1 

# DfE Alternatives Assessment for Nonylphenol Ethoxylates

May 201 2

For more information, please visit the DfE web site at http://www.epa.gov/dfe2 

### 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 Altern atives

................................ ................................ ............................ 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

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 213



### 1. Introduction

A. Purpose and Scope

As part of its effort s to enhance p ublic 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 ac tions. In August 2010, EPA released the Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPE) Action Plan 1 to 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 Program 2 helps industries choose safer chemi cals 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 surfactant s (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 recognize s product manufacturers who ar e 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 characteriz e NPEs and safer alternative surfactants

. A s a result, most of the information gathering , c hemical profiling

, and stakeholder interaction s typical of an alternatives assessment ha ve already taken place and

se rve as foundation and reference material for this document

. To identify safer surfactants, DfE has worked in collaboration with diverse s t akeholder groups, during both the development of the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants 4 and 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 one s highlighted in this document. The methodology for this Alternatives Assessment reflects these substantial Agency investments. This report includes criteria t hat 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%20A ction%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/form ulat/sdsi.htm
4 DfE’s Criteria for Safer Surfactants is available at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Surfactants4

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 environm ental per sistence have been important areas of toxicological research that have document ed effects of concern.

T h e report for this A lternatives A ssessment does the following:

- I n Section 1B, recaps key points from the NP and NPE Action Plan (please see the Act ion Plan for more detailed information on NP/NPE production, uses, and discharges to the environment );

- I n 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 expla ining the hazard evaluation ratings ;

- I n Section 3, documents progress made in the adoption of safer surfactants, as well as opportunities for additional success ; and

- I n 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, wettin g, 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 charg es). 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

, 2010 a ). NPE surfacta nts 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. Whi le some CASRNs specific to certain levels of ethoxylates exist, all degrees of ethoxylation may be manufactured under the CASRN for poly

ethoxylates (CASRN 127087

- 87

- 0), as long as they are synthesized via polymerization reaction between NP and EO (U.S. EP A

, 2010 a ).

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, 2010 a ) . U.S. and Canadian consumption of NPEs has been estimated between 300 and5

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 formulation s

 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

, 2010 a ). 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 sedime nt and accumulates (U

. S

. EPA

, 2005 a ). 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. N P is lethal to fish and other aquatic organisms at lo w 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

, 2005 a ). The EPA recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criter ia ( 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 Japa n.



### 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 produ cts 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 surfac tant 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

, an d/or (2b) inclusion on the CleanGredients ® website of safer surfactant alternatives.

T he chemicals presented are not intended as a comprehensive list of alternatives (note , for example, that the CleanGredients ® database contains more than 3 00 surfactan ts), nor would all6

member s of the structural class es represented by the featured alternatives necessarily meet the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants. Each potential NPE alternative must be evaluated on a case

by

- case basis as to both its safety profile a nd 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 a n NPE surfactant will depend on a for mulation’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. Ofte n, formulators will replace a n 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 Methodolog y

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 product s

. 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 allow ed 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

asses sments 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: t he 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 toxic ity to aquatic organisms , the criter ia 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 Df E

- labeled cleaning product 5 (see Table 2

- 1) and reflect safer chemistry that can substitute for NPEs in
g eneral detergent use s

.

5 It is important to note that surfactants in products that typically by

- pass sewage treatment must meet the more stringe nt 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 accept able if biodegradation 2 occurs within a 10

- day window without degradates of concern 3

>1 ppm and ≤10 ppm Biodegradation 2 occurs within a 10

- day window without degradates of concern 3

>10 ppm Biodegradation 2 occurs within 28 days without degradates of

conce rn 3

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 to xicity 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 CO 2 and water) in 28 days. 3. Degradates of concern are compounds with high acute aquatic t oxicity (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 Alternative s A ssess m ent applies relevant environmental toxicity and fate elements taken from the DfE ’s A lternatives A ssessment C riteria for Hazard Evaluation (U.S. EPA, 2011b) . The alternatives assessment rating system ( key elements of which are described below in T able 2

- 2 ) complements and expands on the DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants. Under the alternatives assessment c riteria, chemicals rating ―high‖ or ― very high‖ for aquatic toxicity would be acceptable for use in a DfE

- labeled product only if they rate ―ve ry low‖ for persistence

. C hemicals 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 indicat es which of these chemical s 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 p ersistence 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 Pollut ion Prevention and Toxics’ ( OPPT) New Chemicals Program (U.S. EPA, 2005 b ) 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, 2005 b ) an d the DfE

The DfE Criteria for Environmental Fate & Toxicity for Chemicals in Direct Releas e Products is available at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Toxicity8

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

. The DfE Criteria for Safer Surfactants (U.S. EPA, 2011a) defines d egradates 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 Aquati c 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 Mod erate 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) pub licly 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 Sus tainable Futures predictive methods 6 ; (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 lac king, Agency predictive models 7 and the expert judgment of scientists from EPA’s New Chemical Program w ere 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 Summa ry 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 Alternati ves 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 l ow hazard L = Low hazard M = Moderate hazard H = High hazard VH = Very high hazard

 Endpoints in colo red 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 Fat e Aquatic toxicity 1

Meets DfE Surfactant Criteria? Chemical Persistence Degradates of concern 2 Acute Chronic Degradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs)

Nonylphenol ethoxylate (9EO); NPE9

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

9036

- 19

- 5 H 4 Y 5 H H VH N Octylphenol is prepared from phenol and di

isobutylene, yielding a highly branched, predominantly para

- substituted alkylphenol. Reaction of octylphenol with ethylene oxide yields OPE surfactants.10 Chemical Class

CASRN Fat e Aquatic toxicity 1

Meets DfE Surfactant Criteria? Chemical Persistence Degradates of concern 2 Acute Chronic Degradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis Linear alcohol ethoxylates (LAE)

C9

- 11 Alcohols, ethoxylated (6 EO)

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 LA Es make use of alcohols in the C10

- C18 range.

C12

- 15 Alcohols, ethoxylated (9EO)

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. Man y detergent grade LAEs make use of alcohols in the C10

- C18 range.11 Chemical Class

CASRN Fat e Aquatic toxicity 1

Meets DfE Surfactant Criteria? Chemical Persistence Degradates of concern 2 Acute Chronic Degradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis Ethoxylated/propoxylated alcohols

Oxirane, methyl

- , polymer with oxirane, mono(2

- ethylhexyl ether); Ecosurf EH

- 9

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 Fat e Aquatic toxicity 1

Meets DfE Surfactant Criteria? Chemical Persistence Degradates of concern 2 Acute Chronic Degradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis Alkyl polyglucose (APG)
D

- Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides

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

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 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 Fat e Aquatic toxicity 1

Meets DfE Surfactant Criteria? Chemical Persistence Degradates of concern 2 Acute Chronic Degradate Aquatic toxicity

Synthesis Alkyl ether sulfates (A ES)

Polyoxy(1,2

- ethanediyl), alpha

- sulfo

- omega

dodecyloxy

- , sodium salt
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

1338

- 41

- 6 L 7 N H H L 6 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 t he product formulation. 1. Acute toxicity data reviewed include 96

- h LC 50 assays in fish, 48

- h EC 50 or LC 50 assays in invertebrates and 72

- 96

- h EC 50 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 sl ow rate of biodegradation (greater than 28 days). 3. One potential degradate, nonylphenol, raises concerns for its potential to af fect the endocrine system. 4. Half

- life cannot be reliably determined from the available biodegradation data for octylphenol ethoxylates. Based on biodegradati on 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 CO 2 , H 2 O, and mineral salts, and ther efore 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 pro vides the basis for the hazard evaluation ratings and whether the chemical passes the DfE Criteria for Surfactant s

. Source materials with the data that support the evaluation ratings appear by chemical in Sec tion 4.

NPE9 127087

- 87

- 0 Persistence MODERA TE: 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 biod egradation 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 anaerob ic 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 LC 50 values for NPE9 in the range of 1.0

- 14

ppm in fish, EC 50 values for NPE9 in the range of 2.9

- 14.0 ppm in daphnia and an EC 50 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 fi sh 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 LC 50 values in the

range of 0.13

- 1.4 ppm in fish, EC 50 values in the range of 0.14

- 0.4 7 ppm in daphnia and EC 50 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 Surfactant s DOES NOT PASS : Based on a classifica tion 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 experimen tal biodegradation rate data, indicating that

OPE10 reaches 10

- 53% biodegradation in 28 days in a shake

- flask assay as measured by DOC removal, CO 2 evolution and BOD. (Talmage, 1994, pg. 351) Typical metabolites formed in aerobic biodegradation include

o ctylphenol 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 LC 50 values for OPE10 in the range of 8.9

-

12.0 ppm in fish (Talmage, 1994, pp. 264

- 268; Servos, 1999, pg. 141), an EC 50 value for the analog OPE5 of 1.83 ppm in mysid shrimp (Talmage, 1994, pg. 273; Servos, 1999, pg. 141) and an EC 50 value for OPE10 of 7.4 ppm in algae. (Servos, 1999, pg. 141) Chron ic 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/EC 50 values). Degradate Toxic ity For octylphenol: VERY HIGH: Based on experimental LC 50 values for

octylphenol in the range of 0.25

- 0.29 ppm in fish, and experimental EC 50 values for octylphenol in the range of 0.09

- 0.27 ppm in daphnia. (Servos, 1999, pg. 141; US EPA, 2009, pp 49

- 5 3) 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 aquat ic

toxicity and ―High‖ for persistence, and the formation of persistent biodegradation products that are more toxic to aquatic organisms than the parent compound.

C 9

- 11 Alcohols, ethoxylated (6EO) 68439

- 46

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

passes standard ready biodegradation tests. C 9

- 11 EO8 consumed 80% ThOD in 28 days in a closed bottle test, and C 10

- 12 EO6 released 83% ThCO 2 in the OECD 301B assay. Persistent biodegradation products are not formed. C 9

-
11 EO6 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 LC 50 values ranging from 1.6

- 2 mg/L for

C 11 EO5 to 8

- 9 mg/L for C 9

- 11 EO5 in fish; 5.4

- 14 mg/L for C 9

- 11 EO6 in invertebrates; and 2.9

- 3.5 mg/L for C 11 EO5 in algae (HERA, 2009, pp. 70, 76, 84, 86; Talmage, 1994, pp. 66, 71, 77). Chronic Toxicity HIGH: Based on an measured NOECs in juve nile fish of 1.0

- 4.4 mg/L

(survival), 0.73 mg/L (reproduction) and 1.0 mg/L (growth) for C 9

- 11 EO6; and a LOEC of > 2.0 mg/L in algae, measured in a 7

- day reproduction study with C 9

- 11 EO6 (Talmage, 1994, p p . 80 , 95 ). Degradate Toxicity NOT EVALUATED: No p ersistent 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

C 12

- 15 Alcohols, ethoxylated (9EO) 68131

- 3 9

- 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 C 12

- 15 alcohols, ethoxylated (7EO and 9EO) are reported i n 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: Bas ed on experimental LC 50 values ranging from 1.2

- 11.0

ppm in fish, EC 50 values ranging from 1.3

- 1.6 ppm in daphnia and an EC 50 value of 0.70 ppm in green algae. (Talmage, 1994, pp. 61

- 67; Talmage, 1994, pg. 70; Talmage, 1994, pg. 77, respectively). Chro nic 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 C 12

- 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,/ThCO 2 ( > 70% DOC) biodegradation in an OECD 301F series assay, but without meeting the 10

- day window criterion. (CleanGredients, 2011) A cute Toxicity MODERATE: Based upon an experimental 48

- hr EC 50 data of > 100 ppm in

daphnia and a 72

- hr EC 50 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/EC 50 values). Degradate Toxicity NOT EVALUATED: No persistent degradates are formed.

DfE Criteria for S urfactants 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, oligom eric, 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 win dow criterion in both tests. (Willing, et al., 2004, pg. 490) Acute Toxicity MODERATE: Based upon an experimental 96

- hr LC 50 of 101 ppm in fish,

an experimental 48hr

- EC 50 of 20 ppm in daphnids and an experimental 72

- hr EC 50 of 47 mg/L in algae. (Willin g, 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 toxicit y 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 C 10

- 13 alkyl

derivat ive 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 (C 10

- 13 sodium salt) achieves 93

- 95% after 28 days in a DOC

- Die away test that meets the 10

- day window crite rion (US EPA HPV, pp. 18

- 19, IUCLID pg. 25). Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental 96

- hr LC 50 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 EC 50 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 EC 50 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 o f 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‖ f or 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 biodeg radation 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 LC 50 values ranging from 1.0

- 34.9 ppm in

fish, EC 50 values ranging from 1.8

- 49 ppm in daphnia and EC 50 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 ch ronic 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 measuri ng 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 Su rfactants 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 C 12

- 14 AE 2 S achieves

58

- 100% ThOD after 28 days in a Closed Bottle Test, that the C 12

- 18 AE 8.5 S achieves 100% ThOD after 28 days in a Closed Bottle Test, and that this mixture corresponding to this CAS nu mber 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; Nation al Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2002). Acute Toxicity HIGH: Based on experimental 96

- hr L C 50 values in the range of 1.0

- 28 ppm

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

- hr EC 50 of 1.17 ppm in daphnia (Madsen, 2004, pg. 216) and an LC 50 value of 4

- 65 ppm for C 12

- 15 AE 1

- 3 S 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

c hronic 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

ac hieves ≥ 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 LC 50 value o f > 6.3 ppm in fish, an EC 50

value of >13 ppm in daphnia and an EC 50 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

persistenc e, 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 assessment s 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 b rief 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 sup plement its Master Criteria for Safer Chemical Ingredients. DfE focuses its review of formulation ingredients on the distinguishing environmental and human health char acteristics 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

, 7 00 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.cle angredients.org/home . The CleanGredients® database serves both as a n 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 th eir safer, DfE

- approved chemicals. The database contains
over t hree hundred surfactant options in a variety of structural classes and lists key20

performance characteristics, like cloud point, critical micelle concentration, and specific gravity. The datab ase 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 tha t 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 env ironmental 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, p roduct 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 se rve 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 I ndustrial/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, affordabil ity 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 saf er 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
t he way to reaching its phase

- out goals. T he 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 Servic es 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 th e 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 (Quantita tive) 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. Categ ory 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

, 2005 a

. 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, 2010 a

. Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) Action Plan

. Avai lable for download at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/RIN2070

- ZA09_NP

NPEs%20Action%20Plan_Final_ 2010

- 08

- 09.pdf

U.S. EPA, 2010b

. Design for the Environment Program Master Criteria for Safer Ingredients. Office of Pre vention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/dfe_master_criteria_safer_ingred ients.pdf

U.S. EPA, 2011a

. Design for the Environment Program Criteria for Safer Surfactants

. Office of Pre vention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#Surfactants22

U.S. EPA, 2011b

. Des ign for the Environment Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation

. Office of Pre vention, Pesticides and Toxics. Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternatives_assessment_criteria_for_hazard_eval.pdf

References for Ta ble 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 Ethoxyl ates 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 Aq uatic 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, 2 nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, Surfactant Science S eries 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. 19 1

- 364.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Screening Level Hazard Characterization, Alkylphenols Category. http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/Category_Alk ylphenols_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: Environment al 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 Enviro nmental 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, 2 nd Edition, Revise d 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. Environmen tal 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 Envir onment, 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

CleanGredien ts 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 o n 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 Prot ection 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 Biod egradation, 2 nd 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 Acces sed 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/exp osure/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: Handb ook 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, Fat e 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 Environ mental 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 Cos metic Detergent Products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project No 615. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2001/87

- 7944

- 596

- 9/pdf/87

- 794 4

- 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.her aproject.com/files/3

- E

- 04

- HERA%20AS%20Env%20web%20wd.pdf26

IUCLID Dataset, Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate, Substance ID: 151

- 21

- 3, European Chemicals Bureau, European Commission, 2000. http://ecb .jrc.ec.europa.eu/iuclid

datasheet/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 Environ mental 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., 19 94. 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 Environme ntal 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, Environm ental 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.j p/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. Su rfactant Biodegradation, 2 nd Edition, Revised and Expanded, Surfactant Science Series Volume 18 , Marcel Dekker, New York. pp. 818

- 819.

Sorbitan monostearate27

National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, Japan, 2002. Biodegradation and Bioconcentratio n 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_seco nd.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/ex posure/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