounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1infrequent fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted toxicity class: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Structural alerts: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

page 52

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.2

Compound #1
CAS: 75-89-8
Dataset id: 53 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 413 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Compound #3
CAS: 29553-26-2
Dataset id: 549 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)C(O)(C)C
Similarity: 0.746
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Compound #4
CAS: 115-20-8
Dataset id: 243 (Training set)
SMILES: OCC(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.718
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Compound #5
CAS: 137-40-6
Dataset id: 286 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CC
Similarity: 0.702
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Compound #6
CAS: 79-20-9
Dataset id: 69 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C
Similarity: 0.664
Experimental value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)
Predicted value: NON-Toxic (more than 100 mg/l)

page 53

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.2

page 54

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.759
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.796
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.85
Explanation: some atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in the compounds of the
training set or are rare fragments (1 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) 1.0.2(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

page 55

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

page 56

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 177.19 mg/L, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the
training set has a moderate value, considering the experimental
variability

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: Predicted toxicity [-log(mg/L)]: -2.25
Predicted toxicity [mg/L]: 177.19
Molecules used for prediction: 4
Experimental value [mg/l]: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 000075-89-8
Dataset id: 84 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -2.077
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.862
Compound #2
CAS: 000920-66-1
Dataset id: 86 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -2.386
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.88
Compound #3
CAS: 000079-11-8
Dataset id: 241 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.856
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -2.173
Compound #4
CAS: 029553-26-2
Dataset id: 85 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)C(O)(C)C
Similarity: 0.746
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -2.763
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.902
Compound #5
CAS: 000144-62-7
Dataset id: 236 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(=O)O
Similarity: 0.735
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.43
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.726
Compound #6
CAS: 000352-87-4
Dataset id: 218 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC(F)(F)F)C(=C)C
Similarity: 0.732
Experimental value [-log(mg/L)]: -0.918
Predicted value [-log(mg/L)]: -1.081

page 57

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.0.0

page 58

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.785
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.474
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.304
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.861
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a moderatevalue, considering the experimental variability.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (NIC) 1.0.0

page 59

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 244.67 mg/L, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been foundCompound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: Predicted fish toxicity [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.33
Predicted fish toxicity [mg/l]: 244.67
Molecular Weight: 113.86
Experimental value [mg/l]: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (NIC) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 000075-89-8
Dataset id: 84 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.078
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.332
Compound #2
CAS: 000920-66-1
Dataset id: 86 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.161
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.332
Compound #3
CAS: 000079-11-8
Dataset id: 241 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: 0.118
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.007
Compound #4
CAS: 029553-26-2
Dataset id: 85 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)C(F)(F)C(O)(C)C
Similarity: 0.746
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.56
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.332
Compound #5
CAS: 000144-62-7
Dataset id: 236 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(=O)O
Similarity: 0.735
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: 0.523
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: -0.008
Compound #6
CAS: 000352-87-4
Dataset id: 218 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC(F)(F)F)C(=C)C
Similarity: 0.732
Experimental value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: 1.307
Predicted value [log(1/(mmol/L))]: 1.206

page 60

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (NIC) 1.0.0

page 61

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.838
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.213
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.213
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.254
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Fathead Minnow LC50 96h (EPA) 1.0.7

page 62

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 290.52 mg/L, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the
training set has a moderate value, considering the experimental
variability

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: Predicted toxicity [-log(mol/l)]: 2.59
Predicted toxicity [mg/l]: 290.52
Molecular Weight: 113.86
Experimental value [mg/l]: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:noneFathead Minnow LC50 96h (EPA) 1.0.7

Compound #1
CAS: 75-89-8
Dataset id: 55 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.93
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.108
Compound #2
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 57 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 1.91
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.001
Compound #3
CAS: 383-63-1
Dataset id: 353 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.84
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 1.15
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.958
Compound #4
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 456 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.84
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.136
Compound #5
CAS: 631-64-1
Dataset id: 424 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Br)Br
Similarity: 0.787
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.5
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.97
Compound #6
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 662 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.69
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.806

page 63

Fathead Minnow LC50 96h (EPA) 1.0.7

page 64

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.857
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.956
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.51
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 1.091
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a moderatevalue, considering the experimental variability.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (EPA) 1.0.7

page 65

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 56.96 mg/L, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the
training set has a moderate value, considering the experimental
variability

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: Predicted toxicity [-log(mol/l)]: 3.3
Predicted toxicity [mg/l]: 56.96
Molecular Weight: 113.86
Experimental value [mg/l]: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:noneDaphnia Magna LC50 48h (EPA) 1.0.7

Compound #1
CAS: 115-20-8
Dataset id: 132 (Training set)
SMILES: OCC(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.718
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 4.046
Compound #2
CAS: 79-09-4
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CC
Similarity: 0.702
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.17
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.302
Compound #3
CAS: 107-92-6
Dataset id: 299 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCC
Similarity: 0.672
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.16
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.69
Compound #4
CAS: 52-68-6
Dataset id: 2 (Training set)
SMILES: O=P(OC)(OC)C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.657
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 9.09
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 6.274
Compound #5
CAS: 109-52-4
Dataset id: 122 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCCC
Similarity: 0.649
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.36
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.959
Compound #6
CAS: 141-78-6
Dataset id: 159 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC)C
Similarity: 0.638
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.08
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.607

page 66

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (EPA) 1.0.7

page 67

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.71
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.957
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.216
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 1.046
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a moderatevalue, considering the experimental variability.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (DEMETRA) 1.0.4

page 68

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 180.87 mg/L, but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: Predicted toxicity [-log(mol/l)]: 2.8
Predicted toxicity [mg/l]: 180.87
Molecular Weight: 113.86
Experimental value [mg/l]: Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:noneDaphnia Magna LC50 48h (DEMETRA) 1.0.4

Compound #1
CAS: 144-49-0
Dataset id: 230 (Test set)
SMILES: OC(=O)CF
Similarity: 0.855
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.31
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 2.876
Compound #2
CAS: 79-09-4
Dataset id: 269 (Training set)
SMILES: CCC(O)=O
Similarity: 0.702
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.65
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.033
Compound #3
CAS: 16672-87-0
Dataset id: 373 (Training set)
SMILES: OP(O)(=O)CCCl
Similarity: 0.635
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.84
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.329
Compound #4
CAS: 59682-52-9
Dataset id: 140 (Training set)
SMILES: CCOP(O)(=O)C(N)=O
Similarity: 0.634
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 1.79
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 3.863
Compound #5
CAS: 52-51-7
Dataset id: 39 (Training set)
SMILES: OCC(Br)(CO)[N+]([O-])=O
Similarity: 0.633
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 5.69
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 4.511
Compound #6
CAS: 300-76-5
Dataset id: 177 (Training set)
SMILES: COP(=O)(OC)OC(Br)C(Cl)(Cl)Br
Similarity: 0.626
Experimental value [-log(mol/l)]: 10.65
Predicted value [-log(mol/l)]: 9.338

page 69

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (DEMETRA) 1.0.4

page 70

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.8
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.76
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.591
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.67
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.617
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Bee acute toxicity model (KNN/IRFMN) 1.0.0

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is N/A, it is not possible to perform an assessment.

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted Toxicity activity: Non Predicted
Molecules used for prediction: 0
Reliability: Remarks:[Model] Unable to perform Applicability Domain checkpage 71Bee acute toxicity model (KNN/IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 127-20-8
Dataset id: 222 (Training set)
SMILES: CC(Cl)(Cl)C(O)=O
Similarity: 0.747
Experimental value: Moderate toxicity (between 1 and 100 µg/bee)Predicted value: Compound #2
CAS: 52-68-6
Dataset id: 79 (Training set)
SMILES: COP(=O)(OC)C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.657
Experimental value: Moderate toxicity (between 1 and 100 µg/bee)Predicted value: Strong toxicity (lower than 1 µg/bee)Compound #3
CAS: 25954-13-6
Dataset id: 176 (Training set)
SMILES: CCOP(O)(=O)C(N)=O
Similarity: 0.634
Experimental value: Low toxicity (over 100 µg/bee)Predicted value: Moderate toxicity (between 1 and 100 µg/bee)Compound #4
CAS: 300-76-5
Dataset id: 213 (Training set)
SMILES: COP(=O)(OC)OC(Br)C(Cl)(Cl)Br
Similarity: 0.626
Experimental value: Strong toxicity (lower than 1 µg/bee)Predicted value: Moderate toxicity (between 1 and 100 µg/bee)Compound #5
CAS: 1596-84-5
Dataset id: 230 (Training set)
SMILES: CN(C)NC(=O)CCC(O)=O
Similarity: 0.619
Experimental value: Low toxicity (over 100 µg/bee)Predicted value: Low toxicity (over 100 µg/bee)Compound #6
CAS: 10004-44-1
Dataset id: 131 (Training set)
SMILES: CC1=CC(=O)NO1
Similarity: 0.605
Experimental value: Low toxicity (over 100 µg/bee)Predicted value: -page 72

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

page 73

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.2 log(L/kg), but the result shows some critical aspects,
which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found
The following relevant fragments have been found: Carbonyl residue(SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: Predicted BCF [log(L/kg)]: 0.2
Predicted BCF [L/kg]: 2
Predicted BCF from sub-model 1 (HM) [log(L/kg)]: 0.28
Predicted BCF from sub-model 2 (GA) [log(L/kg)]: 0.4
Predicted LogP (MLogP): 0.37
Structural alerts: Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

page 74

Threshold 3.3 (bioaccumulative)
Following, a chart showing the predicted value together with its conservative confidence interval for safe classification.
For the threshold logBCF = 3.3, the current compound can be associated (due to its Applicability Domain index value)
to a conservative interval of 0.7 log units.
On this basis, the compound can be safely classified as not bioaccumulative.

Threshold 3.7 (very bioaccumulative)
Following, a chart showing the predicted value together with its conservative confidence interval for safe classification.
For the threshold logBCF = 3.7, the current compound can be associated (due to its Applicability Domain index value)
to a conservative interval of 0.5 log units.
On this basis, the compound can be safely classified as not very bioaccumulative.

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 397 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: -0.15
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: -0.038
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 263 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.3
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.601
Alerts (not found in the target): OH group (PG 06)
Compound #3
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 468 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.85
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.075
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
Compound #4
CAS: 76-13-1
Dataset id: 257 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(C(F)(Cl)Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.699
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 1.7
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 1.387
Compound #5
CAS: 526-78-3
Dataset id: 71 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C(C(=O)O)Br)Br
Similarity: 0.685
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.81
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.227
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)

page 75

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

Compound #6
CAS: 76-12-0
Dataset id: 258 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(C(F)(Cl)Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.661
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 1.78
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 1.29

page 76

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

page 77

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.826
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.206
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.225
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.301
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the descriptor range of the compounds of the
training set.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

page 78(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 1 of 2:

Fragment found: Carbonyl residue (SR 02)

This chemical contains a carbonyl residue. This residue has been found to be present in a very large (112) numberof non-bioaccumulative compounds, even when the logP value was higher than 3.
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 397 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: -0.15
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: -0.038
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 468 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.85
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.075
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
CAS: 526-78-3
Dataset id: 71 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C(C(=O)O)Br)Br
Similarity: 0.685
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.81
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.227
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 2 of 2:

Fragment found: COOH group (PG 01)

This chemical contains a COOH polar group. The presence of polar groups increases hydrophilicity, related tolower values of BCF.
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 397 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: -0.15
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: -0.038
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 468 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.85
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.075
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)
CAS: 526-78-3
Dataset id: 71 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C(C(=O)O)Br)Br
Similarity: 0.685
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.81
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.227
Alerts (found also in the target): Carbonyl residue (SR 02); COOH group (PG 01)

page 79

BCF model (CAESAR) 2.1.14

page 80

Descriptor name: MLogP
Description: LogP is directly correlated to the logBCF value.
Following, a scatterplot of MLogP against response values; experimental values are reported for the training set,predicted value for the studied compound. Light blue dots represent values of compounds from training set, red dot isthe value of the studied compound.

Following, a scatterplot of MLogP against response values only for 3 most similar compounds in the training set. Red
dot is the value of the studied compound, black outlined circles represents experimental values of compounds fromtraining set, black dots represents predicted value of the same compound; the size of the circle is proportional to thesimilarity to the studied compound.

BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3

page 81

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.5 log(L/kg), but the result may be not reliable. A checkof the information given in the following section should be done,
paying particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- some atom centered fragments of the compound have not beenfound in the compounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1infrequent fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: Predicted BCF [log(L/kg)]: 0.5
Predicted BCF [L/kg]: 3
Predicted LogP (Meylan/Kowwin): 0.5
Predicted LogP reliability: Good
MW: 113.86
Ionic compound: yes
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 5 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.23
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.5
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 117 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.4
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.762
Compound #3
CAS: 127-20-8
Dataset id: 20 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.86
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.5
Compound #4
CAS: 76-13-1
Dataset id: 668 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(C(F)(Cl)Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.699
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 1.7
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 1.752
Compound #5
CAS: 526-78-3
Dataset id: 27 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C(C(=O)O)Br)Br
Similarity: 0.685
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.81
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.5
Compound #6
CAS: 75-98-9
Dataset id: 4 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(C)C
Similarity: 0.67
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.36
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.5

page 82

BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3

page 83

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.702
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.826
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.316
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.185
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.362
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.
Reliability of logP prediction
LogP reliability = 1
Explanation: reliability of logP value used by the model is good.
Model's descriptors range check
Descriptors range check = True
Explanation: descriptors for this compound have values inside the defined range.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.85
Explanation: some atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in the compounds of the
training set or are rare fragments (1 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

page 84

BCF model (Meylan) 1.0.3

page 85

Descriptor name: MLogP
Description: LogP is directly correlated to the logBCF value.
Following, a scatterplot of MLogP against response values; experimental values are reported for the training set,predicted value for the studied compound. Light blue dots represent values of compounds from training set, red dot isthe value of the studied compound.

Following, a scatterplot of MLogP against response values only for 3 most similar compounds in the training set. Red
dot is the value of the studied compound, black outlined circles represents experimental values of compounds fromtraining set, black dots represents predicted value of the same compound; the size of the circle is proportional to thesimilarity to the studied compound.

BCF model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.1.0

page 86

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.27 log(L/kg), but the result may be not reliable. A checkof the information given in the following section should be done,
paying particular attention to the following issues:- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the
training set has a high value, considering the experimental variability

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: Predicted BCF [log(L/kg)]: 0.27
Molecules used for prediction: 3
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

BCF model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.1.0

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 41 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.025
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.409
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 391 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.244
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 1.753
Compound #3
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 40 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.664
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.188
Compound #4
CAS: 76-13-1
Dataset id: 43 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(C(F)(Cl)Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.699
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 1.623
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 1.464
Compound #5
CAS: 526-78-3
Dataset id: 325 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C(C(=O)O)Br)Br
Similarity: 0.685
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.43
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: 0.02
Compound #6
CAS: 306-52-5
Dataset id: 302 (Training set)
SMILES: O=P(O)(O)OCC(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.682
Experimental value [log(L/kg)]: 0.078
Predicted value [log(L/kg)]: -0.074

page 87

BCF model (KNN/Read-Across) 1.1.0

page 88

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.7
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.793
Explanation: strongly similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have been found.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.789
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.222
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 1.509
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a high value,considering the experimental variability.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is NON Readily Biodegradable, but the result shows somecritical aspects, which require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental
values that disagree with the predicted value- some atom centered fragments of the compound have not beenfound in the compounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1infrequent fragments found)
The following relevant fragments have been found: Non RB alert no.
11 (fluorine); Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted RB activity: NON Readily Biodegradable
No. alerts for non RB: 1
No. alerts for possible non RB: 0
No. alerts for RB: 0
No. alerts for possible RB: 1
Structural alerts: Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine); Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

page 89

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9

Compound #1
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 32 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Alerts (not found in the target): Non RB alert no. 32 (1,1,1-trichloroethane)
Compound #2
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 284 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine)
Compound #3
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 52 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Compound #4
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 50 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Compound #5
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 414 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)

page 90

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9

Compound #6
CAS: 68-11-1
Dataset id: 16 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CS
Similarity: 0.72
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)

page 91

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9

page 92

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.696
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.814
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.678
Explanation: some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.85
Explanation: some atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in the compounds of the
training set or are rare fragments (1 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 1 of 2:

Fragment found: Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine)
Structural alert related to non ready biodegradability activity, defined by the SMARTS: F.
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 920-66-1
Dataset id: 284 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)C(O)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.81
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine)
CAS: 76-13-1
Dataset id: 34 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(C(F)(Cl)Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.699
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine)
Alerts (not found in the target): Non RB alert no. 3 (1,2-dichloroethane)
CAS: 75-45-6
Dataset id: 27 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)Cl
Similarity: 0.662
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Non RB alert no. 11 (fluorine)

page 93

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 2 of 2:

Fragment found: Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Structural alert related to possible ready biodegradability activity, defined by the SMARTS: O=CC.
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 32 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: NON Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
Alerts (not found in the target): Non RB alert no. 32 (1,1,1-trichloroethane)
CAS: 79-43-6
Dataset id: 52 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.795
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 50 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: Readily Biodegradable
Predicted value: Possible Readily Biodegradable
Alerts (found also in the target): Possible RB alert no. 14 (acetaldehyde)

page 94

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) 1.0.9(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

page 95

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 96

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is nP, but the result may be not reliable. A check of theinformation given in the following section should be done, paying
particular attention to the following issues:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not adequate- similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values
that disagree with the predicted value- KNN model has given no output and prediction has based only on
found alerts- a prominent number of atom centered fragments of the compound
have not been found in the compounds of the training set or are rarefragments (1 unknown fragments and 1 infrequent fragments found)

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted persistence in sediment: nP
Molecules used for prediction: 0
Structural alerts: nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Reliability: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:nonePersistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 46 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
Compound #2
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 39 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
Compound #3
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 18 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Compound #4
CAS: 79-10-7
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C=C
Similarity: 0.675
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Compound #5
CAS: 107-92-6
Dataset id: 109 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCC
Similarity: 0.672
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4

page 97

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #6
CAS: 79-20-9
Dataset id: 47 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C
Similarity: 0.664
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4

page 98

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 99

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.215
Explanation: the predicted compound is outside the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.749
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.327
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not adequate.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.327
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Concordance of prediction with found structural alerts
Structural alerts concordance = 0.85
Explanation: KNN model has given no output and prediction has based only on found alerts.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 0.51
Explanation: a prominent number of atom centered fragments of the compound have not been found in thecompounds of the training set or are rare fragments (1 unknown fragments and 1 infrequent fragments found).

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 1 of 2:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 1
Fragment related to nP compounds (sediment), defined by the SMARTS: O=CC
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 46 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 39 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 18 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4

page 100

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 2 of 2:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Fragment related to nP compounds (sediment), defined by the SMARTS: OC(C)Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 46 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 39 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: nP/P
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 3
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 18 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 4

page 101

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 102(Molecule 0) Reasoning on rare and missing Atom Centered Fragments.
The following Atom Centered Fragments have been found in the molecule, but they are not found or rarely found in
the model's training set:

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC
The fragment has less than 3 occurrences in the model's training set

Fragment defined by the SMILES: FC(F)(F)C
The fragment has never been found in the model's training set

Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 103

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is nP, the result appears reliable. Anyhow, you should
check it through the evaluation of the information given in thefollowing sections. Anyway some issues could be not optimal:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been foundCompound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted persistence in soil: nP
Molecules used for prediction: 2
Structural alerts: nP (soil) alert no. 20
Reliability: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:nonePersistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 44 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Compound #2
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Compound #3
CAS: 79-10-7
Dataset id: 43 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C=C
Similarity: 0.675
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 6
Compound #4
CAS: 107-92-6
Dataset id: 105 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCC
Similarity: 0.672
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Compound #5
CAS: 79-20-9
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C
Similarity: 0.664
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 18

page 104

Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #6
CAS: 625-38-7
Dataset id: 194 (Training set)
SMILES: C=CCC(=O)O
Similarity: 0.657
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20

page 105Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 106

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.866
Explanation: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.75
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 1
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 1
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Concordance of prediction with found structural alerts
Structural alerts concordance = 1
Explanation: all found alerts are related to experimental values in agreement with the prediction.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts:

Fragment found: nP (soil) alert no. 20
Chemical class related to nP compounds (soil), defined by the presence of a single carboxylic acid (aliphatic)
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 44 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
CAS: 79-10-7
Dataset id: 43 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C=C
Similarity: 0.675
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 20
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (soil) alert no. 6

page 107

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 108

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is nP, but the result shows some critical aspects, which
require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set
is not optimal- some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental
values that disagree with the predicted value

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted persistence in water: nP
Molecules used for prediction: 3
Structural alerts: nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP (sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert
no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:nonePersistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Compound #2
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Compound #3
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Compound #4
CAS: 79-10-7
Dataset id: 44 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C=C
Similarity: 0.675
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 11
Compound #5
CAS: 107-92-6
Dataset id: 108 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)CCC
Similarity: 0.672
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 109

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

Compound #6
CAS: 79-20-9
Dataset id: 46 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C
Similarity: 0.664
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10
Alerts (not found in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 14

page 110Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0

page 111

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.707
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.749
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.668
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is not optimal.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.668
Explanation: some similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that disagree with thepredicted value.
Concordance of prediction with found structural alerts
Structural alerts concordance = 1
Explanation: all found alerts are related to experimental values in agreement with the prediction.
Atom Centered Fragments similarity check
ACF index = 1
Explanation: all atom centered fragment of the compound have been found in the compounds of the training
set.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 1 of 5:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 1
Fragment related to nP compounds (sediment), defined by the SMARTS: O=CC
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 112

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 2 of 5:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 8
Fragment related to nP compounds (sediment), defined by the SMARTS: C(O)C
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 113

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 3 of 5:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 10
Fragment related to nP compounds (sediment), defined by the SMARTS: O=C
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 114

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 4 of 5:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 13
Chemical class related to nP compounds (water), defined by the presence of a single carboxyl acid (aliphatic)
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 115

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) 1.0.0(Molecule 0) Reasoning on fragments/structural alerts - 5 of 5:

Fragment found: nP (sediment) alert no. 22
Chemical class related to nP compounds (water), defined by the presence of hydroxyl groups
Following, the most similar compounds from the model's dataset having the same fragment.
CAS: 79-11-8
Dataset id: 45 (Training set)
SMILES: C(=O)(O)CCl
Similarity: 0.761
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 75-99-0
Dataset id: 38 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(C)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.747
Experimental value: P/vP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22
CAS: 64-19-7
Dataset id: 17 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C
Similarity: 0.739
Experimental value: nP
Predicted value: nP
Alerts (found also in the target): nP (sediment) alert no. 1; nP (sediment) alert no. 8; nP(sediment) alert no. 10; nP (sediment) alert no. 13; nP (sediment) alert no. 22

page 116

LogP model (Meylan/Kowwin) 1.1.4

page 117

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.5, the result appears reliable. Anyhow, you should
check it through the evaluation of the information given in thefollowing sections. Anyway some issues could be not optimal:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been foundCompound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted LogP: 0.5
Reliability: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

LogP model (Meylan/Kowwin) 1.1.4

Compound #1
CAS: 431-47-0
Dataset id: 1602 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.895
Experimental value: 0.6
Predicted value: 0.789
Compound #2
CAS: 75-89-8
Dataset id: 327 (Training set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value: 0.41
Predicted value: 0.275
Compound #3
CAS: 354-38-1
Dataset id: 1536 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(N)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.853
Experimental value: 0.12
Predicted value: -0.746
Compound #4
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 331 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: 1.33
Predicted value: 1.442
Compound #5
CAS: 383-63-1
Dataset id: 1573 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.84
Experimental value: 1.18
Predicted value: 1.28
Compound #6
CAS: 421-50-1
Dataset id: 1597 (Training set)
SMILES: O=C(C)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.836
Experimental value: 0.2
Predicted value: 0.181

page 118

LogP model (Meylan/Kowwin) 1.1.4

page 119

Global AD Index
AD index = 1
Explanation: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.883
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.162
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.095
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.189
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

LogP model (MLogP) 1.0.0

page 120

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.37, the result appears reliable. Anyhow, you should
check it through the evaluation of the information given in thefollowing sections. Anyway some issues could be not optimal:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been foundCompound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted LogP: 0.37
Reliability: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

LogP model (MLogP) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 431-47-0
Dataset id: 1602 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.895
Experimental value: 0.6
Predicted value: 0.795
Compound #2
CAS: 75-89-8
Dataset id: 327 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value: 0.41
Predicted value: 0.58
Compound #3
CAS: 354-38-1
Dataset id: 1536 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(N)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.853
Experimental value: 0.12
Predicted value: -0.04
Compound #4
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 331 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: 1.33
Predicted value: 0.996
Compound #5
CAS: 383-63-1
Dataset id: 1573 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.84
Experimental value: 1.18
Predicted value: 1.188
Compound #6
CAS: 421-50-1
Dataset id: 1597 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(C)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.836
Experimental value: 0.2
Predicted value: 0.864

page 121

LogP model (MLogP) 1.0.0

page 122

Global AD Index
AD index = 1
Explanation: the predicted compound is into the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.883
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.183
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.139
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.195
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a low value,considering the experimental variability.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

LogP model (ALogP) 1.0.0

page 123

Prediction for compound Molecule 0

Prediction:

Reliability:

Prediction is 0.86, but the result shows some critical aspects, which
require to be checked:- only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value
in the training set have been found- the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the
training set has a moderate value, considering the experimental
variability

Compound: Molecule 0
Compound SMILES: O=C(O)C(F)(F)F
Experimental value: Predicted LogP: 0.86
Reliability: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model
Remarks:none

LogP model (ALogP) 1.0.0

Compound #1
CAS: 431-47-0
Dataset id: 1602 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(OC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.895
Experimental value: 0.6
Predicted value: 1.109
Compound #2
CAS: 75-89-8
Dataset id: 327 (Test set)
SMILES: FC(F)(F)CO
Similarity: 0.872
Experimental value: 0.41
Predicted value: 0.649
Compound #3
CAS: 354-38-1
Dataset id: 1536 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(N)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.853
Experimental value: 0.12
Predicted value: 0.256
Compound #4
CAS: 76-03-9
Dataset id: 331 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(O)C(Cl)(Cl)ClSimilarity: 0.844
Experimental value: 1.33
Predicted value: 1.448
Compound #5
CAS: 383-63-1
Dataset id: 1573 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(OCC)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.84
Experimental value: 1.18
Predicted value: 1.458
Compound #6
CAS: 421-50-1
Dataset id: 1597 (Test set)
SMILES: O=C(C)C(F)(F)F
Similarity: 0.836
Experimental value: 0.2
Predicted value: 0.844

page 124

LogP model (ALogP) 1.0.0

page 125

Global AD Index
AD index = 0.85
Explanation: the predicted compound could be out of the Applicability Domain of the model.
Similar molecules with known experimental value
Similarity index = 0.883
Explanation: only moderately similar compounds with known experimental value in the training set have beenfound.
Accuracy of prediction for similar molecules
Accuracy index = 0.374
Explanation: accuracy of prediction for similar molecules found in the training set is good.
Concordance for similar molecules
Concordance index = 0.353
Explanation: similar molecules found in the training set have experimental values that agree with the predictedvalue.
Maximum error of prediction among similar molecules
Max error index = 0.509
Explanation: the maximum error in prediction of similar molecules found in the training set has a moderatevalue, considering the experimental variability.

Symbols explanation:
The feature has a good assessment, model is reliable regarding this aspect.
The feature has a non optimal assessment, this aspect should be reviewed by an expert.
The feature has a bad assessment, model is not reliable regarding this aspect.

You can find complete details on each model and on how to read results in the proper model'sguide, available on-line at www.vega-qsar.eu or directly in the VegaNIC application.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) CONSENSUS model (version 1.0.1)
Mutagenicity (Ames test) Consensus model, based on the predictions of the available VEGA mutagenicity
models (Caesar, SarPy, ISS and KNN).

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (CAESAR) (version 2.1.13)
QSAR classification model for Mutagenicity based on a Support Vector Machine combined by a set of
ToxTree rules developed by Benigni/Bossa. The model extends the original CAESAR Mutagenicity model
1.0 developed by Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Reference to the original model are found on the CAESAR
Project website: http://www.caesar-project.eu/ .

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (SarPy/IRFMN) (version 1.0.7)
QSAR classification model for Mutagenicity based on a set of rules built with SarPy software. Developed
by Istituto Mario Negri, Italy; SarPy software developed by Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Model developed
inside the VEGA platform.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (ISS) (version 1.0.2)
Classification model for Mutagenicity (Ames test) based on Benigni-Bossa (Istituto Superiore di Sanità)
rule set as implemented in ToxTree 2.6.

Mutagenicity (Ames test) model (KNN/Read-Across) (version 1.0.0)
KNN (Read-Across) model for Mutagenicity (Ames test) developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche
Mario Negri.

Carcinogenicity model (CAESAR) (version 2.1.9)
QSAR classification model for Carcinogenicity based on a Neural Network. Developed by Kemijski inštitut
Ljubljana, Slovenija. The model extends the original CAESAR Carcinogenicity model 1.0(http://www.caesar-project.eu/). Results are given as membership function values of class Positive and
Non-Positive, compound is assigned to the class having value >0.5. Furthermore, structural alerts from
ToxTree are searched, providing useful additional information.

Carcinogenicity model (ISS) (version 1.0.2)
Classification model for Carcinogenicity based on Benigni-Bossa (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) rule set as
implemented in ToxTree 2.6.

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/Antares) (version 1.0.0)
QSAR classification model for Carcinogenicity based on a set of rules built with SarPy software extracted
from the Antares dataset. Developed by Istituto Mario Negri, Italy; SarPy software developed by
Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Model developed inside the VEGA platform.

Carcinogenicity model (IRFMN/ISSCAN-CGX) (version 1.0.0)
QSAR classification model for Carcinogenicity based on a set of rules built with SarPy software extracted
from the ISSCAN-CGX dataset. Developed by Istituto Mario Negri, Italy; SarPy software developed by
Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Model developed inside the VEGA platform.

Developmental Toxicity model (CAESAR) (version 2.1.7)
QSAR classification model for Developmental Toxicity based on a Random Forest classification. The
model extends the original CAESAR DevTox model 1.0 developed by Istituto Mario Negri, Italy. Reference
to the original model are found on the CAESAR Project website: http://www.caesar-project.eu/ .

Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity library (PG) (version 1.0.0)
The model implements a virtual library of toxicant compounds as described in the study from Procter andGamble: Shengde Wu, Joan Fisher, Jorge M. Naciff, Michael C, Laufersweiler, Cathy Lester, George
Daston, and Karen Blackburn "A Framework for Identifying Chemicals with Structural Features Associatedwith Potential to Act as Developmental or Reproductive Toxicants" Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2013, 26 (12), pp
1840–1861.

Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity model (IRFMN) (version 1.0.1)
Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinity (RBA) classification model for endocrine disruptor screening
based on the model published in A. Roncaglioni, N. Piclin, M. Pintore, E. Benfenati, "Binary classification
models for endocrine disrupter effects mediated through the estrogen receptor", SAR and QSAR in
Environmental Research (2008), 19, 7-8.

Estrogen Receptor-mediated effect (IRFMN/CERAPP) (version 1.0.0)
Estrogen Receptor mediated effect classification model for endocrine disruptor screening, based on the thedataset from the CERAPP project (U.S. EPA).

Skin Sensitization model (CAESAR) (version 2.1.6)
QSAR classification model for Skin sensitization based on a Adaptive Fuzzy Partion. The model extends
the original CAESAR Skin model 1.0. The original model was developed inside the CAESAR Project(http://www.caesar-project.eu/).

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity classification (SarPy/IRFMN) (version 1.0.2)
QSAR classification model for fish acute (LC50) toxicity based on fragments built by SarPy software.
Developed by Politecnico di Milano, Italy and Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Italy.

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (KNN/Read-Across) (version 1.0.0)
KNN (Read-Across) model for fish acute (LC50) toxicity developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche
Mario Negri.

Fish Acute (LC50) Toxicity model (NIC) (version 1.0.0)
QSAR quantitative model for fish acute toxicity based on a Neural Network. Developed by Kemijski inštitut
Ljubljana, Slovenija.

Fathead Minnow LC50 96h (EPA) (version 1.0.7)
QSAR model for Fathead Minnow LC50 (96h), based on multiple linear regression. The model extends theoriginal model implemented in the T.E.S.T. software. The original model was developed by US EPA inside
the T.E.S.T. software and can be freely accessd at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/cppb/qsar/.

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (EPA) (version 1.0.7)
QSAR model for Daphnia Magna LC50 (48h), based on multiple linear regression. The model extends theoriginal model implemented in the T.E.S.T. software. The original model was developed by US EPA inside
the T.E.S.T. software and can be freely accessd at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/cppb/qsar/.

Daphnia Magna LC50 48h (DEMETRA) (version 1.0.4)
Acute toxicity for Water Flea (Daphnia Magna) for pesticides: LC50 48-hours exposure. Built as a Hybrid
Model upon two ANNs and a single PLS. Based on the model built for DEMETRA project(http://www.demetra-tox.net).

Bee acute toxicity model (KNN/IRFMN) (version 1.0.0)
KNN model for bee contact and oral acute toxicity developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario
Negri.

BCF model (CAESAR) (version 2.1.14)
QSAR model for fish BCF, based on a Radial Basis Function neural network. The model extends theoriginal CAESAR BCF model 1.0, full reference to the model: C. Zhao, E. Boriani, A. Chana, A.
Roncaglioni, E. Benfenati "A new hybrid system of QSAR models for predicting bioconcentration factors(BCF)", Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1701–1707. The original model was developed inside the CAESAR
Project (http://www.caesar-project.eu/).

BCF model (Meylan) (version 1.0.3)
QSAR model for fish BCF, based on Meylan approach, as implemented in EPI Suite. Full reference to thismodel can be found in the EPI Suite help (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm) and in theoriginal paper from Meylan: Meylan W.M., Howard P.H., Boethling R.S. et al. Improved Method for
Estimating Bioconcentration / Bioaccumulation Factor from Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient.
1999, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18(4): 664-672. Model developed inside the VEGA platform.

BCF model (KNN/Read-Across) (version 1.1.0)
KNN (Read-Across) model for fish BCF.

Ready Biodegradability model (IRFMN) (version 1.0.9)
QSAR classification model for Ready Biodegradability based on fragments built by SarPy software.
Developed by Politecnico di Milano, Italy and Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Italy.

Persistence (sediment) model (IRFMN) (version 1.0.0)
Persistence (sediment) model developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri.

Persistence (soil) model (IRFMN) (version 1.0.0)
Persistence (soil) model developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri.

Persistence (water) model (IRFMN) (version 1.0.0)
Persistence (water) model developed by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri.

LogP model (Meylan/Kowwin) (version 1.1.4)
LogP prediction based on Meylan work (W.M. Meylan, P.H. Howard, "Atom/fragment contribution method
for estimating octanol-water partition coefficients", 1995, J. Pharm. Sci. 84:83-92) and implemented in EPI
Suite software as KowWin. Model developed inside the VEGA platform.

LogP model (MLogP) (version 1.0.0)
LogP prediction based on the Moriguchi octanol-water partition coefficient (MLogP), calculated from
Moriguchi logP model consisting of a regression equation based on 13 structural parameters (I.Moriguchi,
S.Hirono, Q.Liu, I.Nakagome, and Y.Matsushita, Chem.Pharm.Bull. 1992, 40, 127-130; I.Moriguchi,
S.Hirono, I.Nakagome, H.Hirano, Chem.Pharm.Bull. 1994, 42, 976-978).

LogP model (ALogP) (version 1.0.0)
LogP prediction based on Ghose-Crippen-Viswanadhan octanol-water partition coefficient (ALogP),
calculated from the AlogP model consisting of a regression equation based on the hydrophobicity
contribution of 115 atom types (A.K. Ghose and G.M. Crippen, J. Comput. Chem. 1986, 7, 565-577; V.N.
Viswanadhan et al., J. Comput. Chem. 1993, 14, 1019-1026; A.K. Ghose, V.N. Viswanadhan, J.J.
Wendoloski, J.Phys.Chem. A 1998, 102, 3762-3772).

Annex 4 EUSES Summary 2025 and 2100 Plateau

Study on environmental and health effects of HFO refrigerants
RPA | 244

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
TFA 2025, low EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

2E+04
2E+04

[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
1
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0.1
[-]
240
[-]
7.407E+03[kg.d-1]
0.152[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
365
[-]
1
[kg.d-1]
0.164[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.095
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
50
[-]
10
[kg.d-1]
0.642[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

2.3825E+04
125
376
376
376

[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

7.1475E+04376
1.129E+03
1.129E+03
1.129E+03[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.0125
0
76
0.076
No
0.0241
0.076

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.082
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.082
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.026
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.082
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.321
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.321
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.102
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.321

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
1.91E-08
7.6E-03
5E-03
7.93E-03
5.33E-03
6.38E-03
7.6E-04
5E-04
9.6E-04
7E-04
7.72E-04
0.571
0.571
0.571
4.22

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.78E-04
2.78E-04
8.2E-038.2E-03
8.53E-03
8.53E-03
6.86E-03
8.2E-04
8.2E-04
1.02E-03
1.02E-03
8.2E-04
5.15E-03
5.13E-03
5.12E-03
0.0379[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
2.78E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
3.81E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0321
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
4.4E-03
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0324
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
4.73E-03
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode0.0261
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.21E-03
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
4.4E-04
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.41E-03
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
6.4E-04
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
2.74E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
5.28E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
5.22E-03
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
5.17E-03
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.0386[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

3.5E-04
2.72E-04
1.04E-03
1.16E-04
8.51E-04
6.48E-05
3.69E-04
2.45E-04
1.94E-04

15-12-2017 16:12:35

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.99E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
6.36E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.53E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
1.64

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
6.25E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
8.62E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.98E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0151[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.57E-03[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
5.93E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.45E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0153[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
0.62
??
??
??
??
??
6.2E-04
6.2E-03[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
97
??
??
??
??
??
6.2E-05[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
4.99E-04[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
4.99E-05[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
8.39E-05
Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

1.28
??
15.5
??
12.8
15.5
6.81E+03??
9.14E-03
1.2E-04
1.91E-05
1.06E-05
0.0491

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
13.8
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
16.5
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
13.8
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
16.5
RCR for the local soil compartment
61.4
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
9.85E-03
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.88E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
2.58E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.2E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.52E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
52.3
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
55
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
52.3
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
55
RCR for the local soil compartment
63
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
0.0386
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.07E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
1.78E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.03E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.6E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

0.529
??
3.23
??
10
100
59.6
??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
7.52E-03
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
3.96
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.931
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.931
Local concentration in drinking water
4.22
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
2.35E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
2.35E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.121
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.24E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.016
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0217
Daily dose through intake of meat
1.01E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.88E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
6.62E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.762
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
7.81E-05
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.101
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.137
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.37E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.19E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.18E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.158

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
0.012
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0356[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0379[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.12E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.12E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.08E-03
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.98E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
3.03E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.95E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
4.81E-08
Daily dose through intake of milk
8.96E-07
Daily dose through intake of air
7.94E-05

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.246
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
4.49E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.687
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0442[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.09E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.03E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.018
[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
4.41E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
6.68E-03[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0362[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0386[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.46E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.46E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.1E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
4.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.98E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
6.27E-08[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.17E-06[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.09E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.2[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
1.99E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.743
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0359[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.13E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.11E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.0197[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
5.52E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 16:12:35[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
1.13E+10
1.13E+10947
947
1.13E+10
1.13E+10
947
947

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:12:35
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 16:12:35

Page: 15

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
TFA 2025 mid EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

2E+04
2E+04

[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
1
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0.1
[-]
240
[-]
7.407E+03[kg.d-1]
0.152[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
365
[-]
1
[kg.d-1]
0.164[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.095
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
50
[-]
10
[kg.d-1]
0.642[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

2.3825E+04
125
376
376
376

[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

7.1475E+04376
1.129E+03
1.129E+03
1.129E+03[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.0125
0
76
0.076
No
0.0241
0.076

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.082
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.082
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.026
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.082
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.321
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.321
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.102
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.321

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
1.91E-08
7.6E-03
5E-03
7.93E-03
5.33E-03
6.38E-03
7.6E-04
5E-04
9.6E-04
7E-04
7.72E-04
0.571
0.571
0.571
4.22

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.78E-04
2.78E-04
8.2E-038.2E-03
8.53E-03
8.53E-03
6.86E-03
8.2E-04
8.2E-04
1.02E-03
1.02E-03
8.2E-04
5.15E-03
5.13E-03
5.12E-03
0.0379[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
2.78E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
3.81E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0321
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
4.4E-03
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0324
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
4.73E-03
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode0.0261
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.21E-03
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
4.4E-04
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.41E-03
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
6.4E-04
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
2.74E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
5.28E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
5.22E-03
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
5.17E-03
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.0386[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

3.5E-04
2.72E-04
1.04E-03
1.16E-04
8.51E-04
6.48E-05
3.69E-04
2.45E-04
1.94E-04

15-12-2017 16:53:50

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.99E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
6.36E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.53E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
1.64

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
6.25E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
8.62E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.98E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0151[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.57E-03[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
5.93E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.45E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0153[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
99
??
??
??
??
??
0.099
0.99

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
103
??
??
??
??
??
9.9E-03[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0796[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
7.96E-03[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0134Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

8.01E-03
??
0.097
??
0.0801
0.097
42.6
??
9.14E-03
1.2E-04
1.91E-05
1.06E-05
0.0491

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
0.0861
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
0.103
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
0.0861
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
0.103
RCR for the local soil compartment
0.384
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
9.85E-03
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.88E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
2.58E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.2E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.52E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
0.328
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
0.345
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
0.328
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
0.345
RCR for the local soil compartment
0.395
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
0.0386
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.07E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
1.78E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.03E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.6E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

3.31E-03??
0.0202??
0.0628
0.628
0.373
??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
7.52E-03
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
3.96
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.931
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.931
Local concentration in drinking water
4.22
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
2.35E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
2.35E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.121
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.24E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.016
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0217
Daily dose through intake of meat
1.01E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.88E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
6.62E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.762
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
7.81E-05
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.101
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.137
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.37E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.19E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.18E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.158

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
0.012
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0356[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0379[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.12E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.12E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.08E-03
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.98E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
3.03E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.95E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
4.81E-08
Daily dose through intake of milk
8.96E-07
Daily dose through intake of air
7.94E-05

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.246
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
4.49E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.687
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0442[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.09E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.03E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.018
[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
4.41E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
6.68E-03[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0362[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0386[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.46E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.46E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.1E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
4.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.98E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
6.27E-08[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.17E-06[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.09E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.2[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
1.99E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.743
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0359[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.13E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.11E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.0197[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
5.52E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 16:53:50[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
1.13E+10
1.13E+10947
947
1.13E+10
1.13E+10
947
947

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:53:50
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 16:53:50

Page: 15

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
TFA 2025 high EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

2E+04
2E+04

[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
1
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0
[-]
0.1
[-]
240
[-]
7.407E+03[kg.d-1]
0.152[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
365
[-]
1
[kg.d-1]
0.164[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.095
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
2E-03
[-]
50
[-]
10
[kg.d-1]
0.642[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

2.3825E+04
125
376
376
376

[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

7.1475E+04376
1.129E+03
1.129E+03
1.129E+03[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.0125
0
76
0.076
No
0.0241
0.076

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.082
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.082
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.026
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.082
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
0.321
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
0.321
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
0.102
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
0.321

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
1.91E-08
7.6E-03
5E-03
7.93E-03
5.33E-03
6.38E-03
7.6E-04
5E-04
9.6E-04
7E-04
7.72E-04
0.571
0.571
0.571
4.22

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.78E-04
2.78E-04
8.2E-038.2E-03
8.53E-03
8.53E-03
6.86E-03
8.2E-04
8.2E-04
1.02E-03
1.02E-03
8.2E-04
5.15E-03
5.13E-03
5.12E-03
0.0379[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
2.78E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
3.81E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0321
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
4.4E-03
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
0.0324
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
4.73E-03
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode0.0261
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.21E-03
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
4.4E-04
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
3.41E-03
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
6.4E-04
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
2.74E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
5.28E-03
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
5.22E-03
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
5.17E-03
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.0386[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

3.5E-04
2.72E-04
1.04E-03
1.16E-04
8.51E-04
6.48E-05
3.69E-04
2.45E-04
1.94E-04

15-12-2017 16:58:29

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.99E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
6.36E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.53E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
1.64

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
6.25E-03
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
8.62E-04
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.98E-04
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0151[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
3.57E-03[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
5.93E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
3.45E-04[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0153[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
441
??
??
??
??
??
0.441
4.41

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
732
??
??
??
??
??
0.0441[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.355

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0355[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0597
Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

1.8E-03??
0.0218??
0.018
0.0218
9.57??
9.14E-03
1.2E-04
1.91E-05
1.06E-05
0.0491

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
0.0193
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
0.0231
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
0.0193
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
0.0231
RCR for the local soil compartment
0.0863
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
9.85E-03
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.88E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
2.58E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.2E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.52E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
0.0736
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
0.0774
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
0.0736
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
0.0774
RCR for the local soil compartment
0.0886
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
0.0386
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
1.07E-04
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
1.78E-05
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.03E-05
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.6E-04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

7.44E-04??
4.54E-03??
0.01410.141
0.0838??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
7.52E-03
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
3.96
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.931
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.931
Local concentration in drinking water
4.22
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
2.35E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
2.35E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.121
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.24E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.016
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0217
Daily dose through intake of meat
1.01E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.88E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
6.62E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.762
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
7.81E-05
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.101
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.137
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.37E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.19E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.18E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.158

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
0.012
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0356[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.177[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0379[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.12E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.12E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.08E-03
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.98E-05
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
3.03E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.95E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
4.81E-08
Daily dose through intake of milk
8.96E-07
Daily dose through intake of air
7.94E-05

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.246
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
4.49E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.687
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0442[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.09E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.03E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.018
[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
4.41E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
6.68E-03[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.0362[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.239[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
0.0386[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.46E-05[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.46E-04[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
1.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
1.1E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
4.1E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.98E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
6.27E-08[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.17E-06[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.09E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.2[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
1.99E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.743
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0359[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
1.13E-05[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
2.11E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
0.0197[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
5.52E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 16:58:29[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
7.55E+10
7.55E+10
6.32E+03
6.32E+03
1.13E+10
1.13E+10947
947
1.13E+10
1.13E+10
947
947

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
6.29E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.27E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
3.4E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
9.44E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
3.4E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 16:58:29
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2025 high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
4.6E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
1.81E+05
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
2.72E+04
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
6.89E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
2.72E+04

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 16:58:29

Page: 15

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
TFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

1.2E+05
1E+05[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
0.95[-]
1.5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.1
[-]
300
[-]
1.4815E+04[kg.d-1]
150[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.65
[-]
365
[-]
2
[kg.d-1]
226[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.35
[-]
50
[-]
15
[kg.d-1]
478[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

1.07116E+05
1.0711E+04
5.3558E+04
2.1423E+04
2.1423E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

3.21349E+05
3.2134E+04
1.60674E+05
6.4269E+04
6.4269E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.01250
7.5E+04
75
No
23.8
75

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
113
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
113
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
35.8
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
113
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
239
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
239
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
75.7
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
239

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALEDEFAULT VALUES FOR LOCAL SCALE
Calculate dilution from river flow rate

No

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
2.38E-08
7.5
6.16
7.5
6.16
6.03
0.75
0.616
0.75
0.617
0.603
1.45
1.43
1.42
10.6

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

S[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

5.56E-04
5.56E-04
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
9.1
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
0.91
0.04950.0262
9.81E-03
0.194[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
4.17E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
5.71E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode19.2
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
1.92
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
0.0988
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0495
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0149Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.366

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

8.17E-03
2.2E-03
8.38E-03
3.41E-03
0.0251
5.21E-04
0.01795.72E-03
1.56E-03

15-12-2017 17:03:36

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
4.35
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.436
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0873
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
4.11

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
7.99
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.799
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.16
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0754[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
2.31[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.231[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0465[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.142
[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
0.62
??
??
??
??
??
6.2E-04
6.2E-03[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
97
??
??
??
??
??
6.2E-05[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
4.99E-04[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
4.99E-05[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
8.39E-05
Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

1.21E+03??
1.21E+04??
1.21E+04
1.21E+04
1.73E+04
??
9.01
0.131
0.0131
2.62E-03
0.123

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
1.82E+04
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
1.82E+04
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
1.82E+04
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
1.82E+04
RCR for the local soil compartment
590
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
13.6
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.24
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
0.024
RCR for top predators (marine)
4.8E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
2.26E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
3.85E+04
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
3.85E+04
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
3.85E+04
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
3.85E+04
RCR for the local soil compartment
1.18E+03
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
28.7
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.0693
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
6.94E-03
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.4E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.27E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

0.529
??
3.23
??
10
100
59.6
??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
8.71
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
9.94
Local concentration in leaves of plant
2.34
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
2.32
Local concentration in drinking water
10.6
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.88E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.88E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.303
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0143
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0401
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0545
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.53E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.72E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
7.98E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.735
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0347
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0973Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.132
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.14E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.14E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.94E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.412

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
16
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.182[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.38[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.353[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
11.3[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.13E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.13E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.323
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0262
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
6.51E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
9.96E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.21E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.11E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
1.59E-04

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.905
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0735[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0182[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
2.79E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.18E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.15E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.45E-04[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.357[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
4.62
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.343[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.427[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.371[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
3.27[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.63E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.0935[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
7.59E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
7.32E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.88E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
7.01E-07[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.31E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.846
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0687[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0663[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0171[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.34E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.18E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.48E-03[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.11[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 17:03:36[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
9.4E+09
9.4E+09364
364
9.4E+09
9.4E+09
364
364

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:03:36

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:03:36
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, low EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 17:03:36

Page: 15

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
TFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

1.2E+05
1E+05[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
0.95[-]
1.5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.1
[-]
300
[-]
1.4815E+04[kg.d-1]
150[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.65
[-]
365
[-]
2
[kg.d-1]
226[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.35
[-]
50
[-]
15
[kg.d-1]
478[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

1.07116E+05
1.0711E+04
5.3558E+04
2.1423E+04
2.1423E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

3.21349E+05
3.2134E+04
1.60674E+05
6.4269E+04
6.4269E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.01250
7.5E+04
75
No
23.8
75

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
113
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
113
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
35.8
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
113
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
239
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
239
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
75.7
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
239

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALEDEFAULT VALUES FOR LOCAL SCALE
Calculate dilution from river flow rate

No

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
2.38E-08
7.5
6.16
7.5
6.16
6.03
0.75
0.616
0.75
0.617
0.603
1.45
1.43
1.42
10.6

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

S[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

5.56E-04
5.56E-04
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
9.1
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
0.91
0.04950.0262
9.81E-03
0.194[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
4.17E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
5.71E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode19.2
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
1.92
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
0.0988
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0495
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0149Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.366

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

8.17E-03
2.2E-03
8.38E-03
3.41E-03
0.0251
5.21E-04
0.01795.72E-03
1.56E-03

15-12-2017 17:06:16

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
4.35
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.436
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0873
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
4.11

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
7.99
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.799
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.16
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0754[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
2.31[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.231[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0465[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.142
[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
99
??
??
??
??
??
0.099
0.99

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
103
??
??
??
??
??
9.9E-03[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0796[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
7.96E-03[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0134Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

7.57
??
75.8
??
75.7
75.8
108
??
9.01
0.131
0.0131
2.62E-03
0.123

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
114
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
114
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
114
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
114
RCR for the local soil compartment
3.7
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
13.6
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.24
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
0.024
RCR for top predators (marine)
4.8E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
2.26E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
241
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
241
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
241
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
241
RCR for the local soil compartment
7.37
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
28.7
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.0693
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
6.94E-03
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.4E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.27E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

3.31E-03??
0.0202??
0.0628
0.628
0.373
??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
8.71
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
9.94
Local concentration in leaves of plant
2.34
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
2.32
Local concentration in drinking water
10.6
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.88E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.88E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.303
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0143
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0401
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0545
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.53E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.72E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
7.98E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.735
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0347
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0973Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.132
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.14E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.14E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.94E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.412

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
16
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.182[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.38[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.353[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
11.3[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.13E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.13E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.323
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0262
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
6.51E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
9.96E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.21E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.11E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
1.59E-04

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.905
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0735[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0182[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
2.79E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.18E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.15E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.45E-04[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.357[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
4.62
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.343[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.427[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.371[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
3.27[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.63E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.0935[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
7.59E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
7.32E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.88E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
7.01E-07[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.31E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.846
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0687[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0663[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0171[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.34E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.18E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.48E-03[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.11[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 17:06:16[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
9.4E+09
9.4E+09364
364
9.4E+09
9.4E+09
364
364

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:06:16

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:06:16
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, mid EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 17:06:16

Page: 15

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
TFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Trifluoroacetic acid
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Explanation status column

O = Output; D = Default; S = Set; I = Imported

Name

Value

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE
General name
CAS-NoEC-notification no.
EINECS no.
Molecular weight

Trifluoroacetic acid76-05-1
200-929-3
200-929-3
114.02EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

Units[g.mol-1]

StatusS
S
S
S
S

Page: 1EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Melting point
Boiling point
Vapour pressure at test temperature
Vapour pressure at 25 [oC]
Water solubility at test temperature
Water solubility at 25 [oC]
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Henry's law constant at 25 [oC]

-15.2
71.78
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
1E+05
1E+05
-0.2
7.13E-03

[oC]
[oC]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][log10][Pa.m3.mol-1]

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

Status

S
S
S
O
S
O
S
S

Page: 2EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION
Tonnage of substance in Europe
Regional production volume of substance

1.2E+05
1E+05[tonnes.yr-1][tonnes.yr-1]

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis
29 Heat transferring agents
100
[%]

S
S
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRODUCTION]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Main category production
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A1.1 (general table), B1.6 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod.
0.95[-]
1.5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.1
[-]
300
[-]
1.4815E+04[kg.d-1]
150[kg.d-1]
Yes

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

5 Personal / domestic use
29 Heat transferring agents
65
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[PRIVATE USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent release

No
A4.1 (specific uses), B4.1 (general table)
no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.65
[-]
365
[-]
2
[kg.d-1]
226[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29]
Industry category
Use category
Fraction of tonnage for application

6 Public domain
29 Heat transferring agents
0.35
[-]

S
S
S

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

StatusO
O

Page: 3

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

StatusENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATION[INDUSTRIAL USE]
Use specific emission scenario
Emission tables
Emission scenario
Fraction of tonnage released to air
Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater
Fraction of tonnage released to surface water
Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil
Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil
Fraction of the main local source
Number of emission days per year
Local emission to air during episode
Local emission to wastewater during episodeIntermittent releaseNo
A3.5 (specific uses), B3.3 (specific uses)no special scenario selected/available
0.95
[-]
5E-03
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.015
[-]
0.35
[-]
50
[-]
15
[kg.d-1]
478[kg.d-1]
No

D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
S
O
D

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL REGIONAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total regional emission to air
Total regional emission to wastewater
Total regional emission to surface water
Total regional emission to industrial soil
Total regional emission to agricultural soil

1.07116E+05
1.0711E+04
5.3558E+04
2.1423E+04
2.1423E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURERELEASE ESTIMATIONTOTAL CONTINENTAL EMISSIONS TO COMPARTMENTS
Total continental emission to air
Total continental emission to wastewater
Total continental emission to surface water
Total continental emission to industrial soil
Total continental emission to agricultural soil

3.21349E+05
3.2134E+04
1.60674E+05
6.4269E+04
6.4269E+04[kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1][kg.d-1]

S
S
S
S
S

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient1[l.kg-1]S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Characterization of biodegradability
Degradation calculation method in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in STP
Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water
Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil
Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment
Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water
Rate constant for photolysis in surface waterNot biodegradable
First order, standard OECD/EU tests
0
[d-1]
0
[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07[d-1] (12[oC])
6.93E-07
[d-1]

S
D
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
Concentration in untreated wastewater
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP

6.83E-03100
0.01250
7.5E+04
75
No
23.8
75

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
PARTITION COEFFICIENTSEUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[ug.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

Page: 4

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
113
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
113
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
35.8
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
113
ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENT
LOCAL STP [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]OUTPUT
Fraction of emission directed to air by STP
6.83E-03
Fraction of emission directed to water by STP
100
Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP
0.0125Fraction of the emission degraded in STP
0Concentration in untreated wastewater
239
Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent
239
Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility
No
Concentration in dry sewage sludge
75.7
PEC for micro-organisms in the STP
239

Units

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

Status

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

[mg.kg-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTREGIONAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water

10
90

[%]
[%]

S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SEWAGE TREATMENTCONTINENTAL STP
Fraction of emission directed to air
Fraction of emission directed to water
Fraction of the emission degraded

10
90
0

[%]
[%]
[%]

S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALEDEFAULT VALUES FOR LOCAL SCALE
Calculate dilution from river flow rate

No

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

2.9E-08
2.38E-08
7.5
6.16
7.5
6.16
6.03
0.75
0.616
0.75
0.617
0.603
1.45
1.43
1.42
10.6

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

S[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

S
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

Page: 5

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil

5.56E-04
5.56E-04
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
9.1
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
0.91
0.04950.0262
9.81E-03
0.194[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONLOCAL SCALE[3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in air during emission episode
4.17E-03
Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source
5.71E-04
Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved)
23.9
Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)
3.27
Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode19.2
Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved)
2.39
Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved)
0.327
Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode
1.92
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days
0.0988
Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0495
Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days
0.0149Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil
0.366

[mg.m-3][mg.m-3][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALECONTINENTAL
Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Continental PEC in air (total)
Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Continental PEC in natural soil (total)
Continental PEC in industrial soil (total)
Continental PEC in sediment (total)
Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total)[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

8.17E-03
2.2E-03
8.38E-03
3.41E-03
0.0251
5.21E-04
0.01795.72E-03
1.56E-03

15-12-2017 17:11:07

StatusPage: 6

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL SCALEREGIONAL
Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved)
Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved)
Regional PEC in air (total)
Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total)
Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils
Regional PEC in natural soil (total)
Regional PEC in industrial soil (total)
Regional PEC in sediment (total)
Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total)

3.28E-04
2E-04
4.1E-09
5E-03
3.28E-04
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03
5E-03

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.m-3][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.l-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Bioconcentration factor for earthworms
Bioconcentration factor for fish

0.848
1.41

[l.kgwwt-1][l.kgwwt-1]

O
O

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
4.35
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.436
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0873
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
4.11

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
7.99
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.799
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.16
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.0754[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kg-1]

OOOO

ENVIRONMENT-EXPOSURE
SECONDARY POISONING [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)
2.31[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)
0.231[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators
0.0465[mg.kgwwt-1]
Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil
0.142
[mg.kg-1]

OOOO

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

StatusPage: 7

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MICRO-ORGANISMS
Test system

Units

Status

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP
EC10 for micro-organisms in a STPNOEC for micro-organisms in a STP
PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP
Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro

Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209
D832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S832[mg.l-1]
S
8.32[mg.l-1]
O
10
[-]
S

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH_WATER ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish
L(E)C50 for Daphnia
EC50 for algae
LC50 for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for fish
NOEC for Daphnia
NOEC for algae
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for aquatic organisms
PNEC for aquatic organisms, intermittent releases

1.2E+03
1.2E+03
441
??
??
??
??
??
0.441
4.41

[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE ORGANISMS
LC50 for fish (marine)
L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine)
EC50 for algae (marine)
LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine)
NOEC for fish (marine)
NOEC for crustaceans (marine)
NOEC for algae (marine)
NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine)
PNEC for marine organisms

??
??
732
??
??
??
??
??
0.0441[mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1][mg.l-1]

D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSFRESH-WATER SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism
PNEC for fresh-water sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.355

[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTS
MARINE SEDIMENT ORGANISMS
LC50 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
EC10 for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
NOEC for marine sediment organism
PNEC for marine sediment, normalised to 5% o.c. (regional)

??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0355[mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

Page: 8

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSTERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS
LC50 for plants
LC50 for earthworms
EC50 for microorganisms
LC50 for other terrestrial species
NOEC for plants
NOEC for earthworms
NOEC for microorganisms
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
NOEC for additional taxonomic group
PNEC for terrestrial organisms
Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil?

250
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
0.0597
Yes[mg.kgdwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1][mg.kgwwt-1]

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - EFFECTSBIRDS AND MAMMALS
Oral NOAEL (repdose)
NOEC via food (repdose)
Inhalatory NOAEL (repdose)
Dermal NOAEL (repdose)
Oral NOAEL (fert)
NOEC via food (fert)
Inhalatory NOAEL (fert)
Dermal NOAEL (fert)
Oral NOAEL (mattox)
NOEC via food (mattox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (mattox)
Dermal NOAEL (mattox)
Oral NOAEL (devtox)
NOEC via food (devtox)
Inhalatory NOAEL (devtox)
Dermal NOAEL (devtox)
Duration of (sub-)chronic oral test
NOEC via food for secondary poisoning
PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals

1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
1E+03
1E+04
1.75E+03
1E+03
150
1.5E+03262
150
150
1.5E+03262
150
28 days
1E+04
33.3[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1][mg.m-3][mg.kg-1.d-1]

S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
S
O
O
O
D
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

StatusPage: 9

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local marine compartment
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
RCR for top predators (marine)
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals

1.7
??
17
??
17
17
24.3
??
9.01
0.131
0.0131
2.62E-03
0.123

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
25.6
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
25.7
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
25.6
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
25.7
RCR for the local soil compartment
0.83
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
13.6
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.24
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
0.024
RCR for top predators (marine)
4.8E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
2.26E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment
54.2
RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local marine compartment
54.2
RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment
54.2
RCR for the local marine sediment compartment
54.2
RCR for the local soil compartment
1.66
RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method??
RCR for the sewage treatment plant
28.7
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water)
0.0693
RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine)
6.94E-03
RCR for top predators (marine)
1.4E-03
RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals
4.27E-03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

ENVIRONMENT - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONREGIONAL
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment
RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional marine compartment
RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method
RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment
RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment
RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

7.44E-04??
4.54E-03??
0.01410.141
0.0838??

StatusPage: 10

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
Purification factor for surface water

1

[-]

O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Local concentration in wet fish
8.71
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
9.94
Local concentration in leaves of plant
2.34
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
2.32
Local concentration in drinking water
10.6
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.88E-04
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.88E-03[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.303
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0143
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0401
Daily dose through intake of root crops
0.0545
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.53E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.72E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
7.98E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.735
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0347
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0973Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.132
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.14E-06
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.14E-04
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.94E-08
Local total daily intake for humans
0.412

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
16
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.182[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.38[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.353[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
11.3[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
5.13E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
5.13E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.323
Daily dose through intake of fish
0.0262
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
6.51E-03
Daily dose through intake of root crops
9.96E-04
Daily dose through intake of meat
2.21E-06
Daily dose through intake of milk
4.11E-05
Daily dose through intake of air
1.59E-04

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

Page: 11

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.905
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0735[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0182[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
2.79E-03[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.18E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.15E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
4.45E-04[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.357[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Local concentration in wet fish
4.62
[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in root tissue of plant
0.343[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in leaves of plant
0.427[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in grass (wet weight)
0.371[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in drinking water
3.27[mg.l-1]
Local concentration in meat (wet weight)
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1]
Local concentration in milk (wet weight)
1.63E-03[mg.kg-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
0.0935[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of fish
7.59E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
7.32E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of root crops
1.88E-03[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of meat
7.01E-07[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of milk
1.31E-05[mg.kg-1.d-1]
Daily dose through intake of air
1.63E-04[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
0.846
[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
0.0687[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
0.0663[-]Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
0.0171[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
6.34E-06[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
1.18E-04[-]
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
1.48E-03[-]
Local total daily intake for humans
0.11[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALE
CONCENTRATIONS IN INTAKE MEDIA
Regional concentration in wet fish
Regional concentration in root tissue of plant
Regional concentration in leaves of plant
Regional concentration in grass (wet weight)
Regional concentration in drinking water
Regional concentration in meat (wet weight)
Regional concentration in milk (wet weight)

O
O
O
O
S
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.63E-04
3.08E-04
7.48E-05
7.48E-05
1.23E-04
1.12E-08
1.12E-07

15-12-2017 17:11:07[mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1][mg.l-1][mg.kg-1][mg.kg-1]

Page: 12

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEDOSES IN INTAKE MEDIA
Daily dose through intake of drinking water
Daily dose through intake of fish
Daily dose through intake of leaf crops
Daily dose through intake of root crops
Daily dose through intake of meat
Daily dose through intake of milk
Daily dose through intake of air

3.51E-06
7.61E-07
1.28E-06
1.69E-06
4.83E-11
9.01E-10
1.17E-09[mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1][mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL SCALEFRACTIONS OF TOTAL DOSE
Fraction of total dose through intake of drinking water
Fraction of total dose through intake of fish
Fraction of total dose through intake of leaf crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of root crops
Fraction of total dose through intake of meat
Fraction of total dose through intake of milk
Fraction of total dose through intake of air
Regional total daily intake for humans

0.485
0.105
0.177
0.233
6.67E-06
1.24E-04
1.62E-04
7.25E-06

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[mg.kg-1.d-1]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

StatusPage: 13

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONCURRENT CLASSIFICATION
Corrosive (C, R34 or R35)
Irritating to skin (Xi, R38)
Irritating to eyes (Xi, R36)
Risk of serious damage to eyes (Xi, R41)
Irritating to respiratory system (Xi, R37)
May cause sensitisation by inhalation (Xn, R42)
May cause sensitisation by skin contact (Xi, R43)
May cause cancer (T, R45)
May cause cancer by inhalation (T, R49)
Possible risk of irreversible effects (Xn, R40)

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [1 "CHEMICAL PRODUCTION", IC=3/UC=29][PRODUCTION]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)

6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
6.26E+10
6.26E+10
2.43E+03
2.43E+03
9.4E+09
9.4E+09364
364
9.4E+09
9.4E+09
364
364

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [2 "PERSONAL DOMESTIC HEATING/COOLING", IC=5/UC=29][PRIVATE USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.15E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
2.8E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
420
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.72E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
420

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

15-12-2017 17:11:07

Units

Status

S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Page: 14

EUSES 2 Summary report

Single substance

Printed on
Study
Substance
Defaults
Assessment types
Base set complete

15-12-2017 17:11:07
Trifluoroacetic acidTFA 2100 Plateau, high EC50
Standard Euses 2.1
1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B
No

Name

Value

Units

Status

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTLOCAL [3 "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE HEATING.COOLING", IC=6/UC=29][INDUSTRIAL USE]
MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (repdose)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (repdose)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (fert)
3.06E+06
MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (fert)
9.05E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (mattox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (mattox)
1.36E+03
MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, inhalatory (devtox)
4.6E+05
MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, local, total exposure (devtox)
1.36E+03

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

HUMAN HEALTH - RISK CHARACTERIZATIONHUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENTREGIONAL
MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (repdose)
MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (repdose)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (fert)
MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (fert)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (mattox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (mattox)
MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, inhalatory (devtox)
MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)
Ratio MOS/Ref-MOS, regional, total exposure (devtox)

[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

EUSES 2.1.2

4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
4.27E+11
4.27E+11
1.38E+08
1.38E+08
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07
6.4E+10
6.4E+10
2.07E+07
2.07E+07

15-12-2017 17:11:07

Page: 15

Risk & Policy Analysts Limited
Farthing Green House, 1 Beccles Road
Loddon, Norfolk, NR14 6LT, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1508 528465
Fax: +44 1508 520758
E-mail: post@rpaltd.co.uk
Website: www.rpaltd.co.uk
If printed by RPA, this report is published on 100% recycled paper