1

DfE Alternatives Assessment for 

Nonylphenol Ethoxylates

May 2012

For more information, please 

visit the DfE website at 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe
2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

A. Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................... 3

B. Background on NP and NPEs.................................................................................... 4

2. Evaluation of Alternatives to NPE Surfactants....................................................................... 5

A. Selection of Alternatives............................................................................................ 5

B. Chemical Assessment Methodology.......................................................................... 6

1. DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants........................................................................ 6

2. Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Surfactants................................................ 7

a. Criteria Used to Assign Persistence and Hazard Levels................................ 7

b. Sources of Information on Toxicological and Environmental Endpoints ..... 8

c. Explanation of Hazard Evaluation Ratings.................................................. 14

3. Activities to Promote the Use of Alternatives to NPE Surfactants....................................... 19

4. References............................................................................................................................. 21
3

1. Introduction

A. Purpose and Scope

As part of its efforts to enhance public understanding and the safety of chemicals in commerce, 

EPA has taken steps to identify chemicals that may pose human and environmental health 

concerns and, in response, develop plans that consider potential regulatory and voluntary risk 

management actions. In August 2010, EPA released the Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol 

Ethoxylates (NPE) Action Plan1to address concerns over potential ecological and other effects 

from the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and uses of NP and NPEs. To 

implement part of the NP/NPE Action Plan, EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Program 

has prepared this Alternatives Assessment: Alternatives for Nonylphenol Ethoxylates.

DfE’s Alternatives Assessment Program2helps industries choose safer chemicals and provides a 

basis for informed decision-making by developing a detailed comparison of potential human 

health and environmental effects of chemical alternatives. This Alternatives Assessment

highlights and builds on the DfE Program’s extensive work on surfactants and alternatives to 

NPEs, which includes development of the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants (U.S. EPA, 2011a); 

review of hundreds of surfactants in its Safer Product Labeling Program; sponsorship of an 

online database of safer surfactants (and other ingredients)—CleanGredients®; and creation, in 

partnership with EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (in the Office of Water), of the Safer 

Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI)3. Through SDSI, EPA recognizes product 

manufacturers who are formulating with safer surfactants in lieu of NPEs across entire product 

lines.

Over the years, DfE and other parts of EPA have conducted research to characterize NPEs and 

safer alternative surfactants. As a result, most of the information gathering, chemical profiling,

and stakeholder interactions typical of an alternatives assessment have already taken place and 

serve as foundation and reference material for this document. To identify safer surfactants, DfE 

has worked in collaboration with diverse stakeholder groups, during both the development of the 

DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants4and SDSI, which was launched at an EPA public meeting in 

June 2006. DfE routinely applies its safer surfactant criteria in evaluating products that are 

candidates to carry the DfE label and has researched and evaluated hundreds of surfactants, 

including the ones highlighted in this document. The methodology for this Alternatives 

Assessment reflects these substantial Agency investments. This report includes criteria that 

define safer NPE-alternative surfactants and lists a sampling of surfactants that meet the criteria.

 

1 The Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates Action Plan is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/RIN2070-ZA09_NP-NPEs%20Action%20Plan_Final_2010-08-

09.pdf

2 More information about DfE’s Alternatives Assessment Program is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternative_assessments.html

3 More information about SDSI is available at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/sdsi.htm

4 DfE’s Criteria for Safer Surfactants is available at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Surfactants
4

Also, the methodology in this Alternatives Assessment is tailored to the unique toxicological 

profile of surfactants and thus addresses a limited set of hazard endpoints. DfE focuses on the 

evaluation of NPE and its alternatives from an environmental health perspective, since the 

potential for toxicity to aquatic organisms—from the parent surfactant and its degradation 

byproducts—and environmental persistence have been important areas of toxicological research 

that have documented effects of concern.

The report for this Alternatives Assessment does the following:

- In Section 1B, recaps key points from the NP and NPE Action Plan (please see the Action Plan

for more detailed information on NP/NPE production, uses, and discharges to the environment); 

- In Section 2, illustrates the availability of safer NPE alternatives via DfE’s hazard evaluation 

methodology: Table 2-3 presents the screening level environmental hazard summary for NPEs,

followed by text explaining the hazard evaluation ratings; 

- In Section 3, documents progress made in the adoption of safer surfactants, as well as 

opportunities for additional success; and

- In Section 4, lists all references cited in the document, by featured chemical.

B. Background on NP and NPEs

NPEs are surfactants, a functional class of chemicals that provide increased surface activity and 

reduce the surface tension of water, allowing easier spreading, wetting, and better mixing of 

liquids. Surfactants are classified into one of four categories based on their ionic properties in 

water: anionic (negative charge), nonionic (no charge), cationic (positive charge), and 

amphoteric (both positive and negative charges). NPEs are nonionic surfactants that are part of 

the broader category of surfactants known as alkyphenol ethoxylates (APEs). NPEs are 

considered ―workhorse‖ surfactants given their cost-effectiveness and high performance in 

multiple applications.

The primary use of NP is as a raw material in the synthesis of NPEs. NPEs are manufactured by 

reacting NP with ethylene oxide (EO) under basic conditions, with the molar ratio of NP to EO 

determining the degree of ethoxylation (U.S. EPA, 2010a). NPE surfactants are referred to by 

their degree of ethoxylation; commercially available NPEs range from four moles of ethoxylates 

(NPE4) to 80 moles of ethoxylates (NPE80). NPEs with nine moles of ethoxylates (NPE9) are 

by far the most commonly manufactured NPE. While some CASRNs specific to certain levels of 

ethoxylates exist, all degrees of ethoxylation may be manufactured under the CASRN for polyethoxylates (CASRN 127087-87-0), as long as they are synthesized via polymerization reaction 

between NP and EO (U.S. EPA, 2010a). 

NP and NPEs are produced in large volumes, with uses that lead to widespread release to the 

aquatic environment. NPEs represent approximately 80% to 85% of the volume of APEs (U.S. 

EPA, 2010a). U.S. and Canadian consumption of NPEs has been estimated between 300 and 
5

Table 1-1: Applications of NPE 

surfactants

 detergents

 cleaners

 degreasers

 dry cleaning aids

 petroleum dispersants

 emulsifiers

 wetting agents

 adhesives

 indoor pesticides

 cosmetics

 paper and textile processing 

formulations

 prewash spotters

 metalworking fluids

 oilfield chemicals

 paints and coatings

 dust control agents

 phosphate antioxidants for rubber and 

plastics

 miscellaneous uses, including lube oil 

additives

Source: (EPA 2010)

400 million pounds per year (U.S. EPA, 2010a). NPEs are used in a wide variety of industrial 

and consumer applications, as shown in Table 1-1.

NPEs degrade to more toxic chemicals, 

including NP, which often partitions to 

sediment and accumulates (U.S. EPA, 2005a).

The use of products containing NPE can result 

in the release of NP and other degradates to the 

environment, potentially exposing aquatic life 

to these compounds. NP is lethal to fish and 

other aquatic organisms at low concentrations

(lower than for the parent NPE) in both acute 

and chronic fish studies (Talmage, 1994). In 

addition, effects on growth and reproduction 

have been documented (U.S. EPA, 2005a). 

The EPA recommended Aquatic Life Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)

concentrations for NP are in the low parts per 

billion, based on this aquatic toxicity 

information. The EPA AWQC and its 

scientific basis are consistent with similar 

findings and regulatory actions taken by 

governments in Europe, Canada and Japan.

2. Evaluation of Alternatives to NPE Surfactants

A. Selection of Alternatives

Presented in Table 2-3 are nine alternatives to NPE surfactants, one from each of the major 

surfactant classes DfE has seen in its evaluation of detergent and cleaning products in its Safer 

Product Labeling Program. DfE selected the ten featured chemicals—NPE9, octylphenol 

ethoxylate (OPE)10 (a structural relative of NPE with a somewhat more hazardous profile), and 

the eight safer alternatives—as representative of its surfactant class and based on:

(1) the availability of an adequate dataset (i.e., sufficient experimental data to address all 

endpoints in the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants); and, except for NPE9 and OPE10, 

(2a) frequent use in DfE-recognized formulations, and/or 

(2b) inclusion on the CleanGredients® website of safer surfactant alternatives.

The chemicals presented are not intended as a comprehensive list of alternatives (note, for 

example, that the CleanGredients® database contains more than 300 surfactants), nor would all
6

members of the structural classes represented by the featured alternatives necessarily meet the 

DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants. Each potential NPE alternative must be evaluated on a caseby-case basis as to both its safety profile and functional characteristics. While each of the nine 

alternatives has the characteristics of a true surfactant (i.e., a hydrophobic, micelle forming head 

and a hydrophilic soil-removing tail), its ability to replace an NPE surfactant will depend on a 

formulation’s performance demands. 

Based on information from surfactant and cleaning product manufacturers who have partnered 

with DfE, the NPE alternatives are comparable in cost and performance, especially when viewed 

as part of a detergent system. Often, formulators will replace an NPE surfactant with a blend of 

two or more surfactants (e.g., a linear alcohol ethoxylate plus an alkyl glycoside). Depending on 

product type, a change in surfactant may also prompt other ingredient or formulary adjustments. 

DfE chose NPE9 to represent the NPE class because it is the highest product volume NPE and 

the most commonly used in detergent products. Its hazard and biodegradation profile is typical 

of the NPE class. 

B. Chemical Assessment Methodology

1. DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants

As part of its Safer Product Labeling Program, DfE developed criteria for distinguishing safer 

from conventional chemicals within the functional component classes (e.g., surfactants, solvents, 

chelating agents) for cleaning products. A function-based approach makes it possible to identify 

distinguishing environmental and human health characteristics while maintaining ingredient 

performance and advancing safer chemistry. Only ingredients that meet DfE safer chemical 

criteria are allowed in DfE-labeled products. These criteria are used in this Alternatives 

Assessment of NPEs to show the foundation for DfE’s surfactant assessments; the criteria

developed for the Alternatives Assessment program (discussed in B.2.) enhance the basic 

assessments with chemical characterization detail. While the Criteria for Surfactants allow DfE 

to make pass-fail calls on a chemical’s acceptability for use in DfE-labeled products, the 

Alternatives Assessment criteria permit assignment of hazard levels, e.g., a high, moderate or 

low hazard for persistence, and thus permit greater differentiation among surfactants.

The Criteria for Safer Surfactants (U.S. EPA, 2011a) use the following hazard characteristics to 

distinguish surfactants for cleaning products: the rate of aerobic biodegradation, hazard profiles 

of the degradation products, and degree of aquatic toxicity of the parent compound and 

degradation products. Since the surface active nature of surfactants causes toxicity to aquatic 

organisms, the criteria weigh these characteristics holistically and require that surfactants with 

higher aquatic toxicity demonstrate a faster rate of biodegradation without degradation to 

products of concern. Surfactants that meet the criteria are acceptable for use in a DfE-labeled 

cleaning product5(see Table 2-1) and reflect safer chemistry that can substitute for NPEs in 

general detergent uses.

 

5

It is important to note that surfactants in products that typically by-pass sewage treatment must meet the more 

stringent thresholds in DfE’s Criteria for Environmental Fate & Toxicity for Chemicals in Direct Release Products. 
7

Table 2-1 Criteria for Safer Surfactants

Acute Aquatic Toxicity

(L/E/IC50 Value)1

Rate of Biodegradation

≤1 ppm May be acceptable if biodegradation2occurs within a 10-day 

window without degradates of concern3

>1 ppm and ≤10 ppm Biodegradation2occurs within a 10-day window without 

degradates of concern3

>10 ppm Biodegradation2occurs within 28 days without degradates of 

concern3

1. In general, there is a predictable relationship between acute aquatic toxicity and chronic aquatic toxicity for 

organic chemicals, i.e., chemicals that have high acute aquatic toxicity also have high chronic aquatic toxicity. Since 

acute aquatic toxicity data are more readily available, the DfE Criteria use these data to screen chemicals that may 

be toxic to aquatic life.

2. Generally, >60% mineralization (to CO2 and water) in 28 days.

3. Degradates of concern are compounds with high acute aquatic toxicity (L/E/IC50 ≤ 10ppm) and a slow rate of 

biodegradation (greater than 28 days).

2. Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Surfactants

To enhance our understanding of the characteristics that distinguish safer from conventional 

surfactants, this Alternatives Assessment applies relevant environmental toxicity and fate 

elements taken from the DfE’s Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation (U.S. 

EPA, 2011b). The alternatives assessment rating system (key elements of which are described

below in Table 2-2) complements and expands on the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants. Under 

the alternatives assessment criteria, chemicals rating ―high‖ or ―very high‖ for aquatic toxicity 

would be acceptable for use in a DfE-labeled product only if they rate ―very low‖ for persistence.

Chemicals rating ―moderate‖ (or ―low‖) for aquatic toxicity would be acceptable only if they rate 

―low‖ or ―very low‖ for persistence. Table 2-3 presents a screening level hazard profiles for 

NPE and nine alternatives and indicates which of these chemicals meet the DfE Criteria for Safer 

Surfactants.

a. Criteria Used to Assign Persistence and Hazard Levels

Table 2-2 lists the criteria that were used to interpret the data collected in this document. The

criteria for environmental persistence and aquatic toxicity are taken from the DfE Alternatives 

Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation. As detailed in the Alternatives Assessment Criteria, 

the values for aquatic toxicity were derived from the GHS (GHS, 2009), EPA Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT) New Chemicals Program (U.S. EPA, 2005b) and OPPT’s 

criteria for HPV chemical categorization (U.S. EPA, 2009). For environmental persistence, the 

criteria were derived from OPPT’s New Chemicals Program (U.S. EPA, 2005b) and the DfE 

 

The DfE Criteria for Environmental Fate & Toxicity for Chemicals in Direct Release Products is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Toxicity
8

Master Criteria (U.S. EPA, 2010b), and reflect OPPT policy on PBTs (U.S. EPA, 1999). The 

DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants (U.S. EPA, 2011a) defines degradates of concern for 

surfactants and that definition is used again in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-2: Criteria Used to Assign Aquatic Persistence and Hazard Levels

Persistence Level Criteria

Very High Half-life in water, soil, or sediment > 180 days or recalcitrant

High Half-life in water, soil, or sediment 60-180 days

Moderate Half-life in water, soil or sediment < 60 but ≥ 16 days

Low Half-life in water, soil, or sediment < 16 days OR passes Ready 

Biodegradability test not including the 10-day window.

Very Low Passes Ready Biodegradability test with the 10-day window.

Hazard Level Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criteria

Very High LC/EC50 is < 1 mg/L

High LC/EC50 is 1-10 mg/L

Moderate LC/EC50 is >10-100 mg/L

Low LC/EC50 is >100 mg/L 

Hazard Level Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criteria

Very High NOEC/LOEC is < 0.1 mg/L

High NOEC/LOEC is 0.1-1 mg/L

Moderate NOEC/LOEC is >1 - 10 mg/L

Low NOEC/LOEC is > 10 mg/L 

b. Sources of Information on Toxicological and Environmental Endpoints 

The chemical assessments in Table 2-3 combine primary and secondary data on the evaluated 

chemicals from six sources: (1) publicly available, measured (experimental) data obtained from a 

comprehensive literature review; (2) measured data from EPA OPPT confidential databases; 

(3) SAR-based estimations from the EPA New Chemical Program’s Pollution Prevention (P2) 

Framework and Sustainable Futures predictive methods6; (4) estimations from the EPA 

Chemical Categories document, which groups chemicals with shared chemical functionality and 

toxicological properties into categories based on EPA’s experience evaluating chemicals under 

the New Chemicals Program; (5) professional judgment of EPA staff who identified 

experimental data on closely related analogs; (6) confidential studies submitted by chemical 

manufacturers; and (7) the CleanGredients® database. When experimental data were lacking, 

Agency predictive models7and the expert judgment of scientists from EPA’s New Chemical 

Program were used to assess physical/chemical properties, environmental fate, and aquatic 

toxicity endpoints.

 

6 The Sustainable Futures Initiative (SF) is available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/sf/
9

Table 2-3 Screening Level Environmental Hazard Summary for Surfactants

This table contains information on the inherent hazards of surfactant chemicals and indicates whether a chemical meets the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants. Evaluations 

are based on DfE’s Criteria for Safer Surfactants and Alternatives Assessment Criteria. See http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Surfactants and 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternatives_assessment_criteria_hazard_eval_nov2010_final_draft2.pdf

VL = Very low hazard L = Low hazard M = Moderate hazard H = High hazard VH = Very high hazard  Endpoints in colored text (VL, L, M, H, and 

VH) were assigned based on experimental data.

Endpoints in black italics (VL, L, M, H, and VH) were assigned using estimated values and professional judgment (Structure Activity Relationships).

Y=Yes...N=No

Chemical Class

CASRN

Fate Aquatic toxicity1

Meets DfE 

Surfactant 

Chemical

PersistenceDegradates of concern

Criteria?

2

AcuteChronicDegradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis

Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs)

Nonylphenol ethoxylate (9EO); NPE9

O

9 OH

127087-87-0 M Y

3 H M VH N

Nonylphenol is prepared from phenol and 

tripropylene, yielding a highly branched, 

predominantly para-substituted alkylphenol. 

Reaction of nonylphenol with ethylene oxide 

yields NPE surfactants. 

Octylphenol ethoxylates (OPEs)

Octylphenol ethoxylate (10EO); OPE10

O

10 OH

9036-19-5 H

4 Y5 H H VH N

Octylphenol is prepared from phenol and diisobutylene, yielding a highly branched, 

predominantly para-substituted alkylphenol. 

Reaction of octylphenol with ethylene oxide 

yields OPE surfactants. 
10

Chemical Class

CASRN

Fate Aquatic toxicity1

Meets DfE 

Surfactant 

Chemical

PersistenceDegradates of concern

Criteria?

2

AcuteChronicDegradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis

Linear alcohol ethoxylates (LAE)

C9-11 Alcohols, ethoxylated (6 EO)

OH

O

Linear C9-C11 alkyl

6

68439-46-3 VL N H H L

6 Y

Linear alcohols, derived from fatty acids or 

alpha-olefins, are reacted with ethylene oxide 

to yield LAE surfactants. Many detergent 

grade LAEs make use of alcohols in the C10-

C18 range.

C12-15 Alcohols, ethoxylated (9EO)

O

OH

9

Linear C12-C15 alkyl

68131-39-5 VL N VH H L

6 Y

Linear alcohols, derived from fatty acids or 

alpha-olefins, are reacted with ethylene oxide 

to yield LAE surfactants. Many detergent 

grade LAEs make use of alcohols in the C10-

C18 range.
11

Chemical Class

CASRN

Fate Aquatic toxicity1

Meets DfE 

Surfactant 

Chemical

PersistenceDegradates of concern

Criteria?

2

AcuteChronicDegradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis

Ethoxylated/propoxylated alcohols

Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, 

mono(2-ethylhexyl ether); Ecosurf EH-9

O

O

m n OH

64366-70-7 L N M M L

6 Y

2-Ethylhexanol is reacted with ethylene oxide 

and propylene oxide to yield this product. 

Other surfactants in this class use linear 

alcohols in place of 2-ethylhexanol. 
12

Chemical Class

CASRN

Fate Aquatic toxicity1

Meets DfE 

Surfactant 

Chemical

PersistenceDegradates of concern

Criteria?

2

AcuteChronicDegradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis

Alkyl polyglucose (APG)

D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl 

glycosides

O

O

O

HO

HO

HO

OH

OH

OH

O

n OH

68515-73-1 VL N M M L

6 Y

Fatty alcohols are reacted with glucose in the 

presence of an acid catalyst. Similar products 

may be prepared from other sugars, such as 

sucrose. 

Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS)

Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-13-alkyl derivs., 

sodium salt

Na

+

S

O

O

O

68411-30-3 VL N H H L

6 Y

Benzene is alkylated with a linear olefin 

(either internal or terminal) in the presence of 

an acid catalyst, yielding a linear alkyl 

benzene (LAB). The LAB intermediate is 

sulfonated and neutralized to yield a linear 

alkyl benzene sulfonate surfactant. 

Alkyl sulfate esters (AS)

Sodium lauryl sulfate

S O

O

O

O Na

+

151-21-3 VL N H H L

6 Y

Fatty alcohols are sulfated and neutralized to 

yield alkyl sulfate ester salts. 
13

Chemical Class

CASRN

Fate Aquatic toxicity1

Meets DfE 

Surfactant 

Chemical

PersistenceDegradates of concern

Criteria?

2

AcuteChronicDegradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis

Alkyl ether sulfates (AES)

Polyoxy(1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omegadodecyloxy-, sodium salt

S O

O

O

O

O

n Na

+

9004-82-4 L N H H L

6 Y

Linear alcohol ethoxylates are sulfated and 

neutralized to yield alkyl ether sulfate salts. 

Sorbitan esters

Sorbitan monostearate

O

OH

HO

OH

O

O

1338-41-6 L

7 N H H L6 Y

Fatty acid methyl esters are reacted with 

sorbitan in the presence of a basic catalyst to 

yield sorbitan esters.

Note: Levels of 1,4-dioxane impurity in ethoxylated surfactants are limited to 100 ppm in the product formulation. 

1. Acute toxicity data reviewed include 96-h LC50 assays in fish, 48-h EC50 or LC50 assays in invertebrates and 72-96-h EC50 assays in algae. Chronic toxicity values are not required for rating if 

adequate acute data are available. 

2. Degradation products of concern for surfactants are compounds with high acute aquatic toxicity (L/E/IC50 ≤ 10ppm) and a slow rate of biodegradation (greater than 28 days).

3. One potential degradate, nonylphenol, raises concerns for its potential to affect the endocrine system. 

4. Half-life cannot be reliably determined from the available biodegradation data for octylphenol ethoxylates. Based on biodegradation rate data, the time to achieve 50% degradation (as measured 

by oxygen demand) appears to be somewhat longer than 60 days. 

5. One potential degradate, octylphenol, is more persistent and more toxic than the parent compound.

6. According to available biodegradation studies, this chemical ultimately degrades to CO2, H2O, and mineral salts, and therefore no aquatically toxic degradates are expected.

7. The available biodegradation data do not include information on the 10-day window.
14

c. Explanation of Hazard Evaluation Ratings

For each chemical in the summary matrix, the following explanatory text provides the 

basis for the hazard evaluation ratings and whether the chemical passes the DfE Criteria 

for Surfactants. Source materials with the data that support the evaluation ratings appear

by chemical in Section 4. 

NPE9 127087-87-0

Persistence MODERATE: Based on experimental data indicating that NPE9 does not 

pass standard ready biodegradability assays, reaching 31% in an OECD 30-

day BOD test and 14-34% in an OECD modified Sturm test. (Kravetz, et al., 

1991) Typical metabolites formed in aerobic biodegradation include 

nonylphenol and its lower-molecular weight ethoxylates (NPE1, NPE2) and 

ether-carboxylates (NPEC1, NPEC2). These have been found in STP 

effluents, sewage sludge and sediments, and can persist in the environment, 

especially under anaerobic conditions. (Naylor, 2004, pp. 432-436; Talmage, 

1994, pp. 235-255; Ying, et al., 2002; Maguire, 1999; Bennie, 1999)

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values for NPE9 in the range of 1.0-14 

ppm in fish, EC50 values for NPE9 in the range of 2.9-14.0 ppm in daphnia 

and an EC50 value for NPE9 of 12 ppm in green algae. (Talmage, 1994, pp. 

264-268; Talmage, 1994, pp. 271-275; Talmage, 1994, pp. 277-278, 

respectively) 

Chronic 

Toxicity

MODERATE: Based on an experimental NOEC of 1.0 ppm in fish and a 

NOEC of 10 ppm in daphnia in 7-day growth assays with NPE9. (Talmage, 

1994, pp. 282-283)

Degradate 

Toxicity

For nonylphenol: VERY HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values in the 

range of 0.13-1.4 ppm in fish, EC50 values in the range of 0.14-0.47 ppm in 

daphnia and EC50 values in the range of 0.027-0.41 ppm in green algae 

measured for the degradate nonylphenol. (Talmage, 1994, pp. 264-268; 

Talmage, 1994, pp. 271-275; Talmage, 1994, pp. 277-278, respectively) In 

addition, a 33-day NOEC (survival) of 0.0074 ppm has been reported in fish 

and 21-day NOECs (growth, survival and sublethal effects) < 0.1 ppm have 

been reported in mysid shrimp for nonylphenol. (Talmage, 1994, pp 282-

283)

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

DOES NOT PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute aquatic 

toxicity and ―Moderate‖ for persistence, and the formation of persistent 

biodegradation products that are more toxic to aquatic organisms than the 

parent compound.
15

OPE10 9036-19-5

Persistence HIGH: Based on experimental biodegradation rate data, indicating that 

OPE10 reaches 10-53% biodegradation in 28 days in a shake-flask assay as 

measured by DOC removal, CO2 evolution and BOD. (Talmage, 1994, pg. 

351) Typical metabolites formed in aerobic biodegradation include 

octylphenol and its lower-molecular weight ethoxylates (OPE1, OPE2) and 

ether-carboxylates (OPEC-1, OPEC-2). (Naylor, 2004, pp. 432-436; 

Talmage, 1994, pp. 235-255)

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values for OPE10 in the range of 8.9-

12.0 ppm in fish (Talmage, 1994, pp. 264-268; Servos, 1999, pg. 141), an 

EC50 value for the analog OPE5 of 1.83 ppm in mysid shrimp (Talmage, 

1994, pg. 273; Servos, 1999, pg. 141) and an EC50 value for OPE10 of 7.4 

ppm in algae. (Servos, 1999, pg. 141) 

Chronic Toxicity HIGH: Based upon the experimental acute toxicity data and expert judgment. 

In the absence of data, chronic toxicity values for nonionic surfactants are 

estimated to be 10% of the measured acute toxicity data (LC/EC50 values). 

Degradate 

Toxicity

For octylphenol: VERY HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values for 

octylphenol in the range of 0.25- 0.29 ppm in fish, and experimental EC50

values for octylphenol in the range of 0.09-0.27 ppm in daphnia. (Servos, 

1999, pg. 141; US EPA, 2009, pp 49-53) In addition, a 14-day NOEC of 

0.084 ppm was measured in fish and a 21-day NOEC of 0.037 ppm 

(reproduction) was measured in daphnia. (Servos, 1999, pg. 140)

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

DOES NOT PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute aquatic 

toxicity and ―High‖ for persistence, and the formation of persistent 

biodegradation products that are more toxic to aquatic organisms than the 

parent compound.

C9-11 Alcohols, ethoxylated (6EO) 68439-46-3

Persistence VERY LOW: Based on experimental data indicating that this compound 

passes standard ready biodegradation tests. C9-11EO8 consumed 80% ThOD 

in 28 days in a closed bottle test, and C10-12 EO6 released 83% ThCO2 in the 

OECD 301B assay. Persistent biodegradation products are not formed. C9-

11EO6 is also reported to pass several OECD 301-series tests, consistently 

meeting the 10-day window criterion. (HERA, 2009, pp. 28; Talmage, 1994, 

pp. 47-50, CleanGredients, 2011).

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values ranging from 1.6-2 mg/L for 

C11EO5 to 8-9 mg/L for C9-11EO5 in fish; 5.4-14 mg/L for C9-11EO6 in 

invertebrates; and 2.9-3.5 mg/L for C11EO5 in algae (HERA, 2009, pp. 70, 

76, 84, 86; Talmage, 1994, pp. 66, 71, 77).

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on an measured NOECs in juvenile fish of 1.0-4.4 mg/L 

(survival), 0.73 mg/L (reproduction) and 1.0 mg/L (growth) for C9-11 EO6; 

and a LOEC of > 2.0 mg/L in algae, measured in a 7-day reproduction study 

with C9-11EO6 (Talmage, 1994, pp. 80, 95).

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute toxicity and ―Low‖ for 

persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 
16

C12-15 Alcohols, ethoxylated (9EO) 68131-39-5

Persistence VERY LOW: Based on experimental data indicating that this compound 

passes standard ready biodegradation tests. (Kravetz, et al., 1991). In 

addition, biodegradation information for C12-15 alcohols, ethoxylated (7EO 

and 9EO) are reported in the CleanGredients® Database indicating that these 

materials meet the 10-day window criterion in OECD 301-series tests. 

(CleanGredients, 2011) Persistent biodegradation products are not formed. 

(Talmage, 1994, pp. 47-50)

Acute Toxicity VERY HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values ranging from 1.2-11.0 

ppm in fish, EC50 values ranging from 1.3-1.6 ppm in daphnia and an EC50

value of 0.70 ppm in green algae. (Talmage, 1994, pp. 61-67; Talmage, 

1994, pg. 70; Talmage, 1994, pg. 77, respectively). 

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on an experimental NOEC of 0.4 ppm in fish and an 

experimental NOEC of 1.0 ppm in daphnia, measured in 7-day growth assays 

with C12-15 alcohols, ethoxylated (EO9). (Talmage, 1994, pg. 79; Kravetz, et 

al. 1991)

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―Very high‖ for acute toxicity and ―Very 

low‖ for persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of 

concern. 

Ecosurf EH-9 64366-70-6

Persistence LOW: Based upon experimental data indicating that this material achieves 

60% or greater ThOD,/ThCO2 (> 70% DOC) biodegradation in an OECD 

301F series assay, but without meeting the 10-day window criterion. 

(CleanGredients, 2011)

Acute Toxicity MODERATE: Based upon an experimental 48-hr EC50 data of > 100 ppm in 

daphnia and a 72-hr EC50 in the range of 54-98 ppm in algae. 

(CleanGredients, 2011)

Chronic 

Toxicity

MODERATE: Based upon the experimental acute toxicity data and expert

judgment. In the absence of data, chronic toxicity values for nonionic 

surfactants are estimated to be 10% of the measured acute toxicity data 

(LC/EC50 values). 

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―Moderate‖ for acute toxicity and ―Low‖ 

for persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 

This surfactant is listed on CleanGredients® (CleanGredients, 2011)
17

D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides 68515-73-1

Persistence VERY LOW: Based upon experimental data indicating that this material 

achieves 81-82% after 28-days in an OECD 301- D assay and 94% after 28 

days in an OECD 301-E assay. This material met the 10-day window 

criterion in both tests. (Willing, et al., 2004, pg. 490)

Acute Toxicity MODERATE: Based upon an experimental 96-hr LC50 of 101 ppm in fish, 

an experimental 48hr-EC50 of 20 ppm in daphnids and an experimental 72-hr 

EC50 of 47 mg/L in algae. (Willing, et al., pg. 498)

Chronic 

Toxicity

MODERATE: Based upon an experimental 72-hr NOEC of 5.7 mg/L in 

algae, and experimental data for an analog (C12-14 alkyl glycoside). Data 

reported for the analog include a 4-week NOEC of 1.8 mg/L in fish, a 21-day 

NOEC of 1.0 mg/L in daphnia and a 72-hr NOEC of 2.0 mg/L in algae. 

(Willing, et al., pg. 498)

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―Moderate‖ for acute toxicity and ―Very 

low‖ for persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of 

concern. 

Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-13-alkyl derivs., sodium salts 68411-30-3

Persistence VERY LOW: Based upon experimental data indicating that the C10-13 alkyl 

derivative achieves 94% biodegradation in a DOC-Die away test, that the 

dodecyl alkyl derivative achieves 69% in an OECD 301-B test and that this 

compound (C10-13 sodium salt) achieves 93-95% after 28 days in a DOC-Die 

away test that meets the 10-day window criterion (US EPA HPV, pp. 18-19, 

IUCLID pg. 25).

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental 96-hr LC50 values in the range of 1.7-7.8 ppm 

in fish (SIDS, 2005, pp. 175-182; HERA, 2009, pg. 24; Cavalli, 2004, pg. 

396), 48-hr EC50 values in the range of 1.62-9.3 ppm in daphnia (SIDS, 

2005, pp. 183-187; HERA, 2009, pg. 24; Cavalli, 2004, pg. 396) and 72-hr 

and 96-hr EC50 values in the range of 4.2-127 ppm for algae (SIDS, 2005, pp. 

187-194; HERA, 2009, pg. 24).

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on experimental NOECs in the of 0.15-2.0 mg/L for 14-196-

day chronic toxicity tests in fish (SIDS, 2005, pp. 201-206; HERA, 2009, pg. 

25), experimental NOECs in the range of 0.3-3.25 mg/L in 21-day 

reproduction tests in daphnia (SIDS, 2005, pp. 211-212) and experimental 

NOECs of 0.1-3.1 mg/L for 72-hr and 15-day chronic toxicity tests in algae 

(SIDS, 2005, pp. 190-196, pp. 201-212). 

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute toxicity and ―Very low‖ 

for persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 
18

Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3

Persistence VERY LOW: Based upon experimental data indicating that this material 

achieves 60% or greater biodegradation as measured by oxygen uptake in 

assays similar to OECD 301C (MITI test) and meets the 10-day window 

criterion. (IUCLID, pp. 63-64)

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental LC50 values ranging from 1.0-34.9 ppm in 

fish, EC50 values ranging from 1.8-49 ppm in daphnia and EC50 values 

ranging from 30-150 ppm in green algae. (IUCLID, pp. 73-79; IUCLID, pp. 

115-126; IUCLID, pp. 157-159, respectively). 

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on an experimental NOEC of 0.75 ppm for blood effects in a 

60-day chronic assay in fish (IUCLID, pg. 90), an experimental NOEC of 

0.22 ppm in a 56-day chronic assay in invertebrates (Madsen, et al., 2001, 

pg. 21), and experimental NOEC values in the range of ≤ 0.1 – 50 ppm in 14-

15-day chronic assays in green algae measuring cell count, growth rate 

and/or biomass. (IUCLID, pp. 151-152) Note that in the two assays 

reporting a NOEC of 0.1 or ≤ 0.1 ppm, the lowest dose tested was 0.1 ppm, 

and the effect (increase in cell count) was reported at 0.5 ppm. Madesn, et 

al. report a measured chronic NOEC of > 0.55 ppm for algae (Madsen, et al., 

2001, pg. 21) and HERA reports a lowest chronic value for algae of 12 ppm 

(HERA,2002, pg. 22). 

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute toxicity and ―Very low‖ 

for persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-dodecyloxy-, sodium salt 9004-82-4

Persistence LOW: Based on experimental data indicating that the C12-14AE2S achieves 

58-100% ThOD after 28 days in a Closed Bottle Test, that the C12-18AE8.5S 

achieves 100% ThOD after 28 days in a Closed Bottle Test, and that this 

mixture corresponding to this CAS number achieves 58.6% degradation after 

2 weeks in a MITI OECD 301-C test. Information on the 10-day window 

was not available, however, the MITI test data suggest that this compound 

could meet the 10-day window criterion. (Madsen, et al, 2001, pg. 25; 

National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2002). 

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental 96-hr LC50 values in the range of 1.0-28 ppm 

in fish (Madsen, 2004, pg. 216; Madsen, et al., 2001, pg. 27), a 96-hr EC50 of 

1.17 ppm in daphnia (Madsen, 2004, pg. 216) and an LC50 value of 4-65 ppm 

for C12-15 AE1-3S in algae (Madsen, 2004, pg. 216).

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on experimental NOECs ranging from 0.1-0.88 ppm in 20-30-

day chronic toxicity tests in fish, NOECs ranging from 0.3-6.3 mg/L in 7-day 

chronic toxicity tests in daphnids, and NOECs ranging from 0.35-0.9 mg/L 

in 72-96-hour chronic toxicity tests in algae. (HERA,2002, pp. 18-20)

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute toxicity and ―Low‖ for 

persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 
19

Sorbitan monostearate 1338-41-6

Persistence LOW: Based on experimental data indicating that sorbitan monostearate 

achieves ≥ 75% biodegradation in 4 weeks as measured by BOD in the MITI 

test (OECD 301C). Information on the 10-day window was not available. 

(National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2002)

Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on an experimental LC50 value of > 6.3 ppm in fish, an EC50

value of >13 ppm in daphnia and an EC50 value of >56 ppm in green algae. 

(National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2002)

Chronic 

Toxicity

HIGH: Based on an experimental NOEC of 0.66 ppm in a 21-day 

reproduction study in daphnia. (National Institute of Technology and 

Evaluation, 2002)

Degradate 

Toxicity

NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed. 

DfE Criteria for 

Surfactants

PASS: Based on a classification of ―High‖ for acute toxicity and ―Low‖ for 

persistence, with no formation of biodegradation products of concern. 

3. Activities to Promote the Use of Alternatives to NPE Surfactants

To complement the screening level hazard assessments presented in Section 2, this 

section highlights DfE activities that have led to significant progress in the adoption of 

safer surfactants, as well as opportunities for additional success. The brief descriptions 

below include links to more information. 

DfE Safer Product Labeling and Criteria for Safer Surfactants

As part of its Safer Product Labeling Program, DfE developed Criteria for Safer 

Surfactants to supplement its Master Criteria for Safer Chemical Ingredients. DfE 

focuses its review of formulation ingredients on the distinguishing environmental and 

human health characteristics of chemicals within functional classes, including 

surfactants, solvents, chelating agents and fragrances. This approach allows formulators 

to use those ingredients with the lowest hazard in their functional class, while still 

formulating high-performing products. DfE has labeled more than 2,700 products, 

including a broad range of detergents and cleaning products, all of which contain 

surfactants that meet DfE’s Criteria for Safer Surfactants (discussed within at Sec. 

2.B.1). More information on the DfE labeling program, including a complete list of 

labeled product, is online at www.epa.gov/dfe.

The CleanGredients® Database

Safer surfactants are included in CleanGredients®, a database of safer cleaning product 

ingredients, online at www.cleangredients.org/home. The CleanGredients® database 

serves both as an ingredient resource for formulators seeking to make products that can 

carry the DfE label and as a marketplace for surfactant and other raw material suppliers 

interested in showcasing their safer, DfE-approved chemicals. The database contains 

over three hundred surfactant options in a variety of structural classes and lists key 
20

performance characteristics, like cloud point, critical micelle concentration, and specific 

gravity. The database also contains solvents, chelating agents and fragrances, which are 

used in cleaning and other product classes. Although CleanGredients® is foremost a 

resource for formulating safer cleaning products, it is also a resource for other product 

sectors that use these ingredient classes and are seeking safer substitutes. The database 

has the capacity to expand to other chemical classes and product categories. 

The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI)

Initiated by EPA in 2006, SDSI recognizes environmental leaders who voluntarily 

phase out or commit to phasing out the manufacture or use of NPE surfactants. SDSI 

complements EPA's AWQC for NP in reducing the load of toxic chemicals entering 

U.S. waters. Companies, such as chemical manufacturers, product formulators, 

retailers and distributors, institutional purchasers and others, are eligible to participate 

in SDSI. To date, DfE has awarded Champion status, its highest level of recognition, to 

more than 45 companies and Partner status to more than 20 companies. Through its 

work on SDSI and partnerships with industry and environmental advocates, DfE has 

identified alternatives to NPE surfactants that are comparable in cost, readily available, 

and which break down quickly to non-polluting compounds in fresh and salt water. 

For more information on SDSI, visit www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/sdsi.htm.

Having shown strong participation from cleaning product and detergent formulators, 

SDSI has the potential for similar results in other product classes. Especially of interest

are products used outdoors where chemicals may be released directly to the 

environment (bypassing wastewater treatment); examples include de-icers, oilfield 

chemicals, dispersants, and dust control agents. SDSI may also serve as a model for 

other voluntary initiatives seeking to encourage a move from chemicals of potential 

concerns to safer alternatives. 

Laundry Industry Phase-out of NPEs

For many years, the uniform and textile rental industry relied heavily on NPEs as the 

workhorse surfactants for Industrial/Institutional (I/I) laundry operations. The industry 

maintained that NPEs could not be replaced in their detergent formulations; they 

maintained that no other surfactants could match NPEs in performance, affordability or 

efficiency. Gradually, however, as surfactant manufacturers innovated to meet market 

demand for high-performing, more environmentally friendly alternatives, built their 

supply capacity, and lowered prices, I/I detergent formulators embraced the safer 

chemistry options. In response to the SDSI and the new market conditions, the I/I 

laundry industry has pledged to eliminate the use of NPE surfactants and is well along 

the way to reaching its phase-out goals. The current deadline for complete phase-out in 

all liquid detergents is December 31, 2013, and in all powder detergents, December 31, 

2014.7

 

7 As per letter from Charles Sewell, Vice President, Textile Rental Services Association of America to Lisa 

Jackson, Administrator, US EPA, June 22, 2010.
21

4. References

General References:

GHS, 2009. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals 

(GHS). Chapter 4.1: Hazards to the Aquatic Environment. 2009, United Nations. 

Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol 

Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 191-364.

U.S. EPA, 1992. Classification Criteria for Environmental Toxicity and Fate of 

Industrial Chemicals. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics, Chemical Control 

Division. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA, 1994. US EPA/EC Joint Project on the Evaluation of (Quantitative) Structure 

Activity Relationships. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 

743R-94-001. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/21ecosar.htm

U.S. EPA, 1999. Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical 

Substances. Federal Register. 64(213): 60194-60204. November 4. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1999/November/Day-04/t28888.htm

U.S. EPA, 2005a. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Nonylphenol. Final. 

EPA-822-R-05-005. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Available for download at : 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonylphenol/final-doc.pdf

U.S. EPA, 2005b. Pollution Prevention (P2) Framework. Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 743R-94-001. Washington, DC. Available for 

download at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/sf/pubs/p2frame-june05a2.pdf.

U.S. EPA, 2009. Methodology for Risk-Based Prioritization Under ChAMP. Office of 

Pollution Prevention & Toxics. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA, 2010a. Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) Action Plan. 

Available for download at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/RIN2070-ZA09_NPNPEs%20Action%20Plan_Final_2010-08-09.pdf

U.S. EPA, 2010b. Design for the Environment Program Master Criteria for Safer 

Ingredients. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available for download at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/dfe_master_criteria_safer_ingredients.pdf

U.S. EPA, 2011a. Design for the Environment Program Criteria for Safer Surfactants. 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available for download at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Surfactants
22

U.S. EPA, 2011b. Design for the Environment Program Alternatives Assessment 

Criteria for Hazard Evaluation. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available 

for download at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternatives_assessment_criteria_for_hazard_eval.pdf

References for Table 2-3:

Nonylphenol ethoxylate (9EO, NPE)

Bennie, D.T., 1999. Review of the Environmental Occurrence of Alkylphenols and 

Alkylphenol Ethoxyates, Water Qual. Res. J. Canada, vol. 34(1), 79-122.

Kravetz, L.; Salanitro, J.P.; Dorn, P.B.; Guin, K.F., 1991. JAOCS, vol. 68, 610-618.

Maguire, R.J., 1999. Review of the Persistence of Nonylphenol and 

Nonylphenolethoxylates in Aquatic Environments, Water Qual. Res. J. Canada, vol. 

34(1), 37-78.

Naylor, C.G., 2004. The Environmental Safety of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates Demonstrated 

by Risk Assessment and Guidelines for Their Safe Use. In: Handbook of Detergents, 

Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. Zoller, ed., 

Marcel Dekker, New York, 429-445.

Servos, M. R.,1999. Review of the Aquatic Toxicity, Estrogenic Responses and 

Bioaccumulation of Alkylphenols and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates. Water Qual. Res. J. 

Canada, 34(1), 1999, 123-177.

Swisher, R.D., 1987. Surfactant Biodegradation, 2nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, 

Surfactant Science Series Volume 18, Marcel Dekker, New York, 714-718, 851-860.

Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol 

Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 191-364.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Screening Level Hazard Characterization, 

Alkylphenols Category. 

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/Category_Alkylphenols_Sept2009.pdf

Ying, G.G.; Williams, B.; Kookana, R., 2002. Environmental Fate of Alkylphenols and 

Alkylphenol Ethoxylates – a Review, Environment International, vol. 28, 215-226.

U. Zoller, ed., 2004. Handbook of Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant 

Science Series Volume 121, Marcel Dekker, New York.
23

Octylphenol ethoxylate (10EO, OPE)

National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, Japan, 2002. Biodegradation and 

Bioconcentration of the Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances 

Control Law. Accessed June 2011. 

http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/data/hazkizon/pk_e_kizon_input_second.home_object

Naylor, C.G. 2004. The Environmental Safety of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates Demonstrated 

by Risk Assessment and Guidelines for Their Safe Use. In: Handbook of Detergents, 

Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. Zoller, ed., 

Marcel Dekker, New York, 429-445.

Servos, M. R.,1999. Review of the Aquatic Toxicity, Estrogenic Responses and 

Bioaccumulation of Alkylphenols and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates. Water Qual. Res. J. 

Canada, vol. 34(1), 123-177.

Swisher, R.D., 1987. Surfactant Biodegradation, 2nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, 

Surfactant Science Series Volume 18, Marcel Dekker, New York, 714-718, 851-860.

Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol 

Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL., 191-364. 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Screening Level Hazard Characterization, 

Alkylphenols Category. 

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/Category_Alkylphenols_Sept2009.pdf

C9-11 Alcohols, ethoxylated (6 EO, LAE)

CleanGredients data base, www.cleangredients.org Accessed November, 2011.

HERA, Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European 

Household Cleaning Products, Alcohol Ethoxylates, Version 1.0, May, 2007. 

http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm

Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol 

Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL., 1-188.

C12-15 Alcohols, ethoxylated (9EO, LAE)

Cavalli, L., 2004. Surfactants in the Environment, Fate and Effects of Linear 

Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (LAS) and Alcohol-Based Surfactants. In: Handbook of 

Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. 

Zoller, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 373-427.
24

CleanGredients Database, www.cleangredients.org Accessed June, 2011.

Dorn, P.B.; Salanitro, J.P.; Evans, S.H.; Kravetz, L.,1993. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 

12, 1751-1762.

HERA, Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European 

Household Cleaning Products, Alcohol Ethoxylates, Version 1.0, May, 2007. 

http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm

Kravetz, L.; Salanitro, J.P.; Dorn, P.B.; Guin, K.F., 1991. JAOCS, vol. 68, 610-618.

Madsen, T.; Boyd, H.B.; Nylen, D.; Pedersen, A.R.; Petersen, G.I.; Simonsen, F., 2001. 

Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and 

Cosmetic Detergent Products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Project No 615. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2001/87-7944-596-9/pdf/87-

7944-597-7.pdf

Swisher, R.D., 1987. Surfactant Biodegradation, 2nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, 

Surfactant Science Series Volume 18, Marcel Dekker, New York, 692-713, 831-843.

Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol 

Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL., 1-188.

Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(2-ethylhexyl ether) (Ecosurf EH-9)

CleanGredients data base, www.cleangredients.org Accessed June, 2011.

U.S. EPA. 2010. Estimation Programs Interface SuiteTM for Microsoft® Windows, v4.00. 

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, USA. Available online from: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm estimation run June, 2011.

D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides (APG)

U.S. EPA. 2010. Estimation Programs Interface SuiteTM for Microsoft® Windows, v4.00. 

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, USA. Available online from: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm estimation run June, 2011.

Willing, A.; Messinger, H.; Aulmann, W., 2004. Ecology and Toxicology of Alkyl 

Polyglycosides, In: Handbook of Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant 

Science Series Volume 121, U. Zoller, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 487-521.

Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-13-alkyl derivs., sodium salt (LAS)
25

Cavalli, L., 2004. Surfactants in the Environment, Fate and Effects of Linear 

Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (LAS) and Alcohol-Based Surfactants. In: Handbook of 

Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. 

Zoller, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 373-427.

HERA, Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European 

Household Cleaning Products, LAS, Linear Alkylbenzene Sulphonate, Version 4.0, June, 

2009. http://www.heraproject.com/files/48-F-HERA_LAS_Report_(Version_4_-

_June_09).pdf

IUCLID Dataset, Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-13-alkyl derivs., sodium salts, Substance ID 

68411-30-3, European Chemicals Bureau, European Commission, 2000. 

http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/iuclid-datasheet/68411303.pdf

Madsen, T.; Boyd, H.B.; Nylen, D.; Pedersen, A.R.; Petersen, G.I.; Simonsen, F., 2001. 

Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and 

Cosmetic Detergent Products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Project No 615. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2001/87-7944-596-9/pdf/87-

7944-597-7.pdf

SIDS Initial Assessment Report, Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulfonate Category, UNEP 

Publications, 2005.

http://www.chem.unep.ch/irptc/sids/oecdsids/las.pdf

Steber, J.; Berger, H., 1995. Biodegradability of Anionic Surfactants, In: 

Biodegradability of Surfactants, D.R. Karsa and M.R. Porter, eds., Chapman and Hall, 

London, pp. 134-182.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. HPV Challenge Program Test Plan and 

Robust Summaries for Linear Alkylbenzene (LAB) Sulfonic Acids Category. 

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/linalkbz/c14485rr.pdf

Sodium lauryl sulfate (AS) 

Cavelli, L., 2004. Surfactants in the Environment, Fate and Effects of Linear 

Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (LAS) and Alcohol-Based Surfactants, In: Handbook of 

Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. 

Zoller, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 373-427.

HERA Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European 

Household Cleaning Products, Alkyl Sulphates 

Environmental Risk Assessment, 2002. http://www.heraproject.com/files/3-E-04-

HERA%20AS%20Env%20web%20wd.pdf
26

IUCLID Dataset, Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate, Substance ID: 151-21-3, European Chemicals 

Bureau, European Commission, 2000. http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/iucliddatasheet/151213.pdf

Madsen, T.; Boyd, H.B.; Nylen, D.; Pedersen, A.R.; Petersen, G.I.; Simonsen, F., 2001. 

Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and 

Cosmetic Detergent Products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Project No 615. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2001/87-7944-596-9/pdf/87-

7944-597-7.pdf

Steber, J.; Berger, H., 1994. Biodegradability of Anionic Surfactants, In: 

Biodegradability of Surfactants, D.R. Karsa and M.R. Porter, eds., Chapman and Hall, 

London, pp. 134-182.

Polyoxy(1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-dodecyloxy-, sodium salt (AES)

HERA Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European 

Household Cleaning Products, Alcohol Ethoxy 

sulfates, AES, Environmental Risk Assessment, 2002. 

http://www.heraproject.com/files/1-E-04-

HERA%20AES%20ENV%20%20web%20wd.pdf

Madsen, T., 2004. Biodegradability and Toxicity of Surfactants, In: Handbook of 

Detergents, Part B: Environmental Impact, Surfactant Science Series Volume 121, U. 

Zoller, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 215-216.

Madsen, T.; Boyd, H.B.; Nylen, D.; Pedersen, A.R.; Petersen, G.I.; Simonsen, F., 2001. 

Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and 

Cosmetic Detergent Products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Project No 615. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2001/87-7944-596-9/pdf/87-

7944-597-7.pdf

National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, Japan, 2002. Biodegradation and 

Bioconcentration of the Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances 

Control Law. Accessed June 2011. 

http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/data/hazkizon/pk_e_kizon_input_second.home_object

Steber, J.; Berger, H., 1995. Biodegradability of Anionic Surfactants, In: 

Biodegradability of Surfactants, D.R. Karsa and M.R. Porter, eds., Chapman and Hall, 

London, pp. 172

Swisher, R.D., 1987. Surfactant Biodegradation, 2nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, 

Surfactant Science Series Volume 18, Marcel Dekker, New York. pp. 818-819.

Sorbitan monostearate
27

National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, Japan, 2002. Biodegradation and 

Bioconcentration of the Existing Chemical Substances under the Chemical Substances 

Control Law. Accessed June 2011. 

http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/data/hazkizon/pk_e_kizon_input_second.home_object

U.S. EPA. 2010. Estimation Programs Interface SuiteTM for Microsoft® Windows, v4.00. 

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, USA. Available online from: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm estimation run June, 2011..

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. HPV Chemical Hazard Characterizations 

for Sorbitan Esters Category. 

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/Category_Sorbitan%20Esters_June%202010.

pdf