OH 

H3C O

 4th Priority List 

 Volume: 68

Institute for Health and 

Consumer Protection 

European 

 Chemicals 

 Bureau

 Existing Substances

 European Chemicals Bureau 

European Union 

Risk Assessment Report

CAS No: 111-76-2 EINECS No: 203-905-0

2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) 

 European

Part I - environment 

 Union Risk Assessment Report 

 2-butox

yethanol (EGBE) 203-905-0 

111-76-2 

EC:

CAS: 

 PL-4 

 68

EUR 22501 EN 
The mission of the IHCP is to provide scientific support to the development and implementation of EU 

polices related to health and consumer protection. The IHCP carries out research to improve the 

understanding of potential health risks posed by chemical, physical and biological agents from various 

sources to which consumers are exposed. 

The Toxicology and Chemical Substances Unit (TCS), commonly known as the European Chemicals 

Bureau (ECB), provides scientific and technical input and know-how to the conception, development, 

implementation and monitoring of EU policies on dangerous chemicals including the co-ordination of EU 

Risk Assessments. The aim of the legislative activity of the ECB is to ensure a high level of protection for 

workers, consumers and the environment against dangerous chemicals and to ensure the efficient 

functioning of the internal market on chemicals under the current Community legislation. It plays a major 

role in the implementation of REACH through development of technical guidance for industry and new 

chemicals agency and tools for chemical dossier registration (IUCLID5). The TCS Unit ensures the 

development of methodologies and software tools to support a systematic and harmonised assessment of 

chemicals addressed in a number of European directives and regulation on chemicals. The research and 

support activities of the TCS are executed in close co-operation with the relevant authorities of the EU 

MS, Commission services (such as DG Environment and DG Enterprise), the chemical industry, the 

OECD and other international organisations. 

European Commission 

Directorate-General Joint Research Centre 

Institute of Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) 

European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) 

Contact information: 

Institute of Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) 

Address: Via E. Fermi 1 – 21020 Ispra (Varese) – Italy 

E-mail: ihcp-contact@jrc.it 

Tel.: +39 0332 785959 

Fax: +39 0332 785730 

http://ihcp.jrc.cec.eu.int/ 

European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) 

E-mail:esr.tm@jrc.it 

http://ecb.jrc.it/ 

Directorate-General Joint Research Centre 

http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int 

Legal Notice 

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for 

the use which might be made of the following information. A great deal of additional information on the 

European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa Server 

(http://europa.eu.int). 

EUR 22501 EN 

ISSN 1018-5593 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 

© European Communities, 2006 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Italy
European Union Risk Assessment Report 

2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) 

Part I - Environment 

CAS No: 111-76-2 

EINECS No: 203-905-0 

RISK ASSESSMENT 
LEGAL NOTICE 

Neither the European Commission nor any person 

acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might 

be made of the following information 

 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union 

is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa Server 

(http://europa.eu.int). 

 

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 

 

© European Communities, 2006 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Italy 
2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) 

Part I – Environment 

CAS No: 111-76-2 

EINECS No: 203-905-0 

RISK ASSESSMENT 

Final Report, 2006 

France 

The environmental part of the risk assessment of 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) has been prepared by 

Ministry of the Environment (MEDD) on behalf of the European Union. 

The scientific work on this report has been prepared by: 

Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques (INERIS) 

Direction des Risques Chroniques 

Unité Evaluation des Risques Ecotoxicologiques 

Parc Technologique ALATA 

BP n°2 

60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte 

France 
Date of Last Literature Search: 2004 

Review of report by MS Technical Experts finalised: 2005 

Final report: 2006 



0 OVERALL RESULTS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT 

CAS No: 111-76-2 

EINECS No: 203-905-0 

IUPAC Name: 2-butoxytehanol 

Synonyms: EGBE (this synonym will be used in the present study to refer to the 

chemical Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether). Other synonyms: 2-BE; 

butoxyethanol; 2-butoxy-1-ethanol; n-butoxyethanol; butyl ethoxol; 

3-oxa-1-heptanol; o-butyl ethylene glycol; butyl glycol; butyl 

monoether glycol; ethylene glycol butyl ether; EGBE; ethylene glycol 

n-butyl ether; ethylene glycol monobutyl ether; glycol butyl ether 

Commercial trade names: Dowanol EB; Butyl Cellosolve; Butyl 

Icinol; Butyl Oxitol; Eastman EB Solvent 

Environment 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the aquatic compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk 

reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the terrestrial compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk 

reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the atmospheric compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk 

reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for secondary poisoning

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk 

reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Human Health 

(to be added later). 

VII

CONTENTS 

1 GENERAL SUBSTANCE INFORMATION................................................................................................ 5

1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE........................................................................................ 5

1.2 PURITY/IMPURITIES, ADDITIVES.................................................................................................. 5

1.3 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES .............................................................................................. 6

1.3.1 Physical state ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.2 Melting point ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.3 Boiling point.................................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.4 Relative density ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.5 Vapour pressure ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.6 Surface tension .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.7 Water solubility ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.3.8 Partition coefficient n-octanol/water.............................................................................................. 8

1.3.9 Granulometry................................................................................................................................. 9

1.3.10 Flash point ..................................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.11 Autoflammability........................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.12 Flammability.................................................................................................................................. 9

1.3.13 Explosive properties ...................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.14 Oxidising properties....................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.15 Viscosity ........................................................................................................................................ 10

1.3.16 Henry’s constant............................................................................................................................ 10

1.4 CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 11

1.4.1 Current classification..................................................................................................................... 11

1.4.2 Proposed classification (environmental part only)......................................................................... 11

2 GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE........................................................................................... 12

2.1 PRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Production processes ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Detailed production capacity ......................................................................................................... 12

2.2 USES ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

2.2.1 Paints and coatings ........................................................................................................................ 16

2.2.2 Detergents, cleaners....................................................................................................................... 17

2.2.3 Chemicals used in synthesis: intermediate for EGBEA production .............................................. 18

2.2.4 Printing inks................................................................................................................................... 18

2.2.5 Other uses...................................................................................................................................... 18

3 ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE........................................................................................................ 21

3.1.1 Environmental fate......................................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1.1 Degradation in the environment ...................................................................................... 21

3.1.1.2 Distribution...................................................................................................................... 24

3.1.1.3 Accumulation................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.2 Environmental releases.................................................................................................................. 26

3.1.2.1 Release from production.................................................................................................. 26

3.1.2.2 Release from formulation, processing and private use .................................................... 29

3.1.2.2.1 Continental and regional releases ................................................................... 30

3.1.2.2.2 Local releases: EGBE used in leather finishing operations............................ 31

3.1.2.2.3 Local releases: EGBE used for metal cleaning operations (processing)......... 31

3.1.2.2.4 Local releases: EGBE used in oilfield chemicals (processing)....................... 32

3.1.2.2.5 Local releases: EGBE used in oil spill dispersants (marine compartment)..... 36

3.1.2.2.6 Local releases for other uses........................................................................... 37

1
3.1.3 Continental and regional predicted environmental concentrations................................................ 42

3.1.4 Local predicted environmental concentrations (PEClocal) .............................................................. 43

3.1.4.1 Aquatic compartment....................................................................................................... 43

3.1.4.1.1 PEClocal for production.................................................................................... 43

3.1.4.1.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use............... 43

3.1.4.1.3 Measured levels.............................................................................................. 45

3.1.4.1.4 Comparison between predicted and measured levels...................................... 46

3.1.4.2 Terrestrial compartment................................................................................................... 46

3.1.4.2.1 PEClocal for production.................................................................................... 46

3.1.4.2.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use............... 46

3.1.4.3 Atmosphere...................................................................................................................... 48

3.1.4.3.1 PEClocal for production.................................................................................... 48

3.1.4.3.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use............... 48

3.1.4.3.3 Measured levels.............................................................................................. 49

3.1.4.3.4 Comparison between predicted and measured levels...................................... 49

3.1.4.4 Secondary poisoning........................................................................................................ 50

3.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND DOSE (CONCENTRATION) - 

RESPONSE (EFFECT ASSESSMENT)............................................................................................... 51

3.2.1 Aquatic compartment (incl. sediment)........................................................................................... 51

3.2.1.1 Fish .................................................................................................................................. 51

3.2.1.2 Aquatic invertebrates....................................................................................................... 53

3.2.1.3 Algae................................................................................................................................ 58

3.2.1.4 Micro-organisms.............................................................................................................. 59

3.2.1.5 Endocrine disruption........................................................................................................ 60

3.2.1.6 PNEC for the aquatic compartment................................................................................. 61

3.2.1.6.1 Calculation of the intermittent PNEC for freshwater...................................... 62

3.2.1.6.2 Calculation of the PNEC for the seawater compartment ................................ 62

3.2.1.6.3 Calculation of the intermittent PNEC for seawater......................................... 62

3.2.1.7 Calculation of a PNEC for the sediment compartment.................................................... 62

3.2.1.7.1 Calculation of the PNEC for the marine sediment compartment.................... 63

3.2.1.8 PNEC for micro-organisms in STP ................................................................................. 63

3.2.2 Terrestrial compartment................................................................................................................. 63

3.2.3 Atmosphere.................................................................................................................................... 64

3.2.4 Secondary poisoning...................................................................................................................... 64

3.3 RISK CHARACTERISATION ............................................................................................................. 65

3.3.1 Aquatic compartment (incl. sediment)........................................................................................... 65

3.3.2 Terrestrial compartment................................................................................................................. 67

3.3.3 Atmosphere.................................................................................................................................... 68

3.3.4 Secondary poisoning...................................................................................................................... 69

4 HUMAN HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................... 70

5 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................... 71

5.1 ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................................................... 71

5.2 HUMAN HEALTH................................................................................................................................. 71

6 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................ 72

Euses Calculations can be viewed as part of the report at the website of the European Chemicals Bureau: 

http://ecb.jrc.it

2 
TABLES 

Table 1.1 Physico-chemical properties................................................................................................................ 6

Table 1.2 Peroxide levels in EGBE during storage under adverse (daylight) and recommended (dark) 

conditions. No antioxidants used. Results in mmol active oxygen/litre.............................................. 9

Table 1.3 Henry’s law constant values (at 25°C) in EPI suite (US EPA, 2001).................................................. 10

Table 1.4 Henry’s law constant values as measured in Kim et al., 2000............................................................. 11

Table 2.1 Overview of EGBE production and sales in Europe for years 2001 to 2003 (data provided by 

CEFIC)................................................................................................................................................. 12

Table 2.2 EGBE production sites in EU (larger than 1,000 tonnes/year)............................................................ 13

Table 2.3 Breakdown of EGBE uses in Europe .................................................................................................. 14

Table 2.4 EGBE end use information (OECD, 1996) ......................................................................................... 16

Table 2.5 Detailed view of paint uses.................................................................................................................. 17

Table 2.6 EGBE concentrations in cleaning products......................................................................................... 17

Table 3.1 Biodegradation test results for EGBE ................................................................................................. 22

Table 3.2 Estimated biodegradation rate constants for EGBE in WWTP, surface water, soil and sediment ...... 24

Table 3.3 Estimated solids / water partition coefficients..................................................................................... 25

Table 3.4 Calculated distribution of EGBE in the different compartments of the environment......................... 25

Table 3.5 Estimated distribution in a STP (SIMPLETREAT) ............................................................................ 25

Table 3.6 Aquatic emission data from production sites of EGBE in EUU............................................................. 28

Table 3.7 Atmospheric emissions of EGBE from European producers .............................................................. 29

Table 3.8 Emissions of EGBE to soil from European producers ........................................................................ 29

Table 3.9 Environmental exposure scenarios for formulation, processing and private uses of EGBE................ 29

Table 3.10 Total continental and regional EGBE emissions................................................................................. 30

Table 3.11 Default values to be used for hazard assessment of completion and workover chemicals 

(specified as ‘cleaning chemicals’, other chemicals’, ‘squeeze treatments’ and ‘hydrotest 

chemicals’) (Thatcher et al., 2004). ..................................................................................................... 33

Table 3.12 PECintermittent for the use of oilfield chemicals containing EGBE on offshore platforms (marine 

compartment)....................................................................................................................................... 34

Table 3.13 Examples of EGBE containing products registered in UK.................................................................. 35

Table 3.14 Dispersants used today, application methods and dosages (Bonn Agreement, 2001)......................... 36

Table 3.15 Local releases of EGBE from formulation of paints ........................................................................... 38

Table 3.16 Local releases of EGBE from formulation of paints (continue).......................................................... 38

Table 3.17 Local releases of EGBE from processing of paints............................................................................. 39

Table 3.18 Local releases of EGBE from processing and private use of paints.................................................... 39

Table 3.19 Local releases of EGBE from formulation, processing and private use of detergents......................... 40

Table 3.20 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses............................................ 40

Table 3.21 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continued)......................... 41

Table 3.22 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continued)......................... 41

Table 3.23 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continue)........................... 42

Table 3.24 Regional PECs in air, water and soil (calculations made by EUSES – SIMPLEBOX model) ........... 43

Table 3.25 Local PEC in water at production........................................................................................................ 43

Table 3.26 Local PECSTP and PECaqua for EGBE .................................................................................................. 44

Table 3.27 PEClocalsoil at production and in situ processing (according to EUSES)............................................ 46

Table 3.28 Local PECsoil for EGBE....................................................................................................................... 47

Table 3.29 Local PECair for EGBE........................................................................................................................ 48

Table 3.30 Short term fish toxicity data for EGBE ............................................................................................... 51

Table 3.31 Long term fish toxicity data for EGBE ............................................................................................... 53

Table 3.32 Short term invertebrate toxicity data for EGBE .................................................................................. 54

Table 3.33 Long term invertebrate toxicity data for EGBE .................................................................................. 56

Table 3.34 Pros and cons for the validation of the test performed with Brachionus calyciflorus......................... 56

Table 3.35 Algae toxicity data for EGBE.............................................................................................................. 58

Table 3.36 Micro-organisms toxicity data for EGBE............................................................................................ 60

Table 3.37 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of PNECaqua......................................................................... 61

Table 3.38 QSAR ecotoxicity data for EGBE....................................................................................................... 61

Table 3.39 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of the intermittent PNECaqua ............................................... 62

Table 3.40 Risk characterisation for micro-organisms in STP and aquatic organisms ......................................... 65

Table 3.41 Risk characterisation for terrestrial compartment................................................................................ 67 

3

1 GENERAL SUBSTANCE INFORMATION 

1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE 

CAS Number: 111-76-2 

EINECS Number: 203-905-0 

IUPAC Name: 2-butoxyethanol 

Molecular formula: C6H14O2

Structural formula: CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-O-CH2-CH2-OH 

3CH O

OH

Molecular weight: 118.17 g.mol-1

Synonyms: EGBE (this synonym will be used in the present study to refer to the 

chemical Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether). Other synonyms: 2-BE; 

butoxyethanol; 2-butoxy-1-ethanol; n-butoxyethanol; butyl ethoxol; 

3-oxa-1-heptanol; o-butyl ethylene glycol; butyl glycol; butyl 

monoether glycol; ethylene glycol butyl ether; EGBE; ethylene glycol 

n-butyl ether; ethylene glycol monobutyl ether; glycol butyl ether 

Commercial trade names: Dowanol EB; Butyl Cellosolve; Butyl 

Icinol; Butyl Oxitol; Eastman EB Solvent 

Annex I entry: 603-014-00-0 

1.2 PURITY/IMPURITIES, ADDITIVES 

Purity: the purities quoted in IUCLID were all ≥ 99% w/w 

Impurity: as the synthesis reaction produces other glycol ethers, small concentrations of 

them can be found. 

 2-butoxyethoxyethanol (CAS 112-34-5) ≤ 0.3% w/w 

 1,2-ethanediol (CAS 107-21-1) ≤ 0.3-0.5% w/w 

 1-butanol (CAS 71-36-3) ≤ 0.1-0.2% w/w 

 water < 0.1-0.2% w/w 

Additives: 0.008-0.012% w/w 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol 

(CAS 128-37-0) added to prevent the formation of peroxides. 

5
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

1.3 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 

Note: When the reliability of values do not enable a clear choice between one and another, a 

median value is chosen or calculated taking into consideration all figures supplied by the 

industry and only once the values found in handbooks or reports and which differ. 

The physico-chemical properties are discussed below and summarised in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1 Physico-chemical properties 

Property Value 

Physical state Liquid 

Melting point -74.8°C 

Boiling point 171°C 

Relative density 0.9 at 20°C 

Vapour pressure 1.41 hPa, calculated at 25°C (initial value: 1 hPa 

at 20°C) 

Surface tension 26.6 mN/m at 20°C 

Water solubility Highly miscible 

Partition coefficient 

n-octanol/water (log value) 

0.8 

Granulometry Not applicable 

Flash point 67°C 

Autoflammability 244.5°C 

Flammability Upper limit: 12.7% (volume) 

Lower limit: 1.1% (volume) 

Explosive properties Not explosive 

Oxidising properties No oxidising properties 

Viscosity 3.28 mPa.s at 20°C 

Henry’s constant 0.08 Pa.m3/mol at 25°C 

Conversion factors (101 kPa, 20°C) 1 ppm = 4.9 mg/m3

1 mg/m3 = 0.204 ppm 

1.3.1 Physical state 

EGBE is a neutral, colourless liquid with a very weak pleasant odour (Ullmann, 2000). An 

absolute perceptible limit in air of 0.1 ppm (50% recognition = 0.35 ppm and 100% recognition 

= 0.48 ppm) was referred to EGBE (Verschueren, 2001). 

1.3.2 Melting point 

Several values are reported in literature. The value of -77°C appears in several reports and 

studies (ECETOC, 1994; OECD, 1996; Dow Chemical Co, 2001) and handbooks show values 

6 
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL SUBSTANCE INFORMATION

ranging between -75 and -70°C (-74.8°C Lewis, 1999; < -70°C Ullmann, 2000; -70°C Howard, 

1989; -75°C Eastman, 2001; -70.4°C BASF, 2002; -70°C Verschueren, 2001). 

The median of all different values found is retained for this study: -74.8°C. 

1.3.3 Boiling point 

Most of the values found in literature are in the following range: 168-172°C (BASF, 2002; 

Ullmann, 2000). A boiling point of 170.8°C for EGBE can be found (ECETOC, 1994) which is 

close to those appearing in handbooks (170°C in Kirk-Ohtmer, 1983 and Verschueren, 2001). 

Two other handbooks show values between 171 and 172°C (Lewis, 1999 ; Howard, 1989). 

Boiling point of 171°C was found in technical data sheets or product information reports (BP, 

2002; Dow Chemical Co, 2001). 

The median of all the different values above is 171°C. This value will be used for the risk 

evaluation. 

1.3.4 Relative density 

Several relative density values are available too. Most of them are about 0.9 (Verschueren, 2001 

- value measured at 20°C; Merck, 1996). Technical data sheets or product information reports 

give values of 0.9011 and 0.902, at 20°C (BP, 2002; Dow Chemical Co, 2001). 

A rounded value of 0.9 will be chosen for this study. 

1.3.5 Vapour pressure 

Vapour pressures ranging from 0.79 to 1.3 hPa, at 20°C have been reported. Data come from 

technical data sheets: 0.8 hPa (Shell Chemicals, 2001), 0.89 hPa (Dow Chemical Co, 2001), 

1.3 hPa (BP, 2002). The same range appears in Sax, 1986 and other chemical handbooks give 

almost the same values: 0.89 hPa (Verschueren, 2001), 1 hPa (Ullmann, 2000). 

The rounded value of the median gives a vapour pressure of 1 hPa, at 20°C. It will be used in the 

risk assessment (based on this value, a vapour pressure of 1.41 hPa has been recalculated at 

25°C, by EUSES, EC, 2004). 

1.3.6 Surface tension 

Several values of surface tension appear in technical data sheets for commercial EGBE: Dow 

Chemical Co, 2001 reports a value of 27.4 mN/m at 25°C, Eastman, 2001 gives a value of 

26.6 mN/m at 20°C and Shell Chemicals, 2001 another of 28.9 mN/m. A value of 27.4 mN/m at 

25°C is also reported in a handbook (Kirk-Ohtmer, 1983). 

The value reported in Eastman, 2001 will be retained for the study: 26.6 mN/m, at 20°C, the 

temperature recommended in the OECD guideline No 115. 

Surface active properties can be assumed for glycol ethers, and especially for ethylene glycol 

butyl ether, because of its quite long carbon chain. The values reported in the literature for 

EGBE tend to indicate that this substance is a surface-active reagent even if no indication has 

been found about the concentration of the substance during the tests listed above. Indeed, OECD 

7
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

guideline n°115 suggests that surface tension measurements should be performed using a 

concentration of 1 g/L for soluble substances. 

The fact that EGBE shows surface-active properties could thus lead to the disturbance of 

analytical method employed to measure some physico-chemical characteristics. 

However, there is a difference between the surface activity of traditional surfactants and 

substances that can reduce the surface activity of solutions like EGBE. What is observed with the 

glycol ethers during the surface tension measurements is the typical non-ideal behaviour of a 

mixture of a water miscible solvent such as methanol and ethanol. The reason for the observed 

relationship between surface tension and concentration is the disruption of the hydrogen bonding 

of the water causing non-linear behaviour of the surface tension against the concentration. In this 

case the substance is not migrating to the surface; it is not acting in the traditional surface-active 

manner. Therefore it would not affect the measurements of the physical chemical properties. One 

should also notice that glycol ethers do not form micelles. They are fully miscible with water and 

form clear solutions. 

Furthermore, considering the other properties of this substance (EGBE is highly miscible in 

water, hydrosphere is the preferential target of EGBE in the environment: > 90%, see 

Section 3.1.1.2), surface active properties of EGBE will not be considered in this assessment. 

1.3.7 Water solubility 

EGBE is often reported as miscible with water in several data sheets and product information 

reports (Hoechst, 1992; Hoechst, 1993; BP, 2002). A solubility of about 50,000 mg/L is reported 

by Eckel et al., 1996, 63,500 mg/L by ASTER, 1996. A value of 1.106 mg/L has been measured 

(Riddick et al., 1985 cited in HSDB, 2000). 

EGBE can be considered as highly miscible in water and the upper value of the range advised by 

EUSES (EC, 2004), 1.105 mg/L, is retained for modelling purposes. 

1.3.8 Partition coefficient n-octanol/water 

Several QSAR calculations of partition coefficient n-octanol/water for EGBE have been 

performed. They are presented hereafter using an ascending order of logarithmic values: 

0.57 (calculated with KOWWIN v.1.66. - US EPA and Syracuse Research Corporation, 2001); 

0.81 (Verschueren, 2001), 0.84 (ASTER, 1996). 

Partition coefficient measurements have been performed (Tanii and Hashimoto, 1982): 0.77 is 

the mean value of three determinations. Measurements have been carried out with gas 

chromatography. 

Other measured log Kow can be found in literature: 0.74 (Verschueren, 2001), 0.81 (Staples et al., 

1998), 0.83 (Korenman and Dobromyslova, 1975; Hansch and Leo, 1985, cited in Prager, 1995; 

Staples et al., 1998). 

The rounded value of the median obtained with all measured data gives a log Kow of 0.8 that is 

retained for this study. 

8 
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL SUBSTANCE INFORMATION

1.3.9 Granulometry 

Not applicable: the substance is a liquid. 

1.3.10 Flash point 

Values reported in literature range from 60 (INRS, 1996 and Merck, 1996) to 68°C (BP, 2002). 

Both values are measured with closed cup method. Two other values were obtained using this 

method: 67°C (Shell Chemicals, 2001; BASF, 2002) and 61°C (Sax, 1986), while methods 

leading to values of 65°Dow Chemical Co, 2001) and 67°C (Ullmann, 2000) are not mentioned. 

The median of the values measured using a closed cup is retained: 67°C. 

1.3.11 Autoflammability 

Two temperatures of autoflammability have been found in technical data sheets: 244°Dow 

Chemical Co, 2001) and 245°C (BP, 2002). The median value of 244.5°C is retained. 

1.3.12 Flammability 

Limits of flammability are reported by BP, 2002 for EGBE. The upper limit is 12.7% (volume) 

and the lower one is 1.1% (volume). 

1.3.13 Explosive properties 

Not explosive. 

1.3.14 Oxidising properties 

There are some references which suggest that glycol ethers can be prone to the formation of 

peroxides on storage. However data from one of the producers, shown below, indicates that 

peroxide production levels for EGBE remain low, even during prolonged storage under adverse 

conditions, as shown in Table 1.2. 

Table 1.2 Peroxide levels in EGBE during storage under adverse 

(daylight) and recommended (dark) conditions. No 

antioxidants used. Results in mmol active oxygen/litre 

In daylight In the dark 

Time 0 0.018 0.018 

3 months 0.040 - 

6 months 0.052 0.019 

18 months 0.95 - 

The National Fire Protection Association’s code for the reactivity of EGBE is 0 indicating 

minimal hazard. In consequence, there is no requirement for classification R19. 

9
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

1.3.15 Viscosity 

The range of viscosity values found in technical data sheets for EGBE goes from 2.9 mPa.s (at 

25°C, Dow Chemical Co, 2001) to 3.3 mPa.s (Shell Chemicals, 2001). A value of 3.28 mPa.s is 

also reported by BP, 2002, at 20°C. BP Chemicals, 1998 also reports a range of viscosity values 

for several concentrations of EGBE in water (between 20 and 100% volume): 2-6 mPa.s at 20°C. 

Several values have been found in handbooks: 3.26 mPa.s, at 20°C (Ullmann, 2000), 2.83 mPa.s 

at 25°C (Prager, 1995) and a catalogue of commercial substances gives a viscosity of 5.83 mPa.s, 

at 20°C (Merck, 1996). 

The most common values are rounded and a viscosity of 3.3 mPa.s (at 20°C) is retained for this 

study. 

1.3.16 Henry’s constant 

Different QSAR estimation methods (calculated with HENRYWIN v.3.10. - US EPA and 

Syracuse Research Corporation, 2001) give values of Henry’s law constant presented in Table

1.3. 

Table 1.3 Henry’s law constant values (at 25°C) in EPI suite (US EPA, 2001) 

Method Value (Pa.m3/mole) 

Bond method 0.009 9 

Group method 0.002 1 

Experimental value quoted in EPI suite database 0.162 1 

Calculated with VP.M / WSol ratio using EPI suite estimated values (QSAR) 0.116 1 

Henry’s law constant values have also been calculated using another program (MPBPVP), at 

25°C. Depending on the method used, values of 0.01 and 0.002 Pa.m3/mol are reported (SRC, 

1988, cited in Envirofate). 

Another study shows a calculated Henry’s law constant of 0.551 Pa.m3

/mol at 25°C ASTER, 

1996). 

Henry’s law constant can also be estimated from the ratio of the vapour pressure to the water 

solubility using selected values from this study: 141 Pa for vapour pressure and 1.106

 mg/L for 

water solubility. Calculation gives a Henry’s law constant of 0.017 Pa.m3

/mol. 

Experimental measurements of Henry’s law constant have also been Kim et al., 2000). Two 

different methods were used to determine Henry’s law constant for the equilibrium partitioning 

of EGBE contained in an aqueous solution and the air. Results of measurements are presented in 

Table 1.4. 

10 
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL SUBSTANCE INFORMATION

Table 1.4 Henry’s law constant values as measured in Kim et al., 2000

Bag method for equilibrium partitioning Batch stripping method 

T = 20°C ; H = 0.041 Pa.m3/mol T = 22°C ; H = 0.063 Pa.m3/mol 

T = 25°C ; H = 0.081 Pa.m3/mol T = 23°C ; H = 0.068 Pa.m3/mol 

T = 25°C ; H = 0.082 Pa.m3 T = 30°C ; H = 0.101 Pa.m /mol 3/mol 

T = 30°C ; H = 0.135 Pa.m3/mol 

In the previous study, there is a good correlation between both method used, bag method for 

equilibrium partitioning and batch stripping method, and particularly at 25°C. Moreover, direct 

measurement of the Henry’s law constant is recommended for water miscible compounds (TGD 

- EC, 2003). So a Henry’s law constant of 0.08 Pa.m3

/mol will be used. 

1.4 CLASSIFICATION 

1.4.1 Current classification

There is no classification for the environment. 

1.4.2 Proposed classification (environmental part only) 

According to the data presented and the criteria of Directive 67/548/EEC EGBE is not classified 

as dangerous for the environment. 

11
2 GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE 

2.1 PRODUCTION 

The chemical 2-butoxyethanol (here referred to as EGBE) belongs to the group of glycol ethers, 

which are mainly used as solvents. During 2003, the production of EGBE in the European Union 

was approximately 161,000 tonnes (personal communication from CEFIC). According to 

information provided by industry and compiled by SICOS, 1999, the total EU production of all 

glycol ethers was 350,000 tonnes in 1998. 

2.1.1 Production processes 

EGBE is manufactured by adding n-butyl alcohol and ethylene oxide. The standard ethoxylation 

reaction for glycol ethers is as follows: 

Equation 2.1 EGBE synthesis reaction 

O + H3C OH → H3C O

OH

ethylene oxide butanol EGBE

Ethylene oxide and butanol react together with a typical industrial catalyst. This catalysed 

reaction produces a range of butyl glycol ethers (monoglycol, diglycol and triglycol ethers) 

which are separated by fractionation using, for example, vacuum distillation (personal 

communication from OSPA). 

2.1.2 Detailed production capacity 

The production and sales data for years 2001 to 2003 are given in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1 Overview of EGBE production and sales in Europe for years 2001 to 2003 (data provided by CEFIC) 

(In kilo tonnes) 2001 2002 2003 Figures retained 

Production 135 158.5 161 155.1** 

Imports 9 6 6.5 6*** 

Exports 49 59 68 64*** 

Net into stock * 7.5 3 - 

Captive use (EGBEA 

production) 9 8 10 9 

Table 2.1 continued overleaf 

12 
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE

Table 2.1 continued Overview of EGBE production and sales in Europe for years 2001 to 2003 (data provided by CEFIC) 

(In kilo tonnes) 2001 2002 2003 Figures retained 

Sales in EU 86 90 86.5 88.1 

Total use in EU 95 97.5 96.5 97.1¤

* Included in exports figure 

** The production volume has been obtained using the following calculation: (Exports + Captive use + Sales) – (imports) 

*** Mean of 2002 and 2003 figures. This figure has been retained in order to take into account the evolution of import and 

 export volumes the last two years 

¤ See Table 2.3 for a breakdown of total use in EU 

The figures presented above show that there is a trend for an increase in production year by year: 

135, 158.5 and 161 kt for years 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. However this is almost 

entirely due to increased demand for exports: 49, 59 and 68 kt each year between 2001 and 2003. 

The overall demand within the EU remains flat. 

A production volume of 155,000 tonnes/year will be retained for the risk assessment. 

The production in the European Union is located at five different sites (see Table 2.2). 

Table 2.2 EGBE production sites in EU (larger than 1,000 tonnes/year) 

Company Location 

BASF AG Ludwigshaven, Germany 

BP* Lavera, S. France 

Dow Chemical Company** UCL, Wilton International, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom 

Sasol Gmbh*** Marl, Germany 

Shell Nederland BV Hoogvliet Rt, the Netherlands 

* EGBE business of Hoescht renamed as Clariant in 1998 and then sold to BP (2001) 

** EGBE business of ICI sold to Union Carbide in 1995 and then to Dow in 2001 / EGBE business 

of Enichem sold to Dow in 2001 

*** Huels sold to Condea in 1998 and then EGBE business sold to Sasol in 2001 

From the Table 2.2, it appears that some production sites are located in the same area. 

Consequently the locations of both German sites and the Dutch one have been checked so as to 

establish whether they could pertain to the same region (TGD definition EC, 2003). Distances 

between Marl and Ludwigshaven on one hand and Marl and Hoogvliet on the other hand are 259 

and 188 km, respectively. So, in the regional assessment, none of these sites will be considered 

in a same region. 

Ten EGBE importers are also reported. Most of them are paint or detergent manufacturers and 

some are distributors. They import less than 1,000 tonnes/year except one which has reported a 

higher tonnage (but detailed figures are not available). 

2.2 USES 

EGBE has a wide range of uses as a solvent in paints and surface coatings, detergents and 

surface cleaners, inks or dyes. A breakdown of the uses of EGBE in Western Europe has been 

established based on the data collected for years 2001 to 2003 by CEFIC (see Table 2.3). 

13
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Values presented in this table are based both on volumes shown in Table 2.1 and on the EGBE 

volumes declared by uses reported in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The analysis of this set of data has 

led to a choice which is meant to represent a reasonable worst case. The final data choice is 

based mainly on averages but some expert judgement has also been applied to adjust for market 

knowledge and the fact that supply via distributors adds some uncertainty to the numbers. This 

uncertainty explains the significant fluctuation in the annual tonnage figures for the smaller uses. 

Typically, 25-40% of volume goes via distributors. To reflect these uncertainties, the figures are 

quoted as rounded numbers. 2002 and 2003 data should be given more weight as some errors 

have possibly been made during assessment of the 2001 data in allocating users to the 

appropriate end use categories. 

Table 2.3 Breakdown of EGBE uses in Europe 

Retained proposal

End use Stage of the 

life cycle 

Industry 

category 

Use 

category 2001¤ 2002 2003 Quantity 

used 

(Tonnes) 

Percentage 

of total use 

Paints and 

coatings 

(including 

estimation for 

indirect sales via 

distributors) 

Formulation 

Processing 

Private use* 

14: paints, 

lacquers and 

varnishes 

industry 

48: 

solvents 51,275 63,000 56,700 57,000 58.70 

Detergents, 

cleaners 

Formulation 

Private / 

public use 

5: personal/ 

domestic 

6: public 

domain 

9: cleaning, 

washing 

agents 

1,4921 7,000 10,000 11,000 11.33 

Chemicals used 

in synthesis Processing 

3: chemicals 

used in 

synthesis 

33: organic 

intermediat

es 

6,916 13,600 11,000 10,000 10.30 

Captive use 

(EGBEA 

production) 

Processing 

3: chemicals 

used in 

synthesis 

33: organic 

intermediat

es 

9,000 8,000 10,000 9,000 9.27 

Printing inks 

Formulation 

Processing 

12: pulp, 

paper and 

board industry 

48: 

solvents 5,340 1,100 2,500 2,500 2.57 

Oilfield 

chemicals 

Formulation 

Processing 

6: public 

domain 

48: 

solvents 0 3,000 2,000 2,500 2.57 

Metal cleaning 

Formulation 

Processing 

8 : metal 

extraction, 

refining and 

processing 

industry 

9: cleaning, 

washing 

agents 

0 50 2,000 2,000 2.06 

Electronic 

industry Processing 

4: electrical / 

electronic 

industry 

48: 

solvents 1,590 0 30 600 0.62 

Table 2.3 continued overleaf 

14 
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE

Table 2.3 continued Breakdown of EGBE uses in Europe 

Retained proposal

End use Stage of the 

life cycle 

Industry 

category 

Use 

category 2001¤ 2002 2003 Quantity 

used 

(Tonnes) 

Percentage 

of total use 

Leather 

treatment 

operations 

Processing 

7: leather 

processing 

industry 

48: 

solvents 1,349 0 160 500 0.51 

Pharmaceuticals Processing 

3: chemicals 

used in 

synthesis 

48: 

solvents 

(extraction 

agents, 

reaction 

media) 

2,073 400 400 500 0.51 

Adhesives 

Formulation 

Processing 

6: public 

domain 

48: 

solvents 223 500 500 500 0.51 

Cosmetics / 

Personal care 

Formulation 

Private use 

5: personal / 

domestic 

6: public 

domain 

15: 

cosmetics 102 0 700 500 0.51 

Fire foams 

Formulation 

Processing 

6: public 

domain 

25: 

foaming 

agents 

65 200 330 300 0.31 

Agricultural 

products 

Formulation 

Processing 

1: agricultural 

industry 48: solvent 207 0 140 200 0.21 

Paper industry 0 0 20 0 0.00 

Textile manufacture 0 50 20 0 0.00 

Miscellaneous (unknown) 917 0 0 0 0.00 

Rubber, oil industry 674 0 0 0 0.00 

Oil spill dispersants 191 0 0 0 0.00 

Construction chemicals 153 0 0 0 0.00 

Total 94,996 96,900 96,500 97,100 ~ 100 

* For personal decorative paints only 

¤ Original 2001 data provided by CEFIC have been modified so as to integrate sales via distributors and volume of EGBE used for 

EGBEA production on site (captive use) 

Four major uses can be identified from sale figures. The use of EGBE in paint and lacquer 

industry represents ~ 58% of the total volume used in EU. The two other main uses, intermediate 

for EGBEA synthesis (including captive use) and cleaning agent, represent respectively ~ 20% 

and ~ 11% of the total quantity of EGBE used. 

Information for other minor uses for EGBE is also available (light dimmed cells in Table 2.3). 

The sum of the other uses represents about 10% of the total use of EGBE. Due to the low 

toxicity of the substance, these uses might be evaluated in a second time, if they show any 

concern. Moreover, some uses have been reported in the past that seem to no longer exist or 

errors could have occurred when allocating volumes to end-uses (dimmed lines in Table 2.3). 

For some of these uses, the percentage of total use has been set at 0 since no information has 

confirmed that EGBE was still used in this sector. For some other uses (e. g. oil spill dispersant), 

15
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

figures reported does not seem to indicate a real annual use of the substance since stockpiles 

could be made during several years without using the product (see Section 3.1.2.2.5). 

Another information source (OECD, 1996), presented in Table 2.4, shows supplies of EGBE to 

EU market. It gives a more detailed view on the major uses for EGBE. 

Table 2.4 EGBE end use information (OECD, 1996) 

End use kt/year (% of total use) 

Anticorrosion coatings 2.6 (2.9%) 

Can coatings 9 (10.0%) 

Coil coatings 6.5 (7.2%) 

Decorative trade coatings* 15.5 (17.2%) 

General industrial coatings* 16.8 (18.7%) 

Automotive OEM coatings 1.3 (1.4%) 

Automotive OEM coatings* 6.5 (7.2%) 

Wood coatings* 1.3 (1.4%) 

Detergents / cleaners 3 (3.3%) 

Inks (screen) 5 (5.6%) 

Feedstock for EGBEA production 11 (12.2%) 

Industrial use 

Subtotal 78.5 (87.3%) 

Decorative retail coatings* 10.4 (11.6%) 

Detergents / cleaners 1 (1.1%) 

Consumers uses 

Subtotal 11.4 (12.7%) 

Total 89.9 (100%) 

* Water based 

In this study, the detailed percentages for paint and detergent uses presented in Table 2.4 will be 

applied to the volumes retained in Table 2.3. These figures will be presented with further 

explanations given in the following paragraphs concerning each reported use. 

2.2.1 Paints and coatings 

Glycol ethers and their acetates are effective in many surface coating technologies including, for 

example, high and low solid coatings, waterborne emulsions, water-reducible coatings. As ‘true 

solvents’ glycol ethers are able to dissolve many resins in all proportions, and are particularly 

useful in promoting flow properties. They also encourage good gloss and film properties by 

maintaining the resin(s) in solution throughout the film formation process (Shell Chemicals). 

Detailed percentages for different paint types were calculated from the figures in Table 2.3 and 

end use information for EGBE (OECD, 1996). They are presented in Table 2.5. 

16 
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE

Table 2.5 Detailed view of paint uses 

End use % of total use Typical maximum % of EGBE 

in formulated products 

General industrial coatings* 14.11 3 

Decorative trade coatings* 13.02 1.5 (3**) 

Decorative retail coatings (consumers uses)* 8.73 1.5 (3**) 

Can coatings 7.56 7 

Coil coatings 5.46 7 

Automotive OEM coatings* 5.46 8 

Anticorrosion coatings 2.18 1 

Automotive OEM coatings 1.09 2 

Wood coatings* 1.09 2 

Total 58.70 

* Water based 

** Personal communication, OSPA (value used for the assessment) 

2.2.2 Detergents, cleaners 

Glycol ethers can be used in all types of cleaners. They reduce surface tension and are excellent 

coupling agents. Working in conjunction with a surfactant, they facilitate wetting of the surface, 

penetration of the soil, and help to suspend the soil in water until it is wiped or rinsed away. 

The analysis of uses of 434 cleaning products identified during risk assessment of EGBE in 

cleaning products (NICNAS, 1996) revealed the range of EGBE concentrations below. 

Table 2.6 EGBE concentrations in cleaning products 

EGBE conc. % of total products Examples of cleaning products 

< 10% 68 

10-30% 14 

30-60% 1 

10-60% 2 

> 60% 1 

unknown 14 

Surface cleaner (multi-purpose cleaners) 

Floor stripper 

Glass / window cleaner ; Oven cleaner 

Carpet cleaner 

Laundry detergent 

Rust remover 

In this study, most of the cleaning products have an EGBE concentration < 10%. However, 

extreme values go from < 1% to 94%. The fraction of chemical in formulated detergent for both 

industrial and consumer uses (0.1) quoted in the OECD, 1996 will be retained for this study. In 

this reference EGBE end use volumes show that 3⁄4 (~ 8.50% of total use) of EGBE used as a 

detergent takes place in the industrial domain and that only 1⁄4 (~ 2.83% of total use) remains for 

consumers uses. 

17
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

2.2.3 Chemicals used in synthesis: intermediate for EGBEA production 

EGBE is used in the synthesis of acetate esters as well as phthalate and stearate plasticisers. 

Although the major use of EGBE as an intermediate is in 2-butoxyethanol acetate synthesis, it is 

also employed for the synthesis of di(-2butoxyethyl) phthalate (ATSDR, 1998). 

2.2.4 Printing inks 

Combination of glycol ethers and other solvents can be used to achieve the right evaporation 

rates, levelling properties, water miscibility and solubility for ink formulations. They can also be 

used to adjust surface tension and viscosity, promoting deep and even penetration of inks in soft 

substrates (Shell Chemicals). The typical maximum percentage of EGBE in formulated printing 

inks is 20% (OECD, 1996). Specific information shows a decline in this particular use due to the 

switch to radiation cured screen printing inks. 

Rastogi, 1991 analysed a series of printer’s inks in order to characterise their levels of organic 

solvents. EGBE was found in 2/29 samples and identified, for example, in printer’s inks for 

screen printing on paper and paper boards. The EGBE concentrations range in such formulated 

products was 0.1-0.4%. 

The value quoted in OECD, 1996, 20%, will be retained as the typical percentage of EGBE in 

printing inks. 

2.2.5 Other uses 

Oilfield chemicals (2.57%): oilfield chemicals include brines and brine components used as 

completion, workover4 and drill-in base fluids. Other end-use and intermediate applications 

include antifoams, drilling lubricants, emulsifiers, corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, oilfield 

biocides and scale inhibitors. They can be used in offshore platforms. Based on a search of 

patents on such products (personal communication, OSPA), typical concentrations are in the 

range 5-40%. However, one product used for the cleaning of oilfield equipment has been 

reported with concentrations of EGBE between 60 and 100%. This latter product is a 

concentrated one intended for dilution before use. 

Metal cleaning (2.06%): metal cleaning/degreasing is used in industries where the production 

process includes fabricating and/or assembling metal parts: mainly the automotive, aviation, 

appliance and railroad industries. During the various steps of the production process, metal parts 

must be cleaned of oils, fluxes and grease. 

Electronic industry (0.62%): among the uses of glycol ethers in electronic industry, those in 

copper clad laminating, laminates or photoresistors are reported (Shell Chemicals). 

Pharmaceuticals (0.51%): glycol ethers are reported to be process chemicals in the synthesis of 

pharmaceuticals. Usually they provide the medium where reaction takes place but they are also 

used in separation steps in order to obtain the desired drug or to maximise its purity. 

Leather treatment operations (0.51%): use as a solvent in leather protection system confirmed by 

appropriate EU trade association (OSPA enquiries). Nevertheless, EGBE is being substituted by 

other solvents (personal communication from the European Leather Industry). 

 

4 Major maintenance or remedial treatments. 

18 
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON EXPOSURE

Glycol ethers are used in aqueous degreasing systems for sheep and goatskin leather at 

concentrations of 1-5% (worst case). Only EGBE is reportedly used in this part of the process. 

Usage rates can therefore be calculated as up to 3 g/kg of dry finished leather (worst case based 

on 5% EGBE in formulation). Based on the total production information in the TGD of 314 Mm2

leather per year, 25% of which is sheep/goatskin, and assuming a leather weight of 2 kg/m2

would suggest total GE use in this application of around 500 tonnes/year. 

Glycol ethers are also used in leather finishing. EGBE is quoted as being used in this application, 

which is effectively a “coating” operation where a preparation is applied by air atomised 

spraying in a spray booth. Actual usage rates are quoted as up to 0.4 g/kg of dry finished leather, 

which, following the above assumptions, would lead to total GE consumption of up to 

250 tonnes/year. There will in addition be wastage from over spray and emissions to water from 

the over spray control systems. However, since this is a coating operation, it is already covered 

by the existing painting scenarios. Consequently, there will not be a separate risk characterisation 

for this use. 

Adhesives (0.51%): in the industry of adhesives and sealants, glycol ethers are employed as 

solvents and enter formulated products. They are employed both in domestic and industrial 

adhesives. EGBE is most likely used in water-based adhesives. A percentage of 10% of EGBE in 

formulation will be adopted for the assessment. This figure is similar to the highest figures used 

for water-based coatings (personal communication, OSPA). 

Cosmetics/Personal care (0.51%): the solvent and coupling properties of glycol ethers are 

utilised in cosmetic formulations. They can be used to stabilise emulsions used in lotions, 

preventing the active ingredient particles from dropping out of suspension. This helps to 

maintain the aesthetic appearance of the product and can increase shelf-life. That usage is now 

believed to be superseded by DEGBE (OSPA enquiries). Actually, EGBE is used in few 

cosmetic formulations and is only permitted in hair dyes up to a concentration of 10%. 

Fire foams (0.31%): EGBE can be used in synthetic foam formulations. No firm information was 

available but an estimation of the market size would be 1-3 kt/year. Some of this would be 

exported however (OSPA enquiries). Most synthetic foams use glycol ether solvents as a foam 

booster and freezing point depressant. Butyl glycol ether use is now more and more superseded 

by other glycol ether. The solvent composition of fire foams is typically 16% as the concentrate 

but 0.5% in use (personal communication, OSPA). 

Agricultural products (0.21%): the use of EGBE as a solvent or a co-solvent in pesticide 

formulations represents a minor application for this chemical. EGBE is used as a coupling 

solvent to help disperse the active component in water when the concentrate is diluted for use. It 

may be used at a significant level in the concentrate but these are usually diluted manyfold 

before use. For a conservative worst case “in use” figure, 1% will be retained (this would 

correspond to 1 L diluted in 100 L which represents a low dilution factor compared to typical use 

of pesticides for field application). 

Construction chemicals: EGBE is an additive for construction materials. It is used as a 

water-reducing agent for example. 

Cutting oils: declining use in soluble oils. Glycol ethers used ‘very occasionally’ at use levels of 

5-7%. Total EU sales in 1996: 110 kt/year for such oils. As a worst-case, if 5% of oils use glycol 

ethers and all assumed to be EGBE, total market would be a maximum of 400 tonnes/year 

(~ 0.41% of total use) (OSPA enquiries). 

19
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Oil spill dispersants: this use was reported to be declining. It is now only found in three of the 

44 dispersants approved for use in UK waters. Total stocks of dispersants in EU are estimated at 

5 kt and the estimated use in EU would be < 300 tonnes/year (OSPA enquiries). 

Photographic solutions: EGBE seems to be no longer used in photographic solutions. 

Rubber, oil industry: EGBE is reported as used in polymer manufacturing. 

20 
3 ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE 

The level of exposure of the environment to a chemical depends on the quantities and 

compartments of release and subsequent degradation, distribution and accumulation in the 

environment. This section discusses the behaviour of EGBE and its releases into the 

environment. 

3.1.1 Environmental fate 

3.1.1.1 Degradation in the environment 

Hydrolysis

No experimental data are available on hydrolysis. However, alcohols and ethers are generally 

resistant to hydrolysis (Lyman et al., 1990). 

Photodegradation

If EGBE is present in ambient air it is expected to exist almost entirely in the vapour phase, 

based on a vapour pressure of 1 hPa at 20°C, where vapour phase reactions with 

photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals may be important. A QSAR method is applied for a 

first estimation of primary transformation rates (SRC, 1988, cited in Environment Canada and 

Health Canada, 2000): the overall OH rate constant for EGBE has been calculated by the AOP 

program v1.90 and is estimated to be 2.3.10-11 cm3/molecule.second at 25°C. The estimated 

value corresponds to an atmospheric half-life of about 16.7 hours at an atmospheric 

concentration of 5.105 hydroxyl radicals/cm3. Atkinson, 1987 has calculated an OH rate constant 

for EGBE of 1.96.10-11 cm3

/molecule.second. 

Estimated half-lives values for EGBE, based on photooxydation, are also mentioned in Howard

et al., 1991, cited in Environment Canada and Health Canada, 2000. They range between 3.3 and 

32.8 hours. 

Values retained in this study to represent the photodegradation ability of EGBE were taken from 

a study performed by Aschmann and Atkinson, 1998. EGBE rate constants were measured using 

a relative method, i.e. measures were made indirectly using a well-known compound, for three 

different sensitizers: OH, O3 and NO3. Test conditions were as follow: light spectrum > 300 nm, 

EGBE concentration was 4.71.10-3 mg/L. Measurements revealed that reactions between EGBE 

and O3 or NO3 are of minor or negligible importance as tropospheric loss processes. Indeed, rate 

constants with NO3 and O3 have been measured at 3.10-15 cm3/molecule.second and 

< 1.1.10-19 cm3/molecule.second respectively. The main loss process for EGBE in ambient air is 

the reaction with OH radicals. The corresponding measured rate constant was 

2.94.10-11 cm3/molecule.second. 

Using this last data, a pseudo first order rate constant for degradation in air is calculated using 

TGD (EC, 2003): Kdeg-air = 1.27 d-1. This rate constant gives a half-life value of ~ 13 hours for 

EGBE in air. 

21
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Degradation products of EGBE after its reaction with OH radicals have also been measured by 

Tuazon et al., 1998. An EGBE concentration of 4.7.10-3 mg/L was used for the experiment 

performed at 25°C. Several products have been identified: propionaldehyde (CAS 123-38-6), 

butyraldehyde (CAS 123-72-8), butyl formate (CAS 592-84-7) and 2-hydroxyethyl formate 

(CAS 628-35-3), 3-hydroxybutyl formate, 2-hydroxybutyl formate and an organic nitrate. 

Since EGBE does not absorb ultraviolet radiation within the solar spectrum (> 290 nm), direct 

photolysis in the atmosphere is not expected to occur (Silverstein and Bassler, 1963, cited in 

HSDB, 2000). 

Biodegradation

The available aerobic biodegradation test results for EGBE are summarised in Table 3.1. A 

number of tests were carried out according to (international) standard test guidelines. Although 

the current information on several technical aspects is incomplete for some biodegradation tests 

the total data set available is regarded as being sufficient to draw conclusions on the 

biodegradation potential of EGBE. 

Table 3.1 Biodegradation test results for EGBE 

Test 

# 

Type 

of test 

Detection Result Day Method Conc. Of 

TS 

Conc. Of 

inoculum 

Reference Validity 

1 BOD5-

test 

O2 uptake 73% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

5 APHA n°219, 

1971 

Unknown 10 mL2,c Bridié et al., 

1979a 

Valid with 

restrictions 

2 BOD5-

test 

O2 uptake 31% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

5 APHA n°219, 

1971 

Unknown 10 mL1,c Bridié et al., 

1979a 

Valid with 

restrictions 

3 BOD5-

test 

O2 uptake 8% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

5 DEV H5 A2 Unknown River water 

taken below 

a factory 

effluent 

Knappe and 

Popp, 1974 

Valid with 

restrictions 

4 BOD20

-test 

O2 uptake 75% 

70% 

64% 

29% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

APHA n°219, 

1971 

3, 7 and 

10 mg/L** 

3 mL4

(filtered 

seawater 

seed) 

Price et al., 

1974 

Valid with 

restrictions 

5 BOD20

-test 

O2 uptake 88% 

82% 

74% 

26% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

APHA n°219, 

1971 

3, 7 and 

10 mg/L** 

3 mL1,a Price et al., 

1974 

Valid with 

restrictions 

6 Inherent 

biodeg 

Test 

DOC 95% 

92% 

8% 

8 

7 

4 

Zahn-Wellens 

test 

(OECD 302B) 

750 mg/L 33 mg/L1,b BASF AG, 

1980 

Valid with 

restrictions 

Table 3.1 continued overleaf 

22 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.1 continued Biodegradation test results for EGBE 

Test 

# 

Type 

of test 

Detection Result Day Method Conc. Of 

TS 

Conc. Of 

inoculum 

Reference Validity 

7 Inherent 

biodeg 

Test 

DOC 100% 28 OECD 302B 500 mg/L Unknown1,a Huels, 

1982* 

Lack of 

data 

8 Inherent 

biodeg 

Test 

DOC 100% 

63% 

22% 

5 

3 

1 

OECD 302B 450 mg/L Unknown1,a Hoechst, 

1976 

Valid with 

restrictions 

9 Ready 

biodeg 

Test 

O2 uptake 88% 28 OECD 301C 100 mg/L 30 mg/L3,b CEFIC, 

1993* 

Lack of 

data 

10 Ready 

biodeg 

Test 

DOC 95% 28 OECD 301E 10 mg/L 

DOC 

Unknown1,a Huels, 

1982* 

Lack of 

data 

11 Ready 

biodeg 

Test 

O2 uptake 72% 

57% 

5% 

(BOD/ThOD) 

20 

10 

5 

Unknown Unknown Inoculum 

from a 

WWTP 

Dow cited 

in Gonsior, 

1990 

Valid with 

restrictions 

12 Ready 

biodeg 

Test 

O2 uptake 96% 14 OECD 301C 100 mg/L 30 mg/L1,a CITI, 1992 Valid with 

restrictions 

13 Ready 

biodeg 

Test 

O2 uptake 75% 

70% 

47% 

28 

15 

5 

OECD 301D Unknown Unknown1 Waggy et 

al., 1994 

Valid with 

restrictions 

a) Activated (domestic) sewage 

b) Activated sludge from (industrial) STP 

c) Filtered effluent from STP 

1) Non-adapted inoculum 

2) Adapted inoculum 

3) No information on adaptation or non-adaptation of inoculum available 

4) Seed source maintained by adding small amounts of settled raw wastewater 

* Original report not available 

** Results of the biodegradation test were expressed taking into account all concentrations of EGBE used (“weighted average”) 

Several tests have been conducted according to APHA (American Public Health Association) 

method n°219. In tests 1 and 2, the Biological Oxygen Demand was measured after five days 

whereas in tests 4 and 5, the BOD was measured after 20 days. The four tests were performed 

with an inoculum constituted by filtered effluent from a STP excepted for test 4 in which the 

inoculum came from a filtered seawater seed. The domestic source of the inoculum was only 

specified for test 5. In tests 2, 4 and 5, the inoculum was reported as non-adapted contrarily to 

that used in test 1. In test number 4, the inoculum source was maintained by adding small 

amounts of settled raw wastewater. In the four tests, the biodegradation was quantified 

comparing the measured BOD to the Theoretical Oxygen Demand (ThOD). Concerning the three 

tests showing the biodegradation of EGBE in the presence of non-adapted inoculum (#2,4,5), 

they all show similar values after five days even for the one performed with artificial saltwater 

(#4), respectively 31, 29 and 26%. 

Tests number 6 to 8 carried according to the OECD guideline 302B (Zahn-Wellens test) tend to 

demonstrate the inherent biodegradability of EGBE. Biodegradation percentages were > 70% 

23
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

after 14 days in tests 6 (95% after 8 days) and 8 (100% degraded after 5 days) and reached 100% 

after 28 days in test 7. Each test was performed using a non-adapted inoculum from domestic 

sewage (#7 and 8) or industrial STP (#6). 

All ready biodegradation tests (#9-13) have shown a biodegradation > 60%. Excepted test 

number 9 where the inoculum were adapted and came from an industrial waste water treatment 

plant, all other tests have used a non-adapted inoculum from a domestic sewage (as specified in 

the OECD guidelines n°301). Tests 11, 12 and 13 where EGBE biodegradation reaches, 

respectively, 57% after 10 days, 96% after 14 days and 47% after 5 days (70% after 15 days), 

tend to confirm that the 10 days time window criterion is fulfilled. 

To conclude, according to standard tests on ready biodegradation and further experimental data 

which confirmed high biodegradation rates, EGBE can be regarded as readily biodegradable. 

As no result from biodegradation simulation tests in STP, surface freshwater, surface saltwater 

and soil is available, the degradation rates have to be estimated based on the “ready 

biodegradability” classification and the partition behaviour of EGBE according to the method 

described in the Technical Guidance Document for risk assessment of new and existing 

chemicals (TGD - EC, 2003). Results of this estimation are presented in Table 3.2. 

Table 3.2 Estimated biodegradation rate constants for EGBE in WWTP, surface water, soil and sediment 

Compartment / medium Biodegradation rate Half-life 

Activated sludge (WWTP) KSTP = 1 h-1 0.7 hour 

Surface water Kfreshwater = 4.7.10-2 d-1 15 days 

Marine water Ksaltwater = 1.4.10-2 d-1 50 days 

Soil* Ksoil = 2.3.10-2 d-1 30 days 

Marine and freshwater sediments ** Ksed = 2.3.10-3 d-1 300 days 

* Biodegradation rates in sediment and soil take account of adsorption to solid matter (Koc=27.3 L/kg, see below) 

** Biodegradation rate in sediment takes account of the aerobic fraction of this compartment (0.1) 

3.1.1.2 Distribution 

Volatilisation

Based on the measured Henry’s law constant of 0.08 Pa.m3

/mol at 25°C (Kim et al., 2000), the 

air-water partitioning coefficient (Kair-water) can be calculated. Kair-water of 3.23.10-5 indicates that 

volatilisation of EGBE from surface water and moist soil is expected to be very low. 

Adsorption/desorption

Using the log Kow of 0.8 and according to the TGD (EC, 2003) (QSAR for soil and sediment 

sorption for nonhydrophobic chemicals) a Koc of 27.3 L/kg can be estimated. The solid/water 

partition coefficients in each compartment can be calculated as supplied in TGD (EC, 2003) (see 

Table 3.3). 

24 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.3 Estimated solids / water partition coefficients 

Water / Compartment OC fraction in solid 

phase (FOCcomp) 

Solids / water 

partition coefficients 

Total compartment water 

partition coefficient 

Soil / water 0.02 Kp_soil = 0.55 L/kg Ksoil-water = 1.03 m3/m3

Sediment / water 0.05 Kp_sed = 1.37 L/kg Ksed-water = 1.49 m3/m3

Suspended matter / water 0.1 Kp_susp = 2.73 L/kg Ksusp-water = 1.58 m3/m3

Distribution in the environment

The following theoretical distribution in the environment has been calculated using the 

multimedia fugacity model EQC (MacKay level I) and the physico-chemical properties given in 

Section 1.3. 

Table 3.4 Calculated distribution of EGBE in the different 

compartments of the environment 

Compartment % EGBE 

Air 0.24 

Water 99.20 

Soil 0.55 

Sediment 0.01 

Regarding these results, the hydrosphere is the preferential target of the substance in the 

environment. 

Distribution in STPs

Based on physical chemical properties discussed in this study (log H = -1.1 and Koc = 27.3 L/kg) 

as well as the biodegradation rate of 1 h-1 in STP, the elimination through biodegradation can be 

estimated with the model SIMPLETREAT in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5 Estimated distribution in a STP (SIMPLETREAT) 

Designation % 

Air 9.54.10-2

Water 12.6 

Sludge 2.57.10-1

% degraded 87.0 

% removal 87.4 

3.1.1.3 Accumulation 

No experimental data on bioaccumulation is available. Therefore, BCF-values for fish and 

earthworm are estimated using the log Kow of 0.8. The estimated BCF-values amount to 0.97 

and 1.6 for, respectively, fish and worm. Another calculated value is quoted: a BCF of 2.5 has 

been estimated by Syracuse program (US EPA and Syracuse Research Corporation, 2001). 

In view of these BCF, EGBE is expected to have a low bioaccumulation potential. 

25
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

3.1.2 Environmental releases 

The regional and continental releases include all relevant life cycle stages of EGBE. For 

production, it is assumed that there is only one production site in the region. The exposure 

assessment is based on the EU Technical Guidance Documents (TGD - EC, 2003) applying the 

European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances, EUSES (EC, 2004). 

3.1.2.1 Release from production 

Ethylene oxide and anhydrous5 alcohol (n-butanol for the production of EGBE) are added 

continuously to a reactor containing catalyst that operates at elevated temperature and pressure. 

To keep the proportion of lower molecular weight products as a high percentage of total 

production, a large excess of alcohol is used. Unreacted excess alcohol is recycled using an 

alcohol recovery section (A and B parts in Figure 3.1). Some of the EGBE is also recycled as 

part of the production control process. The remaining reactor stream is drawn off for purification 

using a train of distillation columns (C, D and E parts in Figure 3.1). Relatively pure mono and 

diethylene glycol alkyl ether streams are drawn off along with a heavy stream (mainly tri but 

also containing penta and tetraethylene glycol alkyl ether). The remaining low volume polymeric 

residue stream is either burnt or sold. 

During normal operations, the process is entirely closed (due to physical properties of ethylene 

oxide: boiling point of 10.7°C) with little opportunity for environmental release. Such exposure 

is only likely during sampling, filling or loading operations along with campaign changes (most 

of producers revealed periodic campaigns of EGBE synthesis), when the plant is switched to a 

different glycol ether (different alcohol or using propylene rather than ethylene oxide). 

Figure 3.1 Basic schematic of the EGBE production units (OSPA) 

REACTOR

A B C D E 

Reaction section 

(Oxide-Alcohol-Catalyst) 

Alcohol removal Distillation section 

Alcohol + mono-GE Mono-GE Di-GE Tri-GE... 

Polymeric

stream

 

5 Presence of water during the reaction is not expected as this reacts violently with ethylene oxide under the 

prevailing conditions. 

26 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Releases to water

Data of releases to water for EGBE production sites in Europe (see Table 2.2) are presented in 

Table 3.6 (Note: the site numbers in Table 3.6 do not directly correspond to the order of 

companies in Table 2.2). 

As there are only five EGBE production sites in Europe, the regional production will not be set 

at 10% of total EGBE production (TGD default) but at the maximum volume produced at one 

site. The amount remaining corresponds to the continental production. Fraction releases and 

number of days of emission are taken from Table A1.1 and Table B1.5 (TGD - EC, 2003; 

Chapter 3 – Appendix I), with Main Category equal to Ib (substances produced in a continuous 

production process) for EGBE is produced in a continuous production process. 

All EGBE producers reported that releases to water enter a sewage treatment plant. During this 

step, 87.4% of EGBE is expected to be removed by degradation processes. When more precise 

data were available (EGBE concentration in STP effluents) they were also used. 

Relevant data for the calculation of Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC) in a STP and 

local concentrations in the aquatic compartment are presented in Table 3.6. When such data was 

not available the effluent concentration leaving the STP (PECSTP) has been calculated according 

to Equation 3.1. This PECSTP is divided by a dilution factor so as to obtain the local 

concentration in surface water - Clocalaqua (see Equation 3.2). 

Equation 3.1 Calculation of PECSTP 

STP

water STPwater

STP EFFLUENT

Elocal F

PEC

6 ×× 10 =

Elocalwater local release to waste water during episode [kg/d] 

FSTPwater fraction of emission directed to water by STP 0.126 

EFFLUENTSTP effluent discharge rate of STP [L/day] 

PECSTP EGBE concentration in the STP effluent [mg/L] 

Equation 3.2 Calculation of Clocalaqua 

DILUTION

PEC Clocal STP

aqua =

PECSTP concentration of the substance in the STP effluent [mg/L] 

Clocalaqua local concentration in surface water during emission episode [mg/L] 

DILUTION (STP flow + river flow) / STP flow [-] 

The calculation of Clocalaqua is reduced to this equation due to the low adsorption of EGBE on 

suspended matter (Kpsusp = 2.73 L/kg). 

27
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.6 Aquatic emission data from production sites of EGBE in EU

Site # Emission in water 

1 Reference years: 2001 and 2002 

Release to wastewater treatment plant: 10* kg/day (300* days of production). Assuming 87.4% removal in STP: 

1.3* kg/day in STP effluent. Before discharge to receiving waters, the effluent undergoes a dilution by a factor of 100 

(mixing with seawater). Receiving water is the sea. The real dilution for marine environment is unknown. The releases 

of EGBE occur in a region where the tidal influences are really low. For those particular seas it is proposed in the TGD 

to use only a dilution factor of 10 instead of 100. 

Flow of STP = 7,000* m3/day. 

PECSTP = 0.18* mg/L and Clocalaqua = 1.8.10-4* mg/L 

2 Reference year: 1996 (production and processing volumes in 2000 were however comparable) 

Release to water: 1,680* kg/day in wastewater treatment plant influent and 8.7* kg/day in effluent (such values give 

99.5*% removal of EGBE in STP). Emissions are calculated as a worst case using 90th percentile of daily measured 

concentrations in effluent, average STP flow and 365* days/year. Both production and processing releases are 

included. 

Flow of STP = 5* m3/s; 10th percentile of receiving water flow = 734* m3/s; dilution in receiving water = 150*. 

PECSTP = 2.10-2* mg/L ; Clocalaqua = 1.3.10-4* mg/L 

Assuming 87.4% removal in STP: PECSTP = 0.49 mg/L ; Clocalaqua = 3.3.10-3 mg/L 

3 Reference year: 2000 

Release to water: 21.9* kg/day in STP influent (365* d/y). Assuming 87.4% removal in STP: 2.8 kg/day in STP 

effluent. 

Flow of STP = 0.83* m3/s; 10th percentile of receiving water flow = 18.4* m3/s; dilution in receiving water = 23*. 

PECSTP = 3.9.10-2 mg/L ; Clocalaqua = 1.7.10-3 mg/L 

4 Reference year: 2000 

Release to water: 7.1* kg/d in STP influent (140* d/y). Assuming 87.4% removal in STP: 0.9 kg/d in STP effluent. 

Concentration in STP influent = 0.2* mg/L; concentration in STP effluent = 1.10-3* mg/L. 

PECSTP = 8.9.10-2 mg/L ; Clocalaqua = 2.2.10-3 mg/L (assuming a dilution factor of 40 and a STP flow of 10,000 m3/day 

– default value for chemical industry, Cf. emission scenario documents, Chapter 7 of the TGD, E.C., 2003) 

5 No data but total annual site production for EGBE < 1kt. 

No process water discharge is reported 

* Original data provided by industry or calculated with original data. Other data is calculated using default TGD values 

Releases to air

Release data to air for EGBE production sites in EU are presented in Table 3.7. Local 

concentrations in air have been calculated based on information submitted by the producers, 

except for site 5. 

28 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.7 Atmospheric emissions of EGBE from European producers 

Site # Release to air (kg/d) Clocalair,ann* (mg/m3) Year 

1 1.9 including emissions from plant 

and fugitive emissions 

(300 days/year) 

4.34.10-4 2002 

2 0.6 at production and 5.4 at 

processing (365 days/year) 

Total (production + processing) 6 

1.67.10-4 mg/m3 at production and 

1.50.10-3 at processing 

Total (production + processing) 1.67.10-3

1996 (production and 

processing volumes in 2000 

were however comparable) 

3 ~0.1 (365 days/year) 2.78.10-5 2000 

4 ~0.4 (140 days/year) 4.27.10-5 2000 

5 No data but total annual site production for EGBE < 1kt. 

* EGBE concentration in air calculated at a 100 m distance from the source (annual average) 

Releases to soil

Release data to soil for EGBE production sites in EU are presented in Table 3.8. Local 

concentrations in soil have been calculated based on information submitted by the producers, 

except for site 5. 

Table 3.8 Emissions of EGBE to soil from European producers 

Site 

# 

Total deposition 

flux during 

emission episode 

(μg.m-2.j-1) 

Annual 

average 

deposition flux 

(μg.m-2.j-1) 

Local concentration 

in agricultural soil 

after 

30 days (μg/kg ww) 

Local concentration 

in agricultural soil 

after 

180 days (μg/kg ww) 

Local concentration 

in grassland after 

180 days (μg/kg ww) 

1 0.76 0.63 33.40 10.30 3.84 

2* 2.40 2.40 0.27 0.27 0.50 

3* 0.04 0.04 0 (5.10-3) 0 (5.10-3) 0 (8.10-3) 

4* 0.16 0.06 0 (7.10-3) 0 (7.10-3) 0.01 

5 No data but total annual site production for EGBE < 1kt. 

* At this production site STP sludge is incinerated 

3.1.2.2 Release from formulation, processing and private use 

Generic exposure scenarios are used to estimate the releases from formulation, processing and 

private use of EGBE, as no actual data are available. The scenarios are based on the different use 

categories of EGBE (see Section 2.2). An overview of the various environmental exposure 

scenarios for formulation, processing and private use of EGBE is given in Table 3.9. 

Table 3.9 Environmental exposure scenarios for formulation, processing and private uses of EGBE 

Scenario names Designation Life cycle step 

Paints IF / Paints IP ¤ General industrial coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing 

Paints IIF / Paints IIP ¤ Decorative trade coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing 

Paints IIIF / Paints IIIU Decorative retail coatings (water-based) Formulation/Private use 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP ¤ Can coatings Formulation/Processing 

Table 3.9 continued overleaf 

29
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.9 continued Environmental exposure scenarios for formulation, processing and private uses of EGBE 

Scenario names Designation Life cycle step 

Paints VF / Paints VP ¤ Coil coatings Formulation/Processing 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP ¤ Automotive OEM coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP ¤ Anticorrosion coatings Formulation/Processing 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP ¤ Automotive OEM coatings Formulation/Processing 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP ¤ Wood coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP Industrial detergents Formulation/Processing 

Detergents IIF / Detergents IIU Domestic detergents Formulation/Private use 

Intermediates IP Intermediate for chemicals synthesis Processing 

Inks IF / Inks IP ¤ Printing inks Formulation/Processing 

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP ¤ Oilfield chemicals Formulation/Processing 

Metal IF / Metal IP ¤ Metal cleaning Formulation/Processing 

Elec IP Electronic industry Processing 

Leather IP Leather treatment operations Processing 

Pharm IP Pharmaceuticals Processing 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP Adhesives Formulation/Processing 

Cosmet IF / Cosmet IU Cosmetics / Personal care Formulation/Private use 

Agri IF / Agri IP Agricultural products Formulation/Processing 

Fire IF / Fire IP Fire foams Formulation/Processing 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

¤ For these end uses there is a possibility that formulation and processing steps take place at a same site. 

 These cases will be treated during risk characterisation. 

3.1.2.2.1 Continental and regional releases 

The total continental and regional EGBE emissions from formulation, processing and private 

uses are given in Table 3.10. These results come from the calculation program EUSES (EC, 

2004) and do not integrate the emissions due to the scenario “Agri I” because of the scenario 

number limitations of the software. Nevertheless, the calculations have been made for this 

scenario in a separate file and it appears that the impact of emissions volumes for this scenario 

on total continental and regional emissions is negligible. 

Table 3.10 Total continental and regional EGBE emissions 

Air Water (total / waste water*) Soil 

Continental 9.69.104 kg/day 4.90.104 kg/day/3.92.104 kg/day 6.81.103 kg/day 

Regional 1.08.104 kg/day 5.56.103 kg/day/4.45.103 kg/day 7.59.102 kg/day 

* It is assumed that 80% of the waste water is treated in a biological STP and the remaining 

 20% released directly into surface waters 

30 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

3.1.2.2.2 Local releases: EGBE used in leather finishing operations 

For the industrial use of EGBE in leather industry the dedicated scenario “leather processing 

industry’ has been used (for water releases). The emission of EGBE to waste water can be 

calculated using Equation 3.3. Emissions to air and soil were estimated using A and B tables 

from Appendix 1 of the TGD (EC, 2003). 

Equation 3.3 Calculation of waste water emission in leather processing industry 

)1( Elocal _ water = product ×QQ chemical × − Ffix

Elocal_water daily amount released to waste water [kg/d] 

Qproduct mass of processed raw hide per day [15 t/d - default] 

Qchemical mass of substance used per mass of raw hide [3 kg/t6– 

personal 

communication 

from the 

European 

Leather Industry] 

Ffix proportion of the substance chemically concerted 

or fixed to the raw hide during processing [0.01- 

Table A3.6] 

3.1.2.2.3 Local releases: EGBE used for metal cleaning operations (processing) 

During the various steps of the production process, metal parts must be cleaned of oils, fluxes 

and grease. Due to the properties of EGBE it is used in cleaning formulations as a wetting agent 

and dispersant. Typical cleaning formulations contained 4% of this kind of additives (cleaning 

formulations used for soak). In the calculation of EGBE daily releases to wastewater it will be 

assumed that the metal parts are cleaned by a static soak process. During this step of the process, 

losses of substance will be by drag out into the rinse bath and subsequent release of the rinse 

water. Here, as a worst case, the following assumptions are made: 

− it is considered that there is no return of the rinse water (Frecycle = 0) 

− the amount of solution removed from treatment bath due to drag out is taken as 0.3 L/m2 as a 

worst case 

− is a same way, the surface area of metal processed is taken at 40 m2/hr 

If we consider a fraction of 0.04 for EGBE in the cleaning formulation, then, using a typical 

concentration of the formulation in the cleaning bath of 25-75 g/L, the concentration of 

substance in the treatment bath (Cbath) can be calculated as follow: 4% . 75 g/L = 3 g/L. 

Equation 3.4 is used to calculate the daily emission to wastewater: 

 

6 This scenario only takes into account the use of EGBE in aqueous degreasing systems for leather. The other use of 

EGBE in the leather processing can be put in the category of “coating” operations and consequently is already 

covered by the dedicated scenarios for paints. 

31
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Equation 3.4 Daily emission to wastewater during metal cleaning operations 

Elocal process water Qdragout type AREAprocess metal Cbath recycle TF process = ⋅ ⋅−⋅⋅⋅ − )1(10 3

, , ,

Elocalprocess water /792.022)01(103403.0 dkg 3

, =⋅−⋅⋅⋅⋅= −

Elocalprocess,water emission from process to water per day [kg/d] 

Qdragout,type amount of solution removed from treatment 

bath per unit area [0.3 L/m2] 

AREAprocess,metal surface area of metal processed per hour [40 m2/hr] 

Cbath concentration of substance in treatment bath [3 g/L] 

10-3 conversion factor for g to kg [kg/g] 

Frecycle fraction of drag out returned to treatment bath [0] 

Tprocess number of hours worked per day [22, worst case] 

In addition, it will be considered that the cleaning bath is disposed of every 4-8 weeks. Assuming 

a bath capacity of 1,000 L, the amount of substance released will be 3 g/L . 1,000 L = 3 kg – 

source OECD, 2004. This release will be considered an intermittent emission. 

Results are shown in Table 3.15 to Table 3.23. 

3.1.2.2.4 Local releases: EGBE used in oilfield chemicals (processing) 

a) Estimation of exposure concentrations using the CHARM model

EGBE has a wide range of uses as a solvent in paints and surface coatings, detergents and 

surface cleaners, inks or dyes. One of the reported end use is as oilfield chemicals used on 

offshore platforms. Oilfield chemicals are in general brines and brine components used as 

completion, workover and drill-in base fluids. A generic scenario has been applied in order to 

cover the use of EGBE in oilfield chemicals onshore (see Section 3.1.2.2.6). 

The CHARM model (Thatcher et al., 2004) takes into account four different types of application, 

since they might be introduced into the environment in a different way. Application groups are: 

− production chemicals (with injection chemicals and surfactants as special cases) 

− drilling chemicals (water based mud only) 

− cementing chemicals (i.e., spacer and mixwater) 

− completion and workover chemicals including well squeeze treatments and also pipeline 

hydrotest and preservation treating chemicals. 

Due to the range of usual uses of EGBE, the application group, to which it belongs, seems to be 

“completion and workover chemicals”. 

Two different scenarios are available depending on the use of the chemicals during those 

operations. A distinction has been made between surface/well cleaning and the other operations 

(other completion, workover, squeeze treatment and hydrotest chemicals). This is due to the fact 

that during cleaning operations, as noted in the CHARM manual, discharge is considered to be 

32 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

100% of the amount used, while for all other operations a fraction of the chemical is retained in 

the formation by, for example, adsorption to the formation matrix during the operation. 

The CHARM model considers that completion and workover chemicals are discharged in 

batches. Therefore a specific dilution factor has to be applied accounting for the discharge 

volumes. These releases should be considered as intermittent and compared to the appropriate 

PNEC for the risk characterisation. 

The equations used for the calculation of PECwater for completion, workover squeeze treatment 

and hydrotest chemicals are presented below. 

For surface and well cleaning chemicals, the PEC is calculated using: 

PECwater = Ci,cleaning × Dbatch, cleaning

With Ci, cleaning = initial concentration of chemical in cleaning fluid (dosage, mg.L-1) 

 Dbatch, cleaning = batchwise dilution factor for cleaning fluids 

For other completion, workover, squeeze treatment and hydrotest chemicals, the PEC is 

calculated using: 

PECwater = fr × Ci, completion × Dbatch, completion

With fr = fraction released - chemical 

Ci, completion = initial concentration of chemical in completion and workover 

including squeeze treatments and hydrotest fluids (dosage, mg.L-1) 

Dbatch, completion = batchwise dilution factor for completion and workover including 

squeeze treatments and hydrotest fluids 

Default values for the fraction released-chemical (fr) and the batchwise dilution factor (Dbatch) are 

reported in Table 3.11 as proposed in the CHARM model. For cleaning chemicals, the fraction 

released should be set at 1 as the model assumes that the chemical is entirely released. 

Table 3.11 Default values to be used for hazard assessment of completion and workover chemicals 

(specified as ‘cleaning chemicals’, other chemicals’, ‘squeeze treatments’ and ‘hydrotest 

chemicals’) (Thatcher et al., 2004). 

Parameter Symbol Cleaning chemicals Other chemicals 

Fraction released-chemical 

Dilution factor at 500 m 

fr

Dbatch

n. r. 

7.7 10-5 (1:13,000) 

0.1 

7.1 10-5 (1:14,000) 

Parameter Symbol Squeeze treatments Hydrotest chemicals 

Fraction released-chemical 

Dilution factor at 500 m 

fr

Dbatch

0.33 

7.1 10-5 (1:14,000) 

1 

0.001 (1:1,000) 

EGBE has been reported in a manufactured product at concentrations between 60 and 100%. 

Different dilution ratios are suggested for this product, depending on the type of use. The lowest 

dilution ratio (1:10) applies to the cleaning of drilling and construction equipment. This ratio will 

be used as a worst case and gives a concentration of EGBE in cleaning fluids of 100 g/L. With 

this figure, the different scenarios can be used. Results are presented in Table 3.12. 

33
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.12 PECintermittent for the use of oilfield chemicals containing 

EGBE on offshore platforms (marine compartment) 

PECseawater (mg/L) 

Surface and well cleaning chemicals 7.7 

Squeeze treatments 2.3 

Hydrotest chemicals 100 

b) Regulations on oilfield chemicals

In June 2000, OSPAR introduced Decision 2000/2 on a Harmonised Mandatory Control System 

for the Use and Reduction of the Discharge of Offshore Chemicals. At the heart of OSPAR 

Decision 2000/2 are two Recommendations: Recommendation 2000/4 on a Harmonised PreScreening Scheme for Offshore Chemicals, which facilitates the substitution of chemicals with 

certain characteristics by less hazardous alternatives and Recommendation 2000/5. 

Decision 2000/2 and its supporting Recommendations entered into force on 16 January 2001. 

The Decision requires offshore chemicals to be ranked according to their calculated Hazard 

Quotients (HQ - ratio of Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) to Predicted No Effect 

Concentration (PNEC). It also obliges authorities to use the CHARM “hazard assessment” 

module as the primary tool for ranking. 

Details on the national regulations put in place in order to comply with OSPAR 

recommendations have been found for two countries (United Kingdom and Norway). However 

other countries which have offshore oil and gas installations7 may have similar regulations in 

place following harmonisation of such schemes in 1996. 

− Norway 

The Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT) regulates the use of drilling fluids/muds 

through discharge permits. Water based muds are tested under OSPAR formats for bioaccumulation potential and bio-degradability and given a discharge permit if judged to be 

environmentally friendly. Synthetic muds are similarly evaluated and can be given a discharge 

permit according to their properties. All oil-based muds are injected or taken to shore for 

treatment. The discharge of solids containing more than 1% oil, by weight, is forbidden - 

whether the drilling fluid is water-, oil- or synthetic-based. The regulations also deal explicitly 

with well testing, workover and cementing. 

Norwegian regulations: 

1. Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT). 1998. Requirements for 

Ecotoxicological Testing and Environmental Assessment of Offshore Chemicals and 

Drilling Fluids. SFT, Oslo 

2. Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT). 1999a. Environmental Monitoring 

of Petroleum Activities on the Norwegian Shelf; Guidelines 99:01. SFT, Oslo 

3. Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT). 1999b. Pollution Control Act, 

1981. SFT, Oslo) 

 

7 In some countries there are no offshore oil and gas installations in the OSPAR maritime area under the jurisdiction 

of the Contracting Parties (i.e. Belgium, Finland, France, Portugal, Sweden). 

34 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Norway uses the standard OSPAR “A” and “B” lists for offshore chemicals and requires that 

discharge of these “shall be reduced as much as possible, e.g., through recycling”. Operators are 

required to ensure the purity of the substances they use, with minimum contamination by other 

chemicals. Discharge of unused chemicals into the sea is expressly forbidden, even if they are on 

list A or B and their toxicity is therefore well known. All discharges must have a permit and 

chemicals not on the lists must be separately tested and notified. 

− United Kingdom 

The Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme (OCNS) was originally introduced in 1979. In 

1993, the UK Government introduced a revised scheme, which classified chemicals using test 

protocols approved by the Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPAR). This was modified in detail, 

in early 1996, to meet the requirements of the OSPAR Harmonised Offshore Chemical 

Notification Format (HOCNF) which co-ordinates the testing requirements for oilfield chemicals 

throughout the NE Atlantic sector. 

In June 2000, OSPAR introduced Decision 2000/2 on a Harmonised Mandatory Control System 

for the Use and Reduction of the Discharge of Offshore Chemicals. In the UK this is to be 

administered under the Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002 (OCR 2002) which came into force 

on 15th May 2002. 

The UK operates the Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme (OCNS8). This is operated by the 

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) on behalf of the 

Department for Trade and Industry (DTI). CEFAS is an Executive Agency of the UK 

Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The OCNS 

requires the registration of all chemicals used in the actual exploration, exploitation and 

associated offshore processing of petroleum on the UK Continental Shelf. Dossiers on individual 

products rather than substances have to be notified. The required dossiers must include acute 

toxicity data on marine species from the three tropic levels as well as other data. Because 

individual products are notified, detailed information on usage rates and composition are 

available allowing more precise risk characterisations to be performed using the CHARM model 

and the products ranked according to the hazard they present. However, for reasons of 

commercial confidentiality, the toxicity data, usage and composition information is not 

published. 

EGBE has been registered by a number of suppliers to the industry under the name ‘EGMBE’ 

(ethylene glycol mono butyl ether), as shown below. 

Table 3.13 Examples of EGBE containing products registered in UK 

Product type or function Notifier Rating 

Carrier solvent Baker Petrolite Silver 

Drilling fluid Halliburton Gold 

Well stimulant (30% EGBE) Baker Petrolite Gold 

Gold is the highest possible rating out of 6 and is for products where the PEC:PNEC is less than 

one. Silver, the next highest, is for substances where the model PEC:PNEC is between 1 and 30. 

EGBE is also listed as a hydrotest chemical, but under a category of products where CHARM is 

 

8 http://www.cefas.co.uk/ocns/index.htm 

35
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

not regarded as suitable for assessing risk of use (not all uses are regarded as suitable for risk 

characterisation using CHARM). For this reason, it is only rated for hazard properties and falls 

into group E, the lowest hazard category available. It is also possible that EGBE and EGBE 

containing products may be registered under trade names (OSPA, personal communication). 

Because they use detailed information supplied under confidentiality terms, specific assessments 

performed under such regulations should be regarded as more precise than those carried out in 

this assessment. For instance, detailed information is provided by the manufactures on actual 

usage and emission rates. 

3.1.2.2.5 Local releases: EGBE used in oil spill dispersants (marine compartment) 

The development of oil spill dispersants has started in the beginning of the 70’s with the increase 

in oil transportation and as a consequence the increase in number of accidents. A summary of 

dispersants used today is provided in Table 3.14 and a list of agreed dispersants according to the 

Bonn Agreement is also available9. 

Table 3.14 Dispersants used today, application methods and dosages (Bonn Agreement, 2001) 

Standard name Generation Type Application method Solvent Dosage 

(dispersant / oil) 

Conventional 

dispersants Second 1 Not diluted on ships No aromatic hydrocarbons 30 –100% 

2 Diluted on ships Water-based (e.g., glycol 

ether) Concentrated 

dispersants Third 

3 Not diluted on ships or 

airplanes Hydrocarbon-based 

5 – 15% 

(concentrated 

products) 

It is difficult to know how often dispersants are used against oil spills. A survey of international 

uses of dispersants was performed by Lindgren et al., 2001. From this survey it seems clear that 

most of the time mechanical actions are recommended for combating oil spills and that the use of 

chemicals such as dispersants should be avoided as long as possible. This is particularly the case 

in the Baltic area, which falls under the HELCOM’s recommendations (Helsinki Commission; 

Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and the Russian Federation). 

In specific situations dispersants can nevertheless be used if the national authority approves it. 

This is also the case in the USA and Canada where mechanical methods are used unless weather 

prevents the use of these methods. 

In Belgium, France, United Kingdom and Germany, dispersants are used, particularly in England 

where the total number of approved dispersants is high in comparison with other countries. 

However dispersants in these different countries are applied under specific rules and 

recommendations and usually after approval by the government or the competent authority in 

this field. Apart from these theoretical considerations, it seems that dispersants are nevertheless 

used in a lot of situations because it is often the easiest way to manage an oil spill (personal com. 

Cedre). Therefore small oil spills resulting from usual practice are most of the time treated with 

dispersants when of course this is possible. 

 

9 This list of agreed dispersants will be updated in 2005. 

36 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Lessard and Demarco, 2000 report that the rate of usage of dispersants has gone up over the past 

30 years and that dispersants have been successfully applied in half as many major spills during 

the 1990s as during the prior 25 years. 

Among all reported dispersants some contain EGBE in non-negligible concentrations. This is the 

case for example of Wellchem Wellaid 3315 (5% EGBE) and Corexit 952710 (38% EGBE). It 

was not possible to have the composition of all the agreed dispersants on the lists of the Bonn 

Agreement nevertheless from the two above examples it is clear that some of them contain high 

amounts of EGBE. Application rates of dispersants depend on the amount of oil to be treated. 

Usual application rates seem to be around 5 to 15% from information compiled on product 

fact-sheets (Cedre, 2004). 

EGBE sales for oil spill dispersant use have been reported in 2001 (191 tonnes). However, for 

the following years (2002 and 2003) no sale was reported. This is due to the mode of use of oil 

spill dispersant that required some stocks to be available. Indeed, oil spill dispersants are only 

used on occasions when an oil spill occurs in the environment and so may be used locally in 

relatively large amounts on very infrequent occasions. This should be consequently treated as an 

intermittent release. 

Figures on the number of oil spills detected are available for the Baltic Sea. Von Viebahn, 2002 

reports that 250 to 650 oil spills are detected each year. It is also stated in the same report that the 

number of oil spills in the North Sea is higher, however exact figures are not available. More 

information on annual oil spills would be useful in order to propose a regional scenario. 

However due to a lack of time this is not possible at present. 

In the same way, specific data (amount of oil released, dispersant used, etc.) are available on 

different oil spills, major as well as minor spills, in different locations. It is possible from the 

data available to construct worst case scenarios and assess local PEC, however this implies the 

development of specific and detailed emission scenario for major and minor spills. This could 

become difficult considering that a “typical oil spill” cannot be defined. Each presents unique 

circumstances, depending on location, quantity and type of oil, prevailing weather conditions etc. 

It has also to be taken into consideration that the decision whether to use a dispersant is made 

with the regulatory authorities case-by-case and on a risk benefit basis. It is generally accepted 

that dispersants create adverse effects but their use is intended to mitigate the even worse 

potential effects of environmentally hazardous oil products. For this reason, even if detailed 

composition information was available, it would still not be possible to carry out such a risk 

benefit analysis within the framework of the Existing Substances risk evaluation process. 

3.1.2.2.6 Local releases for other uses 

Note: Tables used for local release estimates refer to TGD (EC, 2003), Tables A and B, 

Chapter 3, Appendix I; other Tables, Chapter 7. 

The local release estimates for formulation, processing and use of EGBE are given in Table 3.15

to Table 3.20. 

 

10 This dispersant has been removed from the UK list of approved dispersant on 30/07/98 because it did not pass the 

Rocky Shore Test. However existing stock may have been used away from rocky shorelines in appropriate 

conditions. 

37
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.15 Local releases of EGBE from formulation of paints 

Scenario Paints IF Paints IIF and Paints IIIF Paints IVF Paints VF

Main category Multi-purpose 

equipment Multi-purpose equipment Multi-purpose equipment Multi-purpose equipment

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.1411/13,700 

tonnes 

0.2175 / 21,100 tonnes 0.0756/ 

7,340 tonnes 

0.0546 / 5,300 tonnes 

Regional tonnage 1,370 tonnes 2,110 tonnes 734 tonnes 530 tonnes 

Typical max. % of EGBE 3 3 7 7 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.6 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.4 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.7 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.8 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.003 

0.0001 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.003 

0.0001 

(Table 3.6) 

0.03 

0 

0 

(Table 3.5) 

0.01 

0 

0 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

13.7 

8.2 

0.3 

14.1 

8.4 

0.3 

51.4 

0 

0 

14.1 

0 

0 

Table 3.16 Local releases of EGBE from formulation of paints (continue) 

Scenario Paints VIF Paints VIIF Paints VIIIF Paints IXF

Main category Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0546 / 

5,300 tonnes 

0.0218 / 

2,120 tonnes 

0.0109 / 

1,060 tonnes 

0.0109 / 

1,060 tonnes 

Regional tonnage 530 tonnes 212 tonnes 106 tonnes 106 tonnes 

Typical max. % of EGBE 8 1 2 2 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.8 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.7 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.8 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.8 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table 3.15) 

0.03 

0 

0 

(Table 3.19) 

0.02 

0.01 

0 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

7.1 

28.3 

0.1 

2.5 

9.9 

0 

8.5 

0 

0 

5.7 

2.8 

0 

38 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.17 Local releases of EGBE from processing of paints 

Scenario Paints IP Paints IIP and 

Paints IIIU* 

Paints IVP Paints VP

Main category Non dispersive use Wide dispersive use Non dispersive use Non dispersive use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.1411 / 

13,700 tonnes 

0.2175 / 

21,100 tonnes 

0.0756 / 

7,340 tonnes 

0.0546 / 

5,300 tonnes 

Regional tonnage 1,370 tonnes 2,110 tonnes 734 tonnes 530 tonnes 

Typical max. % of EGBE 3 3 7 7 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.05 

(Table B4.4) 

300 / 0.002 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A3.15 water 

based) 

0.8 

0.1 

0.001 

(Table A4.5 water 

based) 

0.8 

0.15 

0.01 

(Table 3.6) 

0.94 

0 

0.03 

(Table 3.5) 

0.01** 

0.01 

0 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

182.7 

22.8 

0.2 

11.3 

2.1 

0.1 

230.0 

0 

7.3 

1.8 

1.8 

0 

* It has been confirmed that application conditions vary little between professional and retail decorative paints. The only 

difference is the classification of the persons applying the paints (professionals or private consumers). Consequently, 

these scenarios have been merged and the default emission factors for consumer products will be used (wide 

dispersive use: use outside of a factory). 

** Assuming treatment of flue gases (98% if no treatment) 

Table 3.18 Local releases of EGBE from processing and private use of paints 

Scenario Paints VIP Paints VIIP Paints VIIIP Paints IXP

Main category Non dispersive use Non dispersive use Non dispersive use Non dispersive use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0546 / 

5,300 tonnes 

0.0218 / 

2,120 tonnes 

0.0109 / 

1,060 tonnes 

0.0109 / 

1,060 tonnes 

Regional tonnage 530 tonnes 212 tonnes 106 tonnes 106 tonnes 

Typical max. % of EGBE 8 1 2 2 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

(Table B3.13) 

300 / 0.1 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A3.15 water 

based) 

0.01** 

0.1 

0.001 

(Table A3.15 

solvent based) 

0.9 

0.02 

0.001 

(Table 3.15) 

0.01** 

0 

0 

(Table 3.19) 

0.96 

0.01 

0 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

1.8 

17.7 

0.2 

63.6 

1.4 

0.1 

0.4 

0 

0 

33.9 

0.4 

0 

** Assuming treatment of flue gases (98% if no treatment for solvent-based coatings and 80% for water-based 

 coatings). Indeed, automotive producers operate VOC emission abatement systems to control air emissions 

39
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.19 Local releases of EGBE from formulation, processing and private use of detergents 

Scenario Detergents IF Detergents IP Detergents IIF Detergents IIU

Main category Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Non dispersive use Non dispersive use Wide dispersive use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0850 / 

8,250 tonnes 

0.0850 / 

8,250 tonnes 

0.0283 / 

2,750 tonnes 

0.0283 / 

2,750 tonnes 

Regional tonnage 825 tonnes 825 tonnes 275 tonnes 275 tonnes 

Typical max. % of EGBE 10 10 10 10 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 0.8 

(Table B3.3 for 

waste water only) 

200 / 0.002 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 1 

(Table B4.1 for 

waste water only) 

365 / 0.002 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A2# - liquid)

0.00002 

0.0009 

0.0032 

(Table A3.5) 

0.0025 

0.9 

0.05 

(Table A2# - liquid) 

0.00002 

0.0009 

0.0032 

(Table A4.1) 

0 

0.99 

0.01 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

0 

2.0 

7.0 

- 

7.4 

- 

0 

0.8 

2.9 

- 

1.5 

- 

Table 3.20 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses 

Scenario Intermediates IP Inks IF Inks IP Pharm IP Elec IP

Main category Dedicated 

equipment 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Non dispersive 

use 

Non dispersive 

use 

Non dispersive 

use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.103/10,000 t. 

0.0927/9,000 t. 

(captive use) 

0.0257 / 2,500 t. 0.0257 / 2,500 t. 0.0051 / 500 t. 0.062 / 600 t. 

Regional tonnage 10,000* t. 

9,000* t. (captive 

use) 

250 t. 250 t. 50 t. 60 t. 

Typical max. % of 

EGBE 

100 (default value) 20 20 100 (default 

value) 

100 (default 

value) 

Number of days / 

Fraction of main source 

(Table B3.2) 

300 / 0.25 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 1 

(Table B3.10 

large companies) 

300 / 0.333 

(Table B3.2) 

32 / 0.65 

(Table B3.2) 

12 / 0.5 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A3.3) 

0.00001 

0.007 

0.0001 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.12 – 

printing and allied 

processes) 

0.3 

0.001 

0.0001 

(Table A3.3) 

0.001 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.4) 

0.001 

0.005 

0.01 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

0.1 / 0.1** 

58.3 / 52.5** 

0.8 / 0.8** 

4.2 

16.7 

0.1 

83.3 

0.3 

0 

1.0 

20.3 

0 

2.5 

12.5 

25.0 

* The regional tonnage is the total tonnage (3 EGBEA producers in the EU) 

** Captive use: these amounts will be added to the releases at production 

40 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.21 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continued) 

Scenario Leather IP Adhesives IF Adhesives IP Agri IF Agri IP

Non dispersive use Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Non dispersive 

use 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Wide 

dispersive use Main category 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0051 / 500 t. 0.0051 / 500 t. 0.0051 / 500 t. 0.0021 / 200 t. 0.0021 / 200 t. 

Regional tonnage 50 t. 50 t. 50 t. 20 t. 20 t. 

Typical max. % of 

EGBE 

5 10 10 100 (default 

value) 

1 

Number of days / 

Fraction of main 

source 

(Table B3.4 except for 

waste water release) 

200 / 0.5 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 1 

(Table B3.3 only 

for waste water) 

50 / 0.002 

(Table B2.2) 

300 / 1 

(Table B3.1) 

2 / 0.001 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A3.6 except for 

waste water release) 

0 

specific scenario (see 

Section 3.1.2.2.2) 

0.01 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.5) 

0.05 

0.45 

0.45 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.1) 

1 

0 

0 

Amount released 

(kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

- 

44.5 

1.3 

0.8 

3.3 

0 

- 

0.9 

- 

0.3 

1.3 

0 

10 

0 

0 

Table 3.22 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continued) 

Scenario Oilfield IF Oilfield IP Metal IF Metal IP

Main category Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Wide dispersive 

use 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Non-dispersive 

use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0257 / 2,500 t. 0.0257 / 2,500 t. 0.0206 / 2,000 t. 0.0206 / 2,000 t. 

Regional tonnage 250 t. 250 t. 200 t. 200 t. 

Typical max. % of EGBE 100 100 4 4 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 1 

(Table B3.3 only for 

waste water) 

50 / 0.002 

(Table B2.34) 

300 / 0.8 

(Table B3.6) 

300 / 0.7 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.5) 

0.05 

0.45 

0.45 

(Table A2.1) 

0.01 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A3.7) 

0.25 

Specific scenario 

(see point 

3.1.2.2.3) 

0.05 

Table 3.22 continued overleaf 

41
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.22 continued Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continued) 

Scenario Oilfield IF Oilfield IP Metal IF Metal IP

Main category Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Wide dispersive 

use 

Multi-purpose 

equipment 

Non-dispersive 

use 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

4.2 

16.7 

0.1 

- 

4.5 (specific 

scenario for the 

marine 

compartment – see 

point 3.1.2.2.4) 

- 

5.3 

10.7 

0.1 

116.7 

0. 8 (3 kg – 

intermittent 

release) 

23.3 

Table 3.23 Local releases of EGBE from formulation and processing of other uses (continue)

Scenario Cosmet IF / Fire IF Cosmet IU Fire IP

Main category Multi-purpose equipment - Wide dispersive use 

Total fraction and 

connected tonnage 

0.0082 / 800 t. 0.0051 / 500 t. 0.0031 / 300 t. 

Regional tonnage 80 t. 50 t. 30 t. 

Typical max. % of EGBE 10 (cosmetic products) / 

16 (fire foam) 

10 0.5 

Number of days / Fraction 

of main source 

(Table B2.3) 

300 / 1 

(Table B4.1 only for 

waste water) 

365 / 0.002 

(Table B3.3 only for 

waste water) 

50 / 0.002 

Release estimates 

(fraction) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

(Table A2.1) 

0.005 

0.02 

0.0001 

(Table A4.1) 

0 

0.8 

0.001 

(Table A3.5) 

0.05 

0.45 

0.45 

Amount released (kg/d) 

- air 

- waste water 

- soil 

1.3 

5.3 

0 

- 

0.2 

- 

- 

0.5 

- 

3.1.3 Continental and regional predicted environmental concentrations 

Continental and regional computations are done by means of multimedia fate models based on 

the fugacity concept. The standardised continental and regional environments of the TGD 

(EC, 2003) are used. Table 3.24 shows the calculated continental and regional PECs for air, 

water and soil using EUSES (EC, 2004). These results come from the calculation program 

EUSES (EC, 2004) and do not integrate the emissions due to the scenario “Agri I” because of the 

scenario number limitations of the software. Nevertheless, the calculations have been made for 

this scenario in a separate file and it appears that the impact of emissions volumes for this 

scenario on total continental and regional emissions is negligible. 

42 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.24 Regional PECs in air, water and soil (calculations made by EUSES – SIMPLEBOX model) 

Compartment PEC continental PEC regional 

Air 1.10.10-5 mg/m3 1.15.10-4 mg/m3

Water 9.41.10-4 mg/L 7.35.10-3 mg/L 

Agricultural soil 8.44.10-5 mg/kg (ww) 8.74.10-4 mg/kg (ww) 

Pore water of agricultural soils 1.40.10-4 mg/L 1.45.10-3 mg/L 

Natural soil 1.82.10-4 mg/kg (ww) 1.89.10-3 mg/kg (ww) 

Industrial soil 4.39.10-3 mg/kg (ww) 4.30.10-2 mg/kg (ww) 

Sediment 1.16.10-3 mg/kg (ww) 9.08.10-3 mg/kg (ww) 

Seawater 6.09.10-7 mg/L 6.12.10-4 mg/L 

Marine sediment 7.54.10-7 mg/kg (dw) 7.57.10-4 mg/kg (ww) 

3.1.4 Local predicted environmental concentrations (PEClocal) 

3.1.4.1 Aquatic compartment 

3.1.4.1.1 PEClocal for production 

PECSTP

At production level, the local Predicted Environmental Concentration for micro-organisms in 

STP ranges from 0.02 to 0.49 mg/L (these values include emissions for EGBE processing, for 

on-site EGBEA production) (see Table 3.6) 

PECaqua

Emissions at production and processing levels (EGBE captive use for EGBEA synthesis) result 

in a PEC for surface water ranging from 0.8 to 10.6 μg/L (including the PEC regional for the 

aquatic compartment). The PECaqua for the different production sites are presented in Table 3.25. 

Table 3.25 Local PEC in water at production 

Production sites #1 (PEClocalmarine) #2 #3 #4 #5 

PEClocalaqua (μg/L) 0.8 10.6 9.0 9.6 - 

3.1.4.1.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use 

Concentrations of EGBE in water for formulation, processing and private use in the EU are 

estimated with a generic scenario which was carried out based on default values (TGD – 

EC, 2003) because no site specific data were available. 

It is assumed that the amounts released to water will enter a sewage treatment plant. During 

sewage treatment, 87.4% of EGBE is expected to be removed (see Table 3.5). The default flow 

rate of the treatment plant is 2,000 m3

/day. 

43
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

The effluent concentration leaving the STP (Predicted Environmental Concentration in a STP or 

PECSTP) is calculated according to Equation 3.1. This PECSTP is divided by a dilution factor (10: 

default value) to obtain the local PEC in surface water (see Equation 3.2). The daily amounts 

released for the generic scenarios are the basis for the calculation of the PECs. Table 3.26 gives 

the PECs for the aquatic compartment. PECseawater have been calculated with EUSES 2.0 (EC, 

2004). 

Table 3.26 Local PECSTP and PECaqua for EGBE 

Scenario Daily release 

to waste 

water (kg/d) 

PECSTP

(μg/L) 

Local 

PECaqua

(μg/L) 

Total local 

PECaqua* 

(μg/L) 

Total local 

PECseawater ¤

(μg/L) 

Paints IF / Paints IP 8.2 / 22.8 519 / 1,430 52 / 144 59 / 151 42 / 114 

Paints IIF & IIIF 8.4 533 54 61 43 

Paints IIP and Paints IIIU 2.1 132 13 21 11 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP 0 / 0 - / - - / - 7 / 7 1 / 1 

Paints VF / Paints VP 0 / 1.8 - / 110 - / 11 7 / 18 1 / 9 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP 28.3 / 17.7 1,780/1,090 179 / 109 186 / 116 142 / 87 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP 9.9 / 1.4 623 / 87 63 / 9 70 / 16 50 / 8 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP 0 / 0 - / - - / - 7 / 7 1 / 1 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP 2.8 / 0.4 178 / 22 18 / 3 25 / 10 15 / 2 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP 2.0 / 7.4 125 / 464 13 / 47 20 / 54 11 / 37 

Detergents IIF / Detergents 

IIU

0.8 / 1.5 52 / 93 6 / 10 13 / 17 5 / 8 

Intermediates** IP *** 58.3 736 19 26 59 

Inks IF / Inks IP 16.7 / 0.3 1,050 / 17 105 / 2 112 / 9 84 / 2 

Pharm IP *** 20.3 254 7 14 21 

Elec IP 12.5 791 80 87 63 

Leather IP 44.5 2810 281 288 223 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP 3.3 / 0.9 167 / 55 17 / 6 24 / 13 14 / 5 

Agri IF / Agri IP 1.3 / 0 82 / - 8 / - 15 / 7 7 / 1 

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP

Surface and well cleaning 

Squeeze treatments 

Hydrotest chemicals 

16.7 / 4.5 

- 

- 

- 

1,050 / 276 

- 

- 

- 

105 / 28 

- 

- 

- 

112 / 35 

- 

- 

- 

84 / 23 

7,700 

2,300 

100,000 

Metal IF / Metal IP

Metal intermittent 

10.7 / 0.8 

3 

673 / 51 

1500 

68 / 5 

19 

75 / 12 

26 

54 / 5 

16 

Table 3.26 continued overleaf 

44 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.26 continued Local PECSTP and PECaqua for EGBE 

Scenario Daily release 

to waste 

water (kg/d) 

PECSTP

(μg/L) 

Local 

PECaqua

(μg/L) 

Total local 

PECaqua* 

(μg/L) 

Total local 

PECseawater ¤

(μg/L) 

Cosmet IF & Fire IF/Cosmet IU 5.3 / 0.2 335 / 14 34 / 2 41 / 9 27 / 3 

Fire IP 0.5 32 4 11 2 

* Total local PECaqua = Local PECaqua + regional PECaqua 

¤ Total local PECseawater = Local PECseawater + regional PECseawater

** Captive use not included 

*** Dilution factor = 40 and EFFLUENTSTP = 10,000 m3/day (see scenario for IC3 chemicals used in synthesis) 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

3.1.4.1.3 Measured levels 

Contaminated sites

Ground water sample collections were performed in February 1974 near the “Valley of Drums”, 

Kentucky, USA, a contaminated site. EGBE was detected at a concentration of 2.3.10-2 mg/L in 

one sample out of seven (Stonebreaker and Smith, 1980). 

In April 1980, EGBE was detected by GC/MS at concentrations of 1.31 and 5.68 mg/L in the 

water of the Hayashida River, Hyogo prefecture, Japan. In this surface water, EGBE was 

considered as a contaminant from leather industry effluents. The values represent respectively 

levels after steams and vacuum distillation (Yasuhara et al., 1981). 

EGBE was measured in a municipal waste water treatment plant, in Göteborg, Sweden. Twentyfour hour flow proportional composite were taken in the influent (four samples during 1990 and 

eight samples in 1991) and the effluent (seven samples during 1989-1991). EGBE was separated 

by liquid – liquid extraction with dichloromethane and analysed by GC/MS. The range of 

influent concentrations goes from 0 (non detected) to 2.5.10-1 mg/L (average influent 

concentration in 1990 = 8.5.10-2 mg/L and in 1991 = 2.3.10-2 mg/L). The range of effluent 

concentrations was 0 (non detected) – 3.10-3 mg/L (Paxeus et al., 1992). 

In France, EGBE was detected in the influent of a domestic STP located in northern suburban 

Paris, in 1991 (November, 26). Analysis was performed with purge and trap – high resolution 

capillary GC/MS. EGBE was detected at a concentration of 3.5.10-2 mg/L Nguyen et al., 1994). 

Concentrations of EGBE have been measured with GC/MS in aqueous samples from a municipal 

and an industrial landfill in the United States. They were ranging from < 0.4 (detection limit) to 

84 mg/L. The municipal landfill consisted mostly of municipal waste (four wells were analysed). 

There, EGBE concentrations were detected in wells 3 (18 mg/L) and 4 (84 mg/L) which were 

located in the landfill. EGBE has not been detected in wells 1 and 2 which were located 

downgrade from the landfill. Industrial landfill consisted mostly in industrial waste and EGBE 

concentrations were detected: 2.5 mg/L (well 8), 3 mg/L (wells 5 and 6). In well 7, EGBE has 

not been detected. Wells 5, 6 and 7 were located on the landfill whereas well 8 is a downgrade 

interceptor well located between the landfill and the treatment plant (Beihoffer and Ferguson, 

1994). 

45
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

3.1.4.1.4 Comparison between predicted and measured levels 

Exposure during formulation, processing and private use

Measured concentrations are only available for some uses. In this section, they are compared to 

the concentrations predicted by exposure scenarios. 

EGBE concentrations measured by Yasuhara et al., 1981 can be put in parallel with values 

calculated with scenario “Leather IP”. The measured values, ranging between 1.31 and 

5.68 mg/L show factors 5 or 20 higher than the corresponding PEC calculated in surface water, 

0.288 mg/L. But we must also consider that these data come from a 20 year-old study and 

measurements were performed in a place where EGBE contamination from the leather industry 

was expected. Therefore, these results should be considered as a highly worst-case. 

EGBE was also measured in municipal waste water effluents. In the study by Paxeus et al., 1992 

EGBE concentrations reach 3.10-3 mg/L. In a first time this value can be compared to PECSTP

presented in Table 3.26. These concentrations range between 0.014 and 1.78 mg/L. 

3.1.4.2 Terrestrial compartment 

Different PECs can be determined to assess the exposure level in terrestrial compartment. The 

local PEC in soil is calculated according to the following equation: 

Equation 3.5 Calculation of PEClocalsoil 

soil soil natural soil PEClocal Clocal PECregional = + _

3.1.4.2.1 PEClocal for production 

The different PEClocal in soil at production and processing (EGBE captive use for on-site 

EGBEA production) levels are presented in Table 3.27. 

Table 3.27 PEClocalsoil at production and in situ processing (according to EUSES) 

Site 

# 

Local PEC in agricultural 

soil averaged over 30 days 

(μg/kg ww) 

Local PEC in agricultural 

soil averaged over 180 days 

(μg/kg ww) 

Local PEC in grassland 

averaged over 180 days 

(μg/kg ww) 

1 34.25 11.15 4.72 

2* 1.15 1.15 1.38 

3* 0.88 0.88 0.89 

4* 0.89 0.89 0.89 

5 No data but total annual site production for EGBE < 1kt. 

* At this production site STP sludge is incinerated 

3.1.4.2.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use 

The EUSES models (EC, 2004) take into account both the application of STP sludge on 

agricultural soil and deposition from air for the calculation of EGBE concentrations in the 

46 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

terrestrial compartment. Table 3.298 gives the terrestrial PECs at local scale for the various 

generic scenarios. 

Table 3.28 Local PECsoil for EGBE 

Scenario PECsoil - average 

concentration in 

agricultural soil over 

30 days (μg/kg ww) 

PECsoil - average 

concentration in 

agricultural soil over 

180 days (μg/kg ww) 

PECsoil - average 

concentration in 

grassland over 180 

days (μg/kg ww) 

Paints IF / Paints IP 30 / 84 11 / 32 6 / 23 

Paints IIF & IIIF 31 11 6 

Paints IIP and Paints IIIU 9 4 3 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP 4 / 10 4 / 10 5 / 17 

Paints VF / Paints VP 2 / 8 2 / 4 3 / 3 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP 96 / 59 31 / 20 13 / 8 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP 5 / 9 12 / 6 6 / 7 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP 12 / 4 5 / 3 3 / 4 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP 9 / 26 4 / 9 3 / 5 

Detergents IIF / Detergents IIU 5 / 7 3 / 3 2 / 2 

Intermediates** IP 41 14 6 

Inks IF / Inks IP 57 / 6 19 / 5 8 / 8 

Pharm IP 15 6 3 

Elec IP 44 15 7 

Leather IP 150 47 19 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP 11 / 5 5 / 3 3 / 2 

Agri IF / Agri IP 7 / 3 3.8 / 2.5 3.0 / 2.5 

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP 57 / 17 19 / 6 8 / 4 

Metal IF / Metal IP 38 / 9 13 / 7 6 / 10 

Cosmet IF & Fire IF / Cosmet 

I

U

20 / 3 7 / 2 4 / 2 

Fire IP 4 2 2 

* Captive use not included 

- PECregionalnatural_soil ~ 1.89 μg/kg (ww)Atmosphere 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

47
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

3.1.4.3 Atmosphere 

3.1.4.3.1 PEClocal for production 

Emissions of EGBE in air, both at production and processing (on-site EGBEA production), result 

in an average annual concentration in air (Clocalair,ann) of 1.67 μg/m3

 in the worst case (site 

specific information for site #2). This results in a PEClocalair,ann11 of 1.77 μg/m3. 

3.1.4.3.2 Calculation of PEClocal for formulation, processing and private use 

The calculated annual average EGBE concentrations in air are presented in Table 3.29 for the 

different use patterns. 

Table 3.29 Local PECair for EGBE 

Scenario Concentration 

during emission 

(μg/m3) 

Clocal_air,ann 100m 

from source 

(μg/m3) 

Annual deposition 

(μg/m2/d) 

PEClocal_air,ann* 

(μg/m3) 

Paints IF / Paints IP 3.81 / 50.40 3.13 / 41.40 4.51 / 59.60 3.25 / 41.50 

Paints IIF & IIIF 3.91 3.22 4.63 3.33 

Paints IIP and Paints IIIU 3.11 2.55 3.67 2.67 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP 14.30 / 62.00 11.70 / 51.00 16.90 / 73.40 11.90 / 51.10 

Paints VF / Paints VP 3.93 / 0.49 3.23 / 0.40 4.65 / 0.58 3.35 / 0.51 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP 1.97 / 0.48 1.62 / 0.39 2.33 / 0.57 1.73 / 0.51 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP 0.69 / 17.20 0.56 / 14.10 0.81 / 20.40 0.68 / 14.30 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP 2.35 / 0.10 1.93 / 0.08 2.78 / 0.11 2.05 / 0.19 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP 1.57 / 9.13 1.29 / 7.51 1.86 / 10.80 1.40 / 7.62 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP 0.12 / 7.12.10-4 0.10 / 3.90.10-4 0.14 / 5.62.10-4 0.22 / 0.12 

Detergents IIF / Detergents IIU 5.09.10-3 / 1.43.10-4 4.19.10-3 / 1.43.10-4 6.12.10-3 / 2.06.10-4 0.16 / 0.12 

Intermediates** IP 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.13 

Inks IF / Inks IP 1.16 / 22.50 1.00 / 18.50 1.37 / 26.60 1.07 / 18.60 

Pharm IP 0.30 0.02 0.04 0.14 

Elec IP 0.70 0.02 0.03 0.14 

Leather IP 4.29.10-3 2.33.10-3 3.35.10-3 0.12 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP 0.23 / 8.37.10-5 0.19 / 1.15.10-5 0.27 / 1.65.10-5 0.27 / 0.12 

Agri IF / Agri IP 0.09 / 27.6 0.08 / 0.15 0.10 / 0.22 0.23 / 0.30 

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP 1.16 / 4.22.10-4 0.95 / 5.78.10-5 1.37 / 8.31.10-5 1.07 / 0.12 

Table 3.29 continued overleaf 

 

11 PEClocalair,ann = Clocalair,ann + PECregionalair

48 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.29 continued Local PECair for EGBE 

Scenario Concentration 

during emission 

(μg/m3) 

Clocal_air,ann 100m 

from source 

(μg/m3) 

Annual deposition 

(μg/m2/d) 

PEClocal_air,ann* 

(μg/m3) 

Metal IF / Metal IP 0.93 / 32.4 0.76 / 26.7 1.10 / 38.4 1.33 / 26.80 

Cosmet IF & Fire IF / Cosmet IU 0.37 / 2.06.10-5 0.30 / 2.06.10-5 0.44 / 2.96.10-5 0.42 / 0.12 

Fire IP 4.82.10-5 6.60.10-6 9.49.10-6 0.12 

* PEClocal_air,ann = Clocal_air,ann + regional PECair 

** Captive use not included 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

3.1.4.3.3 Measured levels 

EGBE was detected at 8 μg/m3 in one out of six samples by GC/MS. Indoor air samples were 

collected from 14 homes and a small office in Italy (De Bortoli et al., 1986). 

Concentrations of EGBE have been included in the Environmental Protection Agency’s volatile 

organic compounds national ambient database. This database compiles data on indoor air but not 

industrial space. The average EGBE concentration for 14 samples was 1.05 μg/m3

(median = 0.37 μg/m3; lower quartile = 0.15 μg/m3; upper quartile = 1.77 μg/m3) (Shah and 

Singh, 1988). 

EGBE was also detected in the clean flue gas of a municipal waste incinerator in Germany, in 

1995. It has been measured using the technique of adsorption/thermodesorption and 

adsorption/elution on selected XAD resins and then detected with FID. EGBE concentration was 

0.23 μg/m3 (Jay and Stieglitz, 1995). 

EGBE background levels have been measured by Ciccioli et al., 1993 and Ciccioli, 1996 and 

Ciccioli et al., 1996, in Northern and Southern Europe, in Himalayas and in Antarctica. In the 

first study, concentrations ranged between 0.1 and 1.59 μg/m3

 and in the second between 1.26 

and 14.85 μg/m3

. Industrial or domestic emissions of EGBE were avoided in both studies. Major 

sources seemed to be vegetation in the first case and in the second, marine emission are proposed 

by the authors to explain the measurements. 

3.1.4.3.4 Comparison between predicted and measured levels 

The highest predicted EGBE concentrations in air take place during industrial uses of paints. For 

example, PEClocal_air,ann reaches 51 μg/m3 for the scenario “Paints IVP”. No measured data is 

available in the neighbourhood of plants using paints at high scale so comparison is not possible. 

EGBE emissions in air are often a ten order less at formulation than at processing with most of 

the scenarios used for paints (“Paints I-II/VI-IX”) and printing inks. For other uses, emissions to 

air are reduced: a maximum of ~ 41 μg/m3 occurred for the processing of general industrial 

coatings. Some indoor measured concentrations of EGBE are only presented to get an order of 

magnitude. 

EGBE background levels have been measured in appropriate places in order to avoid industrial 

and domestic sources (by Ciccioli et al., 1993 and Ciccioli, 1996). These studies show a natural 

49
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

production of EGBE by plants and the second study particularly underlined a possible marine 

source of EGBE. 

3.1.4.4 Secondary poisoning 

The bioconcentration factor for fish is very low, so it is not expected that there is a significant 

exposure for humans or predators via the local environment. Moreover, as EGBE is not 

classified as Very Toxic (T+), Toxic (T) or Harmful (Xn and R48), it is assumed that there is a 

low potential for the substance to cause toxic effects if accumulated in higher organisms. 

50 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

3.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND DOSE 

(CONCENTRATION) - RESPONSE (EFFECT ASSESSMENT) 

Studies are classified as valid if they fully describe the test material used, the test organism, the 

test method and conditions and if the endpoint concentration is based upon measured levels. 

Where only some of these criteria are described the tests may be used with care or considered not 

valid. Moreover for some studies or results, some data are lacking, i.e. the original paper is not 

available but only a citation. 

3.2.1 Aquatic compartment (incl. sediment) 

3.2.1.1 Fish 

Acute toxicity

EGBE short term toxicity studies for fish are summarised in Table 3.30. 

Table 3.30 Short term fish toxicity data for EGBE 

Test 

# 

Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Method References Validity 

1 Poecilia 

reticulata 

7 days LC50 983 Not specified Konemann, 1981 Valid with 

restrictions 

2 Menidia 

beryllina*

96 hours LC50 1,125 Not specified Dawson et al., 1975 Valid with 

restrictions 

3 Lebistes 

reticulatus 

96 hours LC0

LC50

LC100

1,000 

1,400 

2,000 

Not specified Knappe and Popp, 

1974 

Invalid 

4 Oncorhynchus 

mykiss 

96 hours LC50 1,474 OECD 

guideline 203, 

1999 

INERIS, 1999b Valid 

5 Lepomis 

macrochirus 

96 hours LC50 1,490 Not specified Dawson et al., 1975 Valid with 

restrictions 

6 Leuciscus idus 

melanotus 

48 hours LC0

LC50

LC100

1,170-1,350 

1,395-1,575 

1,490-1,620 

DIN 38412 part 

15 

Juhnke and 

Lüdemann, 1978 

Valid with 

restrictions 

7 Carassius 

auratus 

24 hours LC50 1,700 APHA n°231 Bridié et al., 1979b Valid with 

restrictions 

8 Leuciscus idus 48 hours LC50 1,880 DIN 38412 part 

15 

Huels, 1982 Invalid 

9 Pimephales 

promelas 

96 hours LC50 2,137 US EPA Dow Chemical Co, 

1979 

Valid with 

restrictions 

10 Lepomis 

macrochirus 

96 hours LC50 2,950 Not specified Dow Chemical Co, 

1981, cited in 

Neely, 1984 

Invalid 

Table 3.30 continued overleaf 

51
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.30 continued Short term fish toxicity data for EGBE 

Test 

# 

Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Method References Validity 

- Fundulus 

heteroclitus* 

96 hours NOEC 

LC50

4 

6.7 

Stephan, 1974 Biospherics Inc., 

1981b 

Invalid** 

- Cyprinodon 

variegatus*

96 hours LC50 116 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 1984 Invalid** 

- Lepomis 

macrochirus 

96 hours LC50 127 Stephan, 1974 CIBA-GEIGY, 1976 Invalid** 

* Marine and estuarine species 

** Test performed with a preparation containing EGBE 

Konemann, 1981 studied the effect of EGBE on a fresh water fish species: Poecilia reticulata

(#1). This test lasted seven days in semi static conditions. The guideline followed was not 

recorded and the purity of EGBE was unknown. Groups of eight 2-3 month-old fish were 

exposed to each concentration tested in following conditions: 22 +/- 1°C, oxygen content 

> 5 mg/L, water hardness = 25 mg/L (CaCO3). Test solutions were renewed daily and a solvent 

vehicle was also employed (acetone or 2-propanol). A log EC50 was measured at 3.92 μmol/L 

(983 mg/L). 

In test #2, performed by Dawson et al., 1975, a chemically pure grade EGBE was tested on the 

marine fish Menidia beryllina. Test was conducted in synthetic seawater, at 20°C with mild 

aeration according to the oxygen demand, water hardness was 55 mg/L (CaCO3). For other test 

conditions see test #5 description. A LC50 of 1125 mg/L was obtained after 96 hours. 

The toxicity of EGBE has been tested on the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss by INERIS, 1999b - test 

#4, according to the OECD guideline No 203. A LC50 of 1,474 mg/L was obtained after 96 hours 

(95% confidence interval = 1,145-1,840 mg/L). Seven fish were disposed per aquarium, in 15 L 

test medium with continuous aeration. Water hardness was 250 mg/L (CaCO3), the range of pH 

during the test was 7.6-8.0 (measured before and after the test), DO between 8.6 and 10.1 and 

temperature was 16 +/- 1°C. Nominal concentrations tested in duplicates were as follow: 0, 100, 

500, 1,000, 2,000 and 4,000 mg/L. The loss of test substance during the test was between 3 and 

13%. 

The test #5 was also performed by Dawson et al., 1975 on the fish species Lepomis macrochirus

and a LC50 of 1,490 mg/L was obtained after 96 hours. The test was conducted in well water, at 

23°C with mild aeration supplied after 24 hours according to the oxygen demand measured daily. 

A range of pH has been measured between the beginning and the end of the test: 7.6-7.9. Fish 

have gone through an acclimation period of 14 days and have not been fed 48 hours prior to 

testing. A minimum of 1 L of test medium was used per gram of fish. No analytical monitoring 

was performed. Moreover, it is reported that some test substances in the study were diluted with 

distilled water or a solvent described as having relatively low toxicity but most samples did not 

required dilution (it can be expected that EGBE did not undergo dilution for its high water 

solubility). 

Test #6 is a static test performed on the fish Leuciscus idus melanotus in parallel in two different 

laboratories by Juhnke and Lüdemann, 1978. A continuous aeration is mentioned (mild 

bubbling) but no data on other test conditions is available. Different Lethal Concentrations were 

measured after 48 hours. Results for both laboratories are presented in Table 3.30. 

52 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA n°231: static tank acute 

toxicity test, have been used by Bridié et al., 1979b so as to measure the toxicity of EGBE (#7). 

A LC50 of 1,700 mg/L has been obtained after 24 hours. Ten fish (Carassius auratus) were used 

for each concentration, in 25 L test medium, at 20°C, pH 7 and solutions were aerated during the 

test period. Concentrations of EGBE in the test medium were determined using a total organic 

carbon analyser or by extraction and GC both at the beginning and at the end of the test but data 

are not available. 

Test #9, conducted with a fresh water fish, Pimephales promelas, by Dow Chemical Co, 1979 

gives a LC50 of 2,137 mg/L after 96 hours (95% confidence interval = 2,022-2,263 mg/L – 

moving average method). The method followed came from the US EPA. A static open system 

was used with raw lake water dechlorinated with activated carbon used in test aquariums 

containing 10 fish. Other test conditions were as follow: temperature = 12°C, pH between 7.6 

and 7.8, water hardness 101 mg/L (CaCO3), three test concentrations (1,550, 2,100, 2,800 mg/L) 

plus control. A water temperature between 20 and 24°C is recommended for Pimephales 

promelas in the directive 92/CEE, method C1 “acute toxicity to fish”. The low water temperature 

employed in this test is thus a reason to restrict its validity. 

Tests number 8 and 10 must be considered as invalid for available data are reduced to minimum 

and, in some cases, reports are not available but only a quotation. Test number 3 is also classified 

as invalid for there were both insufficient data on test conditions and an insufficient number of 

fishes per test concentration (5 fish). 

Long-term toxicity

A chronic toxicity test for EGBE is presented in Table 3.31. 

Table 3.31 Long term fish toxicity data for EGBE 

Test # Species Duration Endpoint Result (mg/L) Method References Validity 

1 Brachydanio 

rario 21 days NOEC > 100 

Project of 

OECD 

guideline 

INERIS, 2001 Valid 

Test conditions for this long term fish toxicity data are detailed in Section 3.2.1.5 of this study 

(endocrine disruption). Neither mortality nor endocrine disruption effect was observed at any test 

concentration. Thus a No Observed Effect Concentration can be set at > 100 mg/L, the highest 

tested concentration. 

3.2.1.2 Aquatic invertebrates 

Acute toxicity

Short term toxicity tests for EGBE are presented in Table 3.32. 

53
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.32 Short term invertebrate toxicity data for EGBE 

Test # Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Method References Validity 

1 Hydra attenuata

or H. vulgaris

(cnideria) 

72 hours EC50 540 

690 

Regeneration 

potential test 

Morphological 

characteristics 

Bowden et al., 

1995 

Valid with 

restrictions 

2 Crangon 

crangon

(crustacea) 

96 hours LC50 698 Not specified Blackman, 

1974 

Lack of data 

3 Daphnia magna 48 hours EC50 835 Not specified Dow Chemical 

Co, 1979 

Valid with 

restrictions 

4 Artemia salina* 

(crustacea) 

24 hours EC50 1,000 Not specified Price et al., 

1974 

Valid with 

restrictions 

5 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC0

EC50

EC100

1,140 

1,720 

2,500 

DIN 38412 part 11 Bringmann and 

Kühn, 1977 

Valid with 

restrictions 

6 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC0

EC50

EC100

1,283 

1,815 

2,500 

DIN 38412 part 11 Bringmann and 

Kuhn, 1982 

Valid with 

restrictions 

7 Daphnia magna 48 hours EC50 1,550 OECD guideline 

n°202 

INERIS, 1999a Valid 

8 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC50 5,000 DIN 38412 part 11 Hoechst, 1982 Lack of data 

- Palaemonetes 

pugio* 

(crustacea) 

96 hours NOEC 

EC50

2 

5.4 

US EPA, 1975 Biospherics 

Inc., 1981a 

Invalid** 

- Crassostrea 

virginica

(oyster)

96 hours LC50 80.5 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 

1984 

Invalid** 

- Panaeus 

setiferus (white 

shrimp)

96 hours LC50 117 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 

1984 

Invalid** 

* Marine species 

** Test performed with a preparation containing EGBE 

Bowden et al., 1995 have conducted their EGBE toxicity test on Hydra attenuata – test #1. The 

aim of this test was to measure the regeneration potential of this organism. Test conditions were 

as follow: 10 isolated digestive regions per test concentration, five test concentrations (90, 180, 

370, 740, 920 mg/L) plus one control, test solutions were renewed every 24 hours. At up to 

370 mg/L, the digestive region had regenerated some tentacles and in some cases the basal disc. 

Only normal wound healing was observed at 740 mg/L while at 920 mg/L the wounds were 

healed but the region expanded. A 72-hour EC50 was derived from these results: 540 mg/L. It 

should be noticed that there was no analytical monitoring and that the endpoint was unusual. 

Moreover no clear effect was shown in presence of the test substance. On the other side, another 

test performed with the same organism by the same team gives a 72-hour EC50 of 690 mg/L. 

Here, the endpoint was based on morphological characteristics. Test conditions were similar and 

10 adult polyps were used per test concentrations. Varying degrees of shortened tentacles and 

body were seen at 740 mg/L and at 920 mg/L polyps were totally contracted. 

54 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Blackman, 1974 conducted a EGBE toxicity test on Crangon crangon and determined a LC50 of 

698 mg/L after 96 hours (test #2). 20 animals were used per test concentration and test solutions 

were renewed every 6, 12 or 24 hours. It should be noticed that the report is poorly documented. 

Dow Chemical Co, 1979 has conducted a test on Daphnia magna. A 48-hour EC50 was obtained: 

835 mg/L (95% confidence interval = 640-1,051 mg/L) – test #3. A static open system was used. 

Aquariums were filled with ten daphnids and raw lake water dechlorinated with activated 

carbon. Five test concentrations (370, 650, 1,000, 1,500, 2,800 mg/L) plus one control were 

tested in three replicates. Temperature was around 20°C, pH between 7.6 and 7.8 and water 

hardness was 101 mg/L (CaCO3). 

Test #4 has been performed with a crustacean, Artemia salina, by Price et al., 1974 and a 

24-hour EC50 of 1,000 mg/L has been determined. The test medium was constituted by artificial 

seawater, at 24.5°C. 30 to 50 shrimp / mL were disposed at the beginning of the test in 100 mL 

test solution. The following EGBE concentrations were tested: 100, 1,000, 10,000 mg/L. At the 

end of the test, the number of alive shrimp was determined with a colony counter. The lack of 

analytical monitoring and the insufficient number of test concentrations have to be deplored. 

In test #5, Bringmann and Kühn, 1977 have tested EGBE toxicity on Daphnia magna, according 

to the method DIN 38412 part 11: immobilisation in artificial fresh water. They noticed a 

24-hour EC50 of 1,720 mg/L. The test was conducted in an open system with 24 hour-old 

daphnids (wild species) in tap water. Temperature ranged between 20 and 22°C and pH was 

about 7.6-7.7. Test solution was saturated with oxygen at the beginning of the essay but no 

mention of O2 concentration at the end of the test was made. Three replicates were conducted for 

each concentration. 

Test #6 has also been performed by Bringmann and Kuhn, 1982 on 24 hour-old Daphnia magna

(IRCHA clone) with the same method as above. The EC50 after 24 hours was 1,815 mg/L (95% 

confidence interval = 1,698-1,940 mg/L). Other test conditions were as follow: open system, 

20°C, pH = 8 +/- 0.2, water hardness was 250 mg/L (CaCO3) and DO was measured at the end of 

the study to check that it was within the range tolerated by daphnids (2mg/L). Concentrations 

were tested in duplicate. 

INERIS, 1999a has tested the toxicity of EGBE on Daphnia magna according to OECD 

guideline 202 (test #7). Five daphnids were used per containers and four replicates were 

performed for each test concentration: 0, 650, 1,000, 1,500, 2,200, 3,350, 5,000 mg/L. Other test 

conditions were as follow: water hardness 250 mg/L (CaCO3), pH = 7.8 +/- 0.2, DO = 

5.3-6.8 mg/L. Less than 10% immobilisation was observed in the control after 48 hours and the 

analytical monitoring revealed a loss of substance during the test < 20%. A 48-hour EC50 of 

1,550 mg/L (95% confidence interval = 1,390-1,720 mg/L) was observed. 

We can notice another 24-hour EC50 result of 5,000 mg/L with Daphnia Hoechst, 1982) – test 

#8. But as no further data is available, this test is classified as invalid. 

Long-term toxicity

Chronic toxicity tests for EGBE are presented in Table 3.33. 

55
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.33 Long term invertebrate toxicity data for EGBE 

Test # Species Duration Endpoint Result (mg/L) Method References Validity 

1 Brachionus 

calyciflorus 48 hours 

EC10

EC20

EC50

7.2 

14.3 

164 

AFNOR NF T 

90-377 

DeVillers et 

al., 2002a 

Not useable 

for PNEC 

derivation 

2 

Daphnia 

magna 21 days 

NOEC 

EC10

EC20

EC50

100 

134 

175 

297 

OECD 

guideline 

n°211 

INERIS, 

1999d Valid 

3 Ceriodaphnia 

dubia 7 days EC10 134.9 Draft AFNOR 

NF T 90 – 376 

DeVillers et 

al., 2003 

Valid with 

restrictions 

The chronic toxicity of EGBE on the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus has been determined by 

DeVillers et al., 2002a according to the French norm AFNOR NF T 90-377 – test #1. Cyst 

hatching was initiated in moderately hard water, about 20 hours before the beginning of the test 

(at 25°C under a light intensity of 3,000 lux.). pH was adjusted to 7.5. After 18 hours of 

incubation, cysts were regularly checked to ensure the removal of test organisms within two 

hours of hatching. The assay was performed in a 48-well microplate (five concentrations plus 

one control with eight replicates). Test media consisted in synthetic fresh water solution with a 

suspension of the green alga Chlorella vulgaris as food source. One rotifer was disposed per well 

(newly hatched rotifer) and the incubation occurred at 25°C in darkness, in a covered microplate. 

After 48 hours, the total number of rotifers per well was counted and EC10, EC20 and EC50 were 

determined by non-linear regression using a log logistic model. The respective confidence 

intervals for these endpoints were as follow: EC10 = 4.5-13.7 mg/L, EC20 = 8.8-37.8 mg/L and 

EC50 = 75-486 mg/L. No analytical monitoring was performed during the test. 

Several points can be highlighted so as to assess the validity of this test performed on 

Brachionus calyciflorus and showing the highest sensitivity. The pros and cons for the validation 

of the test are compiled in Table 3.34. 

Table 3.34 Pros and cons for the validation of the test performed with Brachionus calyciflorus

Issue Pros Cons 

Analytical monitoring The test compound is considered stable in 

similar testing conditions, during 48 hours. Under 

static conditions, the monitoring of test 

concentrations during test #7 for invertebrates 

(INERIS, 1999a) has revealed a loss of the 

substance less than 20%, after 48 hours. 

In order to prevent evaporation of the solvent or 

the test substance during the test (EGBE 

evaporates more slowly than water), the 

microplate was covered. Indeed, the French 

norm recommends that the incubation is carried 

out in a water saturated atmosphere in order to 

avoid losses of test solution by evaporation; for 

example, the microplate can be arranged in a 

closed dish at the bottom of which a film of water 

has been previously deposited. Furthermore, an 

interlaboratory test has been successfully 

performed with copper sulphate and no 

evaporation problem has been encountered. 

No analytical monitoring has been performed 

during the test. Consequently, neither a loss of 

test substance nor a loss of solvent (water) 

during the test duration could not have been 

followed. 

Table 3.34 continued overleaf 

56 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.34 continued Pros and cons for the validation of the test performed with Brachionus calyciflorus 

Issue Pros Cons 

Concentration / effect 

relationship 

Glycol ethers often show non-conventional 

concentration/effect relationships. Such nonconventional curves have already been reported 

for Xenopus exposed to 2-methoxyethanol 

(Daston et al., 1991) or for Hydra attenuata

exposed to EGBE (Bowden et al., 1995). 

DeVillers et al., 2002b has also reported the 

same difficulty in finding clear relationships 

between the tested concentrations and the 

endpoints studied for their tests with 

EGME/EGMA performed on algae, rotifers, 

molluscs, daphnids and fish (some of these tests 

where repeated two or more times so as to 

ensure that they reached their respective 

conditions of acceptance). The authors also 

report that similar conclusions can be drawn from 

an analysis of published papers in which the 

ranges of tested concentrations of EGME are 

given. These tests were performed with 

Pimephales promelas and Drosophila 

melanogaster (Daston et al., 1991), D. 

melanogaster again in Lynch and Toraason, 

1996. 

The test results show a non-conventional 

concentration/effect relationship (a factor of 23 

can be calculated between EC50 and EC10). 

The studies from Daston et al., 1991 and 

Bowden et al., 1995 also show a conventional 

response for methoxyethanol with Hydra and, 

whilst the EGBE response is flat, it is still of 

conventional shape, which is not the case with 

the Brachionus. 

Even if there are indications that the non 

conventional dose-response curves may be a 

general reaction to glycol ethers, no explanation 

has been found to this phenomenon. 

Normalisation The test has been carried out following a French 

norm (NF T 90-377). An ISO norm is also in 

preparation. 

The methodology used for the test with rotifers is 

not as well normalised as the one for standard 

tests usually used for effect assessments of 

chemicals. 

Higher sensitivity For EGBE, the Brachionus test shows the 

highest sensitivity among all species tested. A 

ratio of 18.6 can be calculated between the 

ECs10 for Daphnia magna and Brachionus

indicating a greater sensitivity of Brachionus

compared to Daphnia magna. This is not in 

accordance with the trend generally observed 

when sensitivities of both species are compared, 

giving a ration of 2 between Brachionus and 

Daphnia indicating that Daphnia would be twice 

as sensitive as Brachionus (RIVM, 2004). 

Oxygenation of the 

test media 

Daphnia 48-hour test can be taken for 

comparison with the 48-hour Brachionus test. In 

an acute daphnids test (INERIS, 1999a), the 

measured dissolved oxygen concentration at the 

end of the test was between 5.3 and 6.8 mg/L. It 

can be expected that a similar DO level was 

maintained during the rotifer test. Although test 

solution volumes are lower in the rotifer test, both 

tests show similar conditions and the same 

duration 

Since no aeration took place and the test wells 

were covered during the test phase, it should 

have been reported how appropriate oxygen 

concentration was maintained during the whole 

test phase. This was not done. In fact, because 

EGBE is readily biodegradable, oxygen depletion 

is possible, which would mean that the low 

NOECs of the Brachionus calyciflorus studies 

were not caused by the toxic properties of 

EGBE. This may not occur to a significant 

degree over the timescale of the study but, with 

no oxygen data, it is not possible to be certain. 

Considering all the elements from Table 3.34 no clear reason can be found to fully invalidate the 

test. However, considering all the elements highlighted that have triggered off some concerns for 

the validation of this test, this study will be excluded from the PNEC derivation. This decision is 

also supported by the availability of standard toxicity test results such as the one performed with 

Daphnia magna (test #2). 

57
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Test #2 performed by INERIS, 1999d on Daphnia magna according to OECD guideline No 211, 

revealed a 21-day NOEC of 100 mg/L. Five concentrations (0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 500 mg/L + 

control) were tested and solutions were renewed three times a week. Other test conditions were 

as follows: pH = 7.5-7.8, temperature = 20 +/- 2°C, DO ranged between 6.9 and 8.2 mg/L and 

water hardness was 220 mg/L (CaCO3). A partial analytical monitoring has been performed, i.e. 

only for concentrations of 100 and 500 mg/L, and loss of substance over test duration was 

ranging between 3 and 14%. The confidence intervals for the endpoints measured were as 

follow: EC10 = 110-140 mg/L, EC20 = 150-180 mg/L and EC50 = 282-300 mg/L. 

DeVillers et al., 2003 – test #3 - have tested the toxicity of EGBE on Ceriodaphnia dubia

according to the draft of the method AFNOR NF T90-376 (equivalent to OECD guideline 

No 211). An EC10 of 134.9 mg/L has been determined after seven days. One daphnid was 

disposed per container, in ten replicates. The parental mortality and the number of offspring per 

living parent were used as endpoints. Other test conditions are shown here: eight concentrations 

plus control were tested at a temperature of 23 +/- 1°C and pH = 8-9, DO = 8.1-8.3 mg/L and 

water hardness was 200 +/- 40 mg/L (CaCO3). There was no analytical monitoring because 

preliminary studies showed that EGBE was stable at least during 24 hours, i.e. between two 

renewals. Furthermore, the dose – response curve was not clear and the 95% confidence interval 

for the EC10 ranged between 25.3 and 147.4 mg/L. A NOEC (55.6 mg/L) and an EC50

(138.2 mg/L) have also been calculated in another report (INERIS, 1999c) but methods used for 

calculation tend to give a preference to the EC10 value. 

3.2.1.3 Algae 

Toxicity tests for EGBE are summarised in Table 3.35. 

Table 3.35 Algae toxicity data for EGBE 

Test # Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Method References Validity 

1 Microcystis 

aeruginosa 

8 days EC3

(biomass) 

35 Cell multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann and 

Kühn, 1976 

Not useable for 

PNEC derivation 

2 Pseudokirchn

eriella 

subcapitata 

72 hours NOEC 286 OECD guideline 

n°201 

INERIS, 1999e Valid 

3 Selenastrum 

capricornutum 

7 days NOEC 

LOEC 

EC50

125 

250 

>1,000 

US EPA 600/9-78-

018 

Dill and 

Milazzo, 1988 

Not useable for 

PNEC derivation 

4 Scenedesmus 

quadricauda 

8 days EC3

(biomass) 

900 Cell multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann and 

Kühn, 1978 

Not useable for 

PNEC derivation 

Note: in some tests performed by Bringmann, TGK (Toxische GrenzKonzentration) values were 

established. As the percentage effect at the TGK is 3 or 5% (EC3 or EC5) these values are 

regarded as NOEC values. 

Bringmann and Kühn, 1976 have performed a EGBE toxicity test on the algae Microcystis 

aeruginosa – test #1. The test occurred in a closed static system and 14 concentrations were 

tested in duplicates (dilution with a pace of two from a stock solution). Agitation took place once 

a day and the test was conducted at 27°C in a neutral pH. The biomass was measured by 

spectrophotometry at 578 nm and an EC3 of 35 mg/L was determined after eight days. This EC3

can be considered as a NOEC. It should be noted that several drawbacks are associated with this 

58 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

study. Indeed, the test should have been performed during the exponential growth phase of algal 

cells. However, algal cells could not have been maintained in this phase within the duration of 

the study (7 days). There is also a deviation from more standard test results when converting the 

endpoint measured in the study (EC3) to a NOEC or EC10. Finally, the result obtained in this 

study is based on biomass and is comparable with test #2 and #3 results for biomass 

measurements too. Nevertheless, growth rate measurement is usually preferred when assessing 

the toxicity towards algae. Therefore, this study will not be used for the PNEC calculation. 

A NOEC of 286 mg/L was determined in test #2 (INERIS, 1999e) based on growth rate 

determination. This test was performed according to the OECD guideline No 201. Test 

conditions were as follow: 23 +/- 2°C, pH between 7.6 and 8.3, cell concentration = 

10,000 cells/mL, illumination was set at 7,000 lux. and test medium was subject to agitation. 

Nominal concentrations are presented hereafter: 0, 88, 159, 286, 514, 926, 1,667 and 

3,000 mg/L. There was an analytical monitoring and loss of substance over test duration ranged 

between 2 and 11%. Other endpoints have been measured during this test. A 72-hour NOEC of 

88 mg/L, an EC10 of 308 mg/L and an EC50 of 911 mg/L were determined as far as biomass is 

concerned. 

Test #3 has been performed by Dill and Milazzo, 1988 on the alga Selenastrum capricornutum. 

A 7-day NOEC of 125 mg/L has been determined according to a method from the US EPA: the 

Selenastrum capricornutum Printz algal assay EPA-600/9-78-018. Test conditions were as 

follow: pH was measured before and after the test and ranged between 7.4 and 7.8, temperature = 

24 +/- 2°C, initial cell concentration = 10,000 cells/mL, illumination was set at 4,304 +/- 

403 lux. Five concentrations (63, 125, 250, 500 and 1,000 mg/L) plus one control were tested in 

three replicates. Endpoints taken into account were the number of cells / mL and the total cell 

volume; two counts per replicate were performed with an electronic counter. It can be noticed 

that the highest concentration tested did not inhibit 50% growth. The comments made on test #1 

for its validation apply also for this test. 

Bringmann and Kühn, 1978 examined, in test #4, the toxicity of EGBE on Scenedesmus 

quadricauda. An EC3 of 900 mg/L (equivalent to a NOEC) was determined according to 

biomass measurement by spectrometry at 578 nm. Test conditions are shown hereafter: closed 

static system, neutral pH, temperature = 27°C, agitation once a day. 14 concentrations were 

tested in duplicate but no analytical monitoring took place. The comments made on test #1 for its 

validation apply also for this test. 

3.2.1.4 Micro-organisms 

EGBE toxicity studies with micro-organisms are presented in Table 3.36. 

59
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.36 Micro-organisms toxicity data for EGBE 

Test # Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Method References Validity 

1 Entosiphon 

sulcatum* 

(protozoa) 

72 hours EC5 91 Cell 

multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann, 

1978 

Valid with 

restrictions 

2 Uronema 

parduzci

(protozoa)

20 hours EC5 463 Cell 

multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann 

and Kühn, 

1980 

Valid with 

restrictions 

3 Pseudomon

as putida

(bacteria)

16 hours EC3 700 Cell 

multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann 

and Kühn, 

1976 

Valid with 

restrictions 

4 Chilomonas 

paramecium* 

(protozoa) 

48 hours EC5 911 Cell 

multiplication 

inhibition test 

Bringmann

et al., 1980 

Valid with 

restrictions 

* Unciliated 

The toxicity of EGBE on protozoa has been evaluated in three tests (#1,2,4). To assess the 

toxicity of a chemical on micro-organisms tests conducted on ciliated protozoa are accepted but 

only one micro-organism is matching this characteristic: Uronema parduzci (#2), the others 

belong to unciliated protozoa. The cell multiplication inhibition was measured with an electronic 

cell counter. Tests were performed in a closed static system, at 25°C and neutral pH and 

14 concentrations were tested in duplicate. 

A test performed with the bacteria Pseudomonas putida (Bringmann and Kühn, 1976) is also 

quoted – test #3. The cell multiplication inhibition was retained as an endpoint (biomass 

measurement via extinction at 436 nm) and the test was performed in a closed static system 

during 16 hours, at 25°C and neutral pH. A range of 14 concentrations was tested in duplicate. 

3.2.1.5 Endocrine disruption 

A test has been conducted so as to identify a potential endocrine disrupting effect due to EGBE: 

INERIS, 2001. This study was performed according to an OECD guideline project based on the 

OECD guideline n°204. Fish (Brachydanio rerio) have been exposed during 21 days at three 

EGBE concentrations: 1, 10, 100 mg/L plus one control. No mortality was observed at any test 

concentration. Moreover the substance did not induce a higher vitellogenin synthesis (lower 

quantities than in the control were actually measured). Although a lower gonado-somatic index12

was observed at the lowest concentration this was not the case for higher ones. After an exposure 

to the positive control substance (oestradiol, an oestrogenic chemical) the brachydanio female 

presented genito-urinary buds which can normally only be found on the male. The percentage of 

apparition of genito-urinary buds was less than 10% in all treatment groups compared to 40% in 

the group of fish in contact with oestradiol. 

To conclude, EGBE has no potential for endocrine disruption. 

 

12 Ratio of weight of gonads compared to weight of total organism. 

60 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1.6 PNEC for the aquatic compartment 

Three long term test results from three species representing three trophic levels will be used to 

derive the PNECaqua for EGBE. These tests are gathered in Table 3.37. 

Table 3.37 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of PNECaqua

Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Reference Lowest short term toxicity result for 

the same trophic level 

Fish: Brachydanio 

rerio 21 days NOEC > 100 INERIS, 

2001 

Poecilia reticulata LC50 after 7 days = 

983 mg/L (Konemann, 1981). 

Invertebrates: 

Daphnia magna 21 days NOEC 100 DeVillers et al., 2002a 

Hydra attenuata EC50 after 72 hours 

=540 mg/L (Bowden et al., 1995) 

Daphnia magna EC50 after 48 hours = 

835 mg/L (Dow Chemical Co, 1979) 

Algae: 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata

72 hours NOEC 286 INERIS, 

1999e 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata EC50

after 72 hours = 911 mg/L (INERIS, 

1999e) 

An assessment factor of 10 is applied to the lowest test result in order to derive the PNECaqua: 

PNECaqua = 10 mg/L 

To support this assessment, we can add that EGBE is a non-polar narcotic (OECD, 1995) and 

acts with a non-specific mod of action in organisms. Although a smaller Assessment Factor can 

be used to derive a PNEC for non polar narcotics, a factor lower than 10 is not recommended by 

TGD (EC, 2003). Only additional studies, i.e. field data or model ecosystems, could result, after 

a review on a case by case basis, in a lower assessment factor. Nevertheless, the knowledge of a 

non-specific mode of action for EGBE seconds the PNECaqua proposal. 

Table 3.38 shows ecotoxicity results calculated from a log Kow of 0.8 and a molar weight of 

118.17 g/mol. The equations for non-polar narcotics given in Table 1 of Chapter 4, Part III of 

TGD (EC, 2003) were used to estimate QSAR ecotoxicity data. 

Table 3.38 QSAR ecotoxicity data for EGBE 

Species Enpoint Result (mg/L) 

Fish: Pimephales promelas 96-hour LC50 1,006 

Fish: Brachydanio rerio or Pimephales promelas 28, 32-day NOEC 113 

Daphnia: Daphnia magna 48-hour EC50 983 

Daphnia: Daphnia magna 16-day NOEC 242 

Algae: Selenastrum capricornutum 72, 96-hour EC50 1,103 

The close relationship between predicted ecotoxicity of EGBE and results from ecotoxicity tests 

confirms that EGBE does not act with a specific action manner. 

61
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

3.2.1.6.1 Calculation of the intermittent PNEC for freshwater 

For substances subject to intermittent release, long-term effects are not likely to occur. 

Consequently, the effect assessment for substances with intermittent release is based on the acute 

toxicity data set. For EGBE, these tests are gathered in Table 3.39. 

Table 3.39 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of the intermittent PNECaqua

Species Duration Endpoint Result 

(mg/L) 

Reference 

Fish: Poecilia reticulata 7 days LC50 983 Konemann, 1981 

Invertebrates: Hydra 

attenuata 72 hours EC50 540 Bowden et al., 1995 

Algae: 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata

72 hours EC50 911 INERIS, 1999e 

Usually an assessment factor of 100 applies to the lowest result of toxicity tests performed on 

three trophic levels. It has been established that EGBE can be classified as non-polar narcotic. 

This could be a rationale for a lowering of the assessment factor. Consequently: 

PNECaqua,inter = 540 / 10 = 54 mg/L. 

3.2.1.6.2 Calculation of the PNEC for the seawater compartment 

Chronic toxicity data on three freshwater species representing three trophic levels are available. 

Only acute toxicity data on marine organisms (fish and invertebrates) are available. 

Nevertheless, the species tested do not show higher sensitivities than freshwater organisms. 

According to TGD (EC, 2003), both freshwater and seawater species are used to derive the 

PNEC for seawater. Thus the PNEC for marine organisms is determined from the lowest chronic 

test result (NOEC (21 days) = 100 mg/L on Daphnia magna) to which an assessment factor of 

100 is applied as proposed in the TGD. This gives a PNECsaltwater of 1 mg/L. 

3.2.1.6.3 Calculation of the intermittent PNEC for seawater 

An assessment factor of 1,000 should be applied on the lowest acute toxicity test result in order 

to determine an intermittent PNEC for seawater. For the same reason explained above, this factor 

could be lowered. Consequently: PNECsaltwater,inter = 540/100 = 5.4 mg/L. 

3.2.1.7 Calculation of a PNEC for the sediment compartment 

As no specific data is available for this compartment, the PNECsed will be calculated from the 

PNECaqua using the equilibrium partitioning method. 

62 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Equation 3.6 Formula for the calculation of PNECsed using the equilibrium partitioning approach 

= × ×1000 −

aqua

susp

watersusp

sed PNEC

RHO

K

PNEC

PNECsed Predicted No Effect Concentration in sediment [mg/kg, wet weight] 

Ksusp-water partition coefficient suspended matter / water [~1.58 m3/m3] 

RHOsusp bulk density of wet suspended matter [~1150 kg/m3] 

PNECaqua Predicted No Effect Concentration in water [10 mg/L] 

This results in: PNECsed = 13.7 mg/kg (ww) 

3.2.1.7.1 Calculation of the PNEC for the marine sediment compartment 

No test is available on sediment dwelling organisms exposed via sediment. The PNEC for 

organisms living in marine sediments may provisionally be calculated using the equilibrium 

partitioning method from the PNEC for the marine aquatic compartment (PNECsaltwater). 

Thus, the PNECmarine sed = 1.4 mg/kg wet weight of marine sediment. 

3.2.1.8 PNEC for micro-organisms in STP 

Four EGBE toxicity tests on micro-organisms are quoted. Three tests were conducted with 

protozoa and one with an individual bacteria species. Studies testing ciliated protozoa can be 

used for the determination of a PNECmicro-organisms. That is why the test conducted on Uronema 

parduzci will be retained for the PNEC determination. 

PNECmicro-organisms = 463 mg/L. 

3.2.2 Terrestrial compartment 

Since there are no EGBE toxicity data for terrestrial organisms, no PNECsoil can be derived 

directly. Therefore, this PNEC was estimated from the PNEC for aquatic organisms using the 

equilibrium partitioning approach. 

Equation 3.7 Formula for the calculation of PNECsoil using the equilibrium partitioning approach 

= × ×1000 −

aqua

soil

watersoil

soil PNEC

RHO

K PNEC

PNECsoil Predicted No Effect Concentration in soil [mg/kg, wet weight] 

Ksoil-water partition coefficient soil water [~1.025 m3/m3] 

RHOsoil bulk density of wet soil [~1700 kg/m3] 

PNECaqua Predicted No Effect Concentration in water [10 mg/L] 

This results in: PNECsoil = 6 mg/kg (ww) 

63
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

3.2.3 Atmosphere 

No data are available in order to correctly assess the effect of EGBE for species living in the 

environment and exposed via the air compartment. In a first attempt to quantify the risk for this 

compartment, inhalation toxicity data from the human risk assessment have been reported in this 

section. 

In a repeat dose study with rats exposed by inhalation, a NOAEC value of 25 ppm (121 mg/m3) 

has been identified from a sub-chronic study. During these studies, haemolysis was consistently 

observed and sometimes associated with hepatic effects. Effects on body weight gain, on the 

forestomach and on the WBC sub-populations (T limphocyte) were also observed. In a separate 

study a LOAEC of 31 ppm (150 mg/m3) has been determined for mice and rats. Due to the 

closeness of the apparent LOAEC and NOAEC, it has been considered prudent to take the more 

conservative LOAEC of 31 ppm forward for the human health risk characterisation (with 

appropriate assessment factors). However, as the approach taken for the risk characterisation for 

the environmental section (atmospheric compartment) should be considered as a first tier, the 

NOAEC will be retained. 

3.2.4 Secondary poisoning 

No specific data available. 

64 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

3.3 RISK CHARACTERISATION 

3.3.1 Aquatic compartment (incl. sediment) 

STP and surface water (including seawater)

Table 3.40 presents the calculated PEC / PNEC ratios for the aquatic compartment. PECs for 

STP and surface water appear in Section 3.1.4.1 of this study whereas the corresponding PNECs 

are determined in Section 3.2.1: 463 mg/L for the PNECSTP and 10 mg/L for PNECaqua (1 mg/L 

for PNECsaltwater). 

Table 3.40 Risk characterisation for micro-organisms in STP and aquatic organisms 

Scenario RCRSTP RCRaqua RCRseawater

Production site #1 0 (3.10-5) n. a. 0 (8.10-4) 

Production site #2 0 (7.10-5) 0.001 n. a. 

Production site #3 0 (6.10-6) 0.001 n. a. 

Production site #4 0 (4.10-6) 0.001 n. a. 

Paints IF / Paints IP 0 (7.10-5) / 0 (2.10-4) 0.006 / 0.015 0.042 / 0.114 

Paints IIF & IIIF 0 (7.10-5) 0.006 0.043 

Paints IIP and Paints IIIU 0 (3.10-4) 0.002 0.011 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP - / - 0 (7.10-4) / 0 (7.10-4) 0.001 / 0.001 

Paints VF / Paints VP - / 0 (1.4.10-5) 0 (7.10-4) / 0.002 0.001 / 0.009 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP 0 (3.10-4) / 0 (1.4.10-4) 0.019 / 0.012 0.142 / 0.087 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP 0 (7.10-5) / 0 (1.4.10-5) 0.007 / 0.002 0.050 / 0.008 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP - / - 0 (7.10-4) / 0 (7.10-4) 0.001 / 0.001 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP 0 (3.10-5) / 0 (4.10-6) 0.003 / 0.001 0.015 / 0.002 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP 0 (2.10-5) / 0 (7.10-5) 0.002 / 0.005 0.011 / 0.037 

Detergents IIF / Detergents IIU 0 (7.10-6) / 0 (1.10-5) 0.001 / 0.002 0.005 / 0.008 

Intermediates** IP 0 (1.10-4) 0.003 0.059 

Inks IF / Inks IP 0 (1.10-4) / 0 (3.10-6) 0.011 / 0 (9.10-4) 0.084 / 0.002 

Pharm IP 0 (4.10-5) 0.001 0.021 

Elec IP 0 (1.10-4) 0.009 0.063 

Leather IP 0 (4.10-4) 0.029 0.223 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP 0 (3.10-5) / 0 (7.10-6) 0.002 / 0.001 0.014 / 0.005 

Agri IF / Agri IP 0 (1.10-5) / - 0.002 / 0 (7.10-4) 0.007 / 0.001 

Table 3.40 continued overleaf 

65
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.40 continued Risk characterisation for micro-organisms in STP and aquatic organisms 

Scenario RCRSTP RCRaqua RCRseawater

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP 0 (1.10-4) / 0 (4.10-5) 0.011 / 0.004 0.084 / 0.023

Metal IF / Metal IP

Metal intermittent 

0.001 / 0 (1.10-4) 

0.003 

0.007 / 0.001 

0 (5.10-4) 

0.054 / 0.005 

0 (5.10-4) 

Cosmet IF & Fire IF / Cosmet IU 0 (5.10-5) / 0 (2.10-6) 0.004 / 0 (9.10-4) 0.027 / 0.003 

Fire IP 0 (5.10-6) 0.001 0.002 

* Captive use not included 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

For the risk characterisation at production and processing taking place on-site, the worst case 

based on site-specific data gives a risk characterisation ratio of 0.001 for freshwater and 8.10-4

for seawater. 

For some end uses, formulation and processing steps can be achieved at a same site. So, in order 

to characterise the total risk at such sites it is necessary to add the calculated risks for each step. 

According to Table 3.40 no risk is identified for all end uses even when both formulation and 

processing can be considered at a same site (dimmed lines of Table 3.40). 

No risk assessment could have been performed concerning the use of EGBE in oil spill 

dispersants (see Section 3.1.2.2.5). Nevertheless, no conclusion will be drawn concerning this 

use in the EU risk assessment since it has to be acknowledged that the decision whether to use a 

dispersant is made with the regulatory authorities case-by-case and on a risk benefit basis. It is 

generally accepted that dispersants create adverse effects but their use is intended to mitigate the 

even worse potential effects of environmentally hazardous oil products. For this reason, even if 

detailed composition information was available, it would still not be possible to carry out such a 

risk benefit analysis within the framework of the Existing Substances risk evaluation process. 

As far as the use of oilfield chemicals is concerned, specific regulations are in place in different 

EU countries. Because they use detailed information supplied under confidentiality terms, 

specific assessments performed under these regulations should be regarded as more precise than 

those carried out in this assessment. For instance, detailed information is provided by the 

manufactures on actual usage and emission rates. Consequently, in the knowledge that the use of 

such products is controlled by specific legislation, a Conclusion (ii) is appropriate. 

EGBE is readily biodegradable and has a low potential for accumulation in biota. Consequently, 

this substance will not remain in the environment and secondary poisoning is not expected. 

Based on the risk assessment performed for freshwater and on the lack of specific hazard 

identified for the marine environment, no risk is expected in the marine compartment. 

Sediment (freshwater and marine sediments)

As neither monitoring data on levels of EGBE in sediment nor ecotoxicity data for benthic 

organisms are available, no risk characterisation is conducted for this compartment. In addition, 

the partition coefficient between sediment and water for EGBE is low. So it can be assumed that 

the risk assessment for the sediment is covered by that for surface water (freshwater and 

seawater). 

66 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the aquatic compartment

Conclusion (ii). 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

3.3.2 Terrestrial compartment 

Risk characterisation for the terrestrial compartment has been performed calculating PEC/PNEC 

ratios. PECs for soil have been estimated in Section 3.1.4.2 and the corresponding PNEC has 

been determined in Section 3.2.2 (6 mg/kg, wet weight). Results are shown in Table 3.41. 

Table 3.41 Risk characterisation for terrestrial compartment 

Scenario RCRagricultural_soil_over_30_days RCRgrassland_over_180_days

Production site #1 0.006 0 (8.10-4) 

Production site #2 0 (2.10-4) 0 (3.10-4) 

Production site #3 0 (2.10-4) 0 (2.10-4) 

Production site #4 0 (2.10-4) 0 (2.10-4) 

Paints IF / Paints IP 0.005 / 0.014 0 (9.10-4) / 0.004 

Paints IIF and IIIF 0.005 / 0.013 0 (9.10-4) / 0.003 

Paints IIP and Paints IIIU 0.002 0 (6.10-4) 

Paints IVF / Paints IVP 0 (5.10-4) / 0.002 0 (8.10-4) / 0.003 

Paints VF / Paints VP 0 (3.10-4) / 0.001 0 (4.10-4) / 0 (3.10-4) 

Paints VIF / Paints VIP 0.016 / 0.011 0.002 / 0.003 

Paints VIIF / Paints VIIP 0.006 / 0.001 0 (9.10-4) / 0.001 

Paints VIIIF / Paints VIIIP 0 (2.10-4) / 0 (4.10-4) 0 (3.10-4) / 0 (6.10-4) 

Paints IXF / Paints IXP 0.002 / 0 (6.10-4) 0 (4.10-4) / 0 (6.10-4) 

Detergents IF / Detergents IP 0.001 / 0.004 0 (3.10-4) / 0 (7.10-4) 

Detergents IIF / Detergents IIU 0 (7.10-4) / 0.001 0 (2.10-4) / 0 (3.10-4) 

Intermediates** IP 0.032 0.004 

Inks IF / Inks IP 0.009 / 0 (9.10-4) 0.001 / 0.001 

Pharm IP 0.011 0.001 

Elec IP 0.007 0 (9.10-4) 

Leather IP 0.025 0.003 

Adhesives IF / Adhesives IP 0.002 / 0 (7.10-4) 0 (4.10-4) / 0 (2.10-4) 

Agri IF / Agri IP 0.001 / 0 (4.10-4) 0 (5.10-4) / 0 (4.10-4) 

Oilfield IF / Oilfield IP 0.009 / 0.003 0.001 / 0 (4.10-4) 

Table 3.41 continued overleaf 

67
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Table 3.41 continued Risk characterisation for terrestrial compartment 

Scenario RCRagricultural_soil_over_30_days RCRgrassland_over_180_days

Metal IF / Metal IP 0.008 / 0.002 0.001 / 0 (4.10-4) 

Cosmet IF and Fire IF / Cosmet IU 0.003 / 0 (3.10-4) 0 (5.10-4) / 0 (2.10-4) 

Fire IP 0 (4.10-4) 0 (2.10-4) 

* Captive use not included 

P Processing 

F Formulation 

U Private use 

For the risk characterisation at production and processing taking place on-site it can be noticed 

that no risk is expected. According to the figures presented in Table 3.41, no risk is expected at 

formulation, processing or private use stages. 

For some end uses, formulation and processing steps can be achieved at a same site (see Table

3.41). So, in order to characterise the total risk at such sites it is necessary to add the calculated 

risks for each step. According to Table 3.41 no risk is identified for all end uses where both 

formulation and processing are considered. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the terrestrial compartment:

Conclusion (ii). 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

3.3.3 Atmosphere 

No specific effect data are available in order to accurately assess the risk for the atmospheric 

compartment. However, due to the volatility of EGBE, direct emissions to air should not be 

overlooked. In a first attempt to quantify the risk for the air compartment, a NOAEC of 

121 mg/m3

 will be compared to the PECs calculated for air. This NOAEC has been determined 

in a study where rats where exposed via inhalation. 

The worst PEClocal_air,ann of 51 μg/m3 has been calculated for the scenario Paint IVP (use in can 

coatings). 

Using the methodology described in the risk characterisation for consumers, a minimal margin of 

safety (MOS) can be calculated as follows: 

Interspecies differences 0.1 (based on rationale described in the risk 

characterisation for workers part to account for relative 

species sensitivity to critical end point) 

Intraspecies differences 10 (default for consumers) 

Type of effect 1 

Confidence of the database 1 

Minimal MOS required 1 

68 
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

The ratio between the threshold retained in the effect assessment and this worst case exposure is 

about a factor of 2,400. This rough risk characterisation for the air compartment leads to no 

concern by a sufficiently large margin that a more accurate assessment is not considered 

necessary. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for atmosphere

Conclusion (ii).

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

3.3.4 Secondary poisoning 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for secondary poisoning

Conclusion (ii).

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

69
4 HUMAN HEALTH 

(to be added later). 

70 
5 RESULTS 

5.1 ENVIRONMENT 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the aquatic compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and no need 

for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the terrestrial compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and no need 

for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for the atmospheric compartment

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and no need 

for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

Conclusions to the risk assessment for secondary poisoning

Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and no need 

for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already. 

Conclusion (ii) is applied to all levels of the life cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, 

processing and private use. 

5.2 HUMAN HEALTH 

(to be added later). 

71
6 REFERENCES 

Aschmann SM and Atkinson R (1998) Kinetics of the gas-phase reactions of the OH radical with selected glycol 

ethers, glycols, and alcohols. Int. J. Chem. Kinetics 30 (8), 533-540. 

ASTER (1996) Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk, ASTER ecotoxicity profile. Cited in Environment 

Canada, Health Canada (2000) Priority substances list assessment report 2-butoxyethanol, Canadian Environmental 

Protection Act, 1999, Draft for public comments, August 2000, 89p. Dulth, Minnesota, National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Lanoratory, US EPA. 

Atkinson R (1987) A structure-activity relationship for the estimation of rate contants for the gas-phase reactions of 

OH radicals with organic compounds. Int. J. Chem. Kinetics 19, 799-828. 

ATSDR (1998) Toxicological profile for 2-butoxyethanol and 2-butoxyethanol acetate, August 1998. 

BASF (2002) Butyl Glycol safety data sheet, Safety data sheet, 06.05.2002: 7. 

BASF AG (1980) Labor Oekologie, Zahn/Wallens assay (Unpublished report), 112/1980, 8.12.1980. 

Beihoffer J and Ferguson C (1994) Determination of selected carboxylic acids and alcohols in groundwater by GCMS. J. Chromatographic Science 32, 102-106. 

Biospherics Inc. (1981a) The acute toxicity of Wellaid 791 (2-butoxyethanol) to the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes 

pugio. Report prepared for Standard Oil Company by Biospherics Inc, Rockville, Maryland (No. 81-3-9689 GS). 

Biospherics Inc. (1981b) The acute toxicity of Wellaid 791 (2-butoxyethanol) to the mummichog, Fundulus 

heteroclitus. Report prepared for Standard Oil Company by Biospherics Inc, Rockville, Maryland (No. 81-3-9689 

M). 

Blackman RAA (1974) Toxicity of oil-sinking agents. Marine Poll. Bull. 5, 116-118. 

Bonn Agreement (2001) Bonn Agreement - Counter pollution manual. 2004. http://www.bonnagreement.org

Bowden HC, Wilby OK, Botham CA, Adam PJ and Ross FW (1995) Assessment of the toxic and potential 

teratogenic effects of four glycol ethers and two derivatives using the hydra regeneration assay and rat whole 

embryo culture. Toxic. in Vitro 9 (5), 773-781. 

BP (2002). Technical data sheet: butyl glycol ether, January: 2. 

BP Chemicals (1998) Product technical information - butyl glycol ether (BGE), August: 9. 

Bridié AL, Wolff CJM and Winter M (1979a) BOD and COD of some petrochemicals. Water Res. 13, 627-630. 

Bridié AL, Wolff CJM and Winter M (1979b) The acute toxicity of some petrochemicals to goldfish. Water Res. 

13 (7), 623-626. 

Bringmann G (1978). Bestimmung der biologischen Schadwirkung wassergefährdender Stoffe gegen Protozen. I. 

Bakterienfressende Flagellaten (Modelorganismus: Entosiphon sulcatum Stein). Zeitschrift Wasser-Abwasser 

Forschung 11 (6), 210-215. 

Bringmann G and Kühn R (1976) Vergleichende Befunde der Schadwirkung wassergefährdender Stoffe gegen 

Bakterien (Pseudomonas putida) und Blaualgen (Microcystis aeruginosa). gwf-wasser/abwasser 117, 410-414. 

Bringmann G and Kühn R (1978) Testing of substances for their toxicity threshold: Model organisms Microcystis 

(Diplocystis) aeruginosa and Scenedesmus quadricauda. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 21, 275-284. 

Bringmann G and Kühn R (1980) Bestimmung der biologischen Schadwirkung wassergefährdender Stoffe gegen 

Protozen. II. Bakterienfressende Ciliaten. Zeitschrift Wasser-Abwasser Forschung 13 (1), 26-31. 

Bringmann G, Kühn R and Winter A (1980) Bestimmung der biologischen Schadwirkung wassergefährdender 

Stoffe gegen Protozen. III. Saprozoische Flagellaten. Zeitschrift Wasser-Abwasser Forschung 13 (5), 170-173. 

Bringmann VG and Kuhn R (1982) Ergebnisse der Schadwirkung wassergefahrdender Stoffe gegen Daphnia magna 

in einem weiterentwickelten standardisierten Testverfahren (Results of toxic action of water pollutants on Daphnia 

magna Straus tested by an improved standardized procedure). Z. Wasser Abwasser Forsch 15 (1), 1-6. 

Bringmann VG and Kühn R (1977) Befunde der Schadwirkung wassergefährdender Stoffe gegen Daphnia magna. 

Z.F. Wasser und Abwasser Forschung 10 (5), 161-166. 

72 
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES

Cedre (2004) www.le-cedre.fr/ceppol

CEFIC (1993) An assessment of the ready biodegradability of n-butoxyethanol using the modified MITI test. 

Personal communication. ICI, 5 April 1993. UK. 

CIBA-GEIGY (1976) 96-hour acute toxicity to blue gill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), static essay. New York, 

September 30, 1976, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation: 12 p. 

Ciccioli P, Brancaleoni E, Cecinato A and Sparapani R (1993) Identification an determination of biogenic and 

anthropogenic volatile organic compounds in forest areas of Northern and Southern Europe and a remote site of he 

Himalaya region by high-resolution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatography 643, 55-69. 

Ciccioli P, Cecinato A, Brancaleoni E, Frattoni M, Bruner F and Maione M (1996) Occurence of oxygenated 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) in Antarctica. Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 62, 245-253. 

CITI (1992) Biodegradation and bioaccumulation data of existing chemicals based on the Chemical Substances 

Control Law (CSCL). Japan, Chemicals Inspection and Testing Institute (CITI) from the Ministry of International 

Trade and Industry. 

Daston GP, Rogers JM, Versteeg DJ, Sabourin TD, Baines D and Marsh SS (1991) Interspecies comparisons of A/D 

ratios: A/D ratios are not constant across species. Fundamental and Appl. Toxicol. 17, 696-722. 

Dawson GW, Jennings AL, Drozdowski D and Rider E (1975) The acute toxicity of 47 industrial chemicals to fresh 

and saltwater fishes. J. Hazard. Mater. 1 (4), 303-318. 

De Bortoli M, Knöppel H, Pecchio E, Peil A, Rogora L, Schauenburg H, Schlitt H and Vissers H (1986) 

Concentrations of selected organic pollutants in indoor and outdoor air in northern Italy. Environ. Int. 12, 343-350. 

DeVillers J, Chezeau A, Poulsen V and Thybaud E (2003) Effects of ethylene glycol ethers on the reproduction of 

Ceriodaphnia dubia. Chemosphere 50, 373-376. 

DeVillers J, Chezeau A, Thybaud E, Poulsen V, Graff L, Vasseur P, Chenon P, Mouchet F, Ferrier V and Quiniou F 

(2002b) Ecotoxicity of ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods 

12, 241-254. 

DeVillers J, Chezeau A, Thybaud E, Poulsen V, Porcher J-M, Graff L, Vasseur P, Mouchet F, Ferrier V and 

Quiniou F (2002a) Ecotoxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether and its acetate. Toxicol. Mechanisms and 

Methods 12, 255-263. 

Dill DC and Milazzo DP (1988) Dowanol* EB glycol ether : evaluation of the toxicity to the green alga, selenastrum 

capricornutum printz. Midland, Michigan, June 21, Dow Chemical USA: 16 p. 

Dow Chemical Co (1979) Toxicity of Dowanol EB to freshwater organisms (redactor: Bartlett), 31 August 1979. 

Dow Chemical Co (1981) Unpublished data from the files of the Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory. 

Midland, Michigan 48640. 

Dow Chemical Co (2001) Butyl cellosolve product information, 110-00623-0801 AMS. Midland, august: 2. 

EC (2003) Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on 

Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for 

existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of 

biocidal products on the market. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 

EC (2004) EUSES 2.0, the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances.National Institute of Public 

Health and the Environment (RIVM). 

Eastman (2001) Eastman EB solvent (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) Product data sheet, 26th March 2001. 

ECETOC (1994) Butoxyethanol criteria document - including a supplement for 2-butoxyethyl acetate. Brussels, 

Belgium, April 1994, ECETOC: 72. 

Eckel W, Foster G and Ross B (1996) Glycol ethers as ground water contaminants" Occupational Hyg. 2, 97-104. 

Environment Canada and Health Canada (2000) Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Priority substances 

list assessment reports: 2-butoxyethanol., draft, August 2000. 

Gonsior SJ (1990) Environmental Assessment for Glycol Ethers. Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company: 

15. 

73
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Hansch C and Leo A J (1985) MedChem Project, issue n°26. Claremont, CA, Pomona college. 

Hoechst A (1976) Unpublished report Nr 4/76, 18.02.1976. 

Hoechst A (1982) Unpublished information. 

Hoechst A (1992) Produktinformation Butylglykol der Abt. Marketing Chemikelien, 17.12.1992. 

Hoechst A (1993) Safety data sheet "Butylglykol", 10.02.1993. 

Howard PH (1989) Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic 

chemicals, Lewis Publishers. IV, solvents 2, 280-287. 

Howard PH, Boethling RS, Jarvis WF, Meylan WM and Michalenko EM (1991) Handbook of environmental 

degradation rates, vol. Chealsea, Michigan, Lewis Publisher. 

HSDB (2000) Hasardous Substances Data Bank (online), National Library of Medicine. 2000. 

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB

Huels A (1982) Unpublished study. 

INERIS (1999a) Détermination de la toxicité aïgue du 2-butoxyethanol vis-à-vis de Daphnia Magna, Ba746bCGR21427. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France, 14 décembre 1999, INERIS: 10. 

INERIS (1999b) Détermination de la toxicité aiguë du 2-butoxyethanol vis-à-vis de Oncorhynchus Mykiss, 

unpublished, Ba746f-CGR21427. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France, 14 décembre 1999, INERIS: 10. 

INERIS (1999c) Détermination de la toxicité chronique du 2-butoxyethanol vis-à-vis de Ceriodaphnia Dubia, 

Ba746h-CGR21427. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France, 15 décembre 1999, INERIS: 18. 

INERIS (1999d) Détermination de la toxicité chronique du 2-butoxyethanol vis-à-vis de Daphnia Magna, Ba746aCGR21427. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France, 15 décembre 1999, INERIS: 13. 

INERIS (1999e) Détermination de la toxicité chronique du 2-butoxyethanol vis-à-vis de l'algue d'eau douce 

Pseudokirchneriella Subcapitata, Ba746d-CGR21427. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France, 14 décembre 1999, INERIS: 14. 

INERIS (2001) Essai poisson 21 jours, Danio rerio, unpublished report, N° 22685, 05.11.2001. 

INRS (1996) 2-butoxyethanol: fiche toxicologique n°76: 5. 

Jay K and Stieglitz L (1995) Identification and quantification of volatile organic components in emissions of waste 

incineration plants. Chemosphere 30 (7), 1249-1260. 

Juhnke I and Lüdemann D (1978) Results of the investigation of 200 Chemical Compounds for Acute Fish Toxicity 

with the Golden Orfe Test. (Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von 200 chemischen verbindung auf akut: Fischtoxizität 

mit dem Goldorfentest.). Zeitschrift Wasser-Abwasser Forsch. 11 (5), 161-164. 

Kim BR, Kalis EM, DeWulf T and Andrews KM (2000) Henry's law constants for paint solvents and their 

implications on volatile organic compound emissions from automotive painting. Water Envir. Res. 72 (1), 65-74. 

Kirk-Ohtmer (1983). Encyclopedia of chemical technology, Third Edition. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 21, 382-

385; 392-393. 

Knappe E and Popp KH (1974) Wasserlösliche Lackkomponenten bei der Abwasserreinigung, Strasbourg, 26 

Oktober 1974. 

Konemann H (1981). Quantitative structure-activity relationships in fish toxicity studies. I. Relationship for 50 

industrial pollutants. Toxicology 19, 209-221. 

Korenman I and Dobromyslova T (1975). Zh. Prikl. Khim. 48, 2711. 

Lessard RR and Demarco G (2000) The significance of oil spill dispersants. Spill Sci. Techn. Bull. 6 (1), 59-68. 

Lewis RJS (1999) 2-butoxyethanol (BPJ850). Sax's dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. II: 603-604. 

Lindgren C, Lager H and Fejes J (2001) Oil spill dispersants: Risk assessment for Swedish waters, report B1439, 

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. 

Lyman WJ, Reehl WF and Rosenblatt DH (1990) Handbook of chemical property estimation methods, vol. 

Washington DC., American Chemical Society. 

74 
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES

Lynch D and Toraason M (1996). 2-Ethoxyethanol and 2-methoxyethanol developmental toxicity in Drosophila. 

Occup. Hyg. 2, 171-174. 

Merck (1996) Butyl cellosolve. The Merck Index. S. Budavari. Whitehouse Station, NJ, Merck Research 

Laboratories Division of Merck & Co, Inc.: 258. 

Neely WB (1984) An analysis of aquatic toxicity data: water solubility and acute LC50 fish data. Chemosphere 

13 (7), 813-819. 

Nguyen DK, Bruchet A and Arpino P (1994) High resolution capillary GC-MS analysis of low molecular weight 

organic compounds in municipal wastewater. J. of High Resolution Chromatography 17, 153-159. 

NICNAS (1996) 2-butoxyethanol in cleaning products, Priority Existing Chemicals 6. Canberra, Australia, October, 

Australian Government. 

OECD (1995) Overview of structure-activity relationships for environmental endpoints., EV5V-CT92-0211, July 

12, 1995, OECD. 

OECD (1996) 2-butoxyethanol SIDS initial assessment profile, september. 

OECD (2004) Emission Scenario Document on metal finishing, draft, March 2004, Environment Directorate, 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: 86. 

Paxeus N, Robinson P and Balmer P (1992) Study of organic pollutants in municipal wastewater in Göteborg, 

Sweden. Wat. Sci. Tech. 25 (11), 249-256. 

Prager JC (1995) Ethanol, 2-butoxy-. Environmental contaminant reference databook. V. N. Reinhold, A Division of 

International Thomson Publishing Inc. 1, 661-665. 

Price KS, Waggy GT and Conway RA (1974) Brine shrimp bioassay and seawater BOD of petrochemicals. J. Water 

Pollution Control Federation 46 (1), 63-77. 

Rastogi SC (1991) Levels of organic solvents in printer's inks. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20, 543-547. 

Riddick JA, Bunger WB and Sakano TK (1985) Techniques of chemistry - Organic solvents, vol. II. New York, 

NY: John Wiley and sons. 

RIVM (2004) Further comments from The Netherlands on the validity of the 48-h Brachionus calyciflorus test 

(COM408-409_env_NL2). Personal communication., 10.09.2004. 

Sax NI (1986) Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether. Hazardous chemicals information annual. N. I. Sax. New York, 

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. 1, 101-104. 

Shah JJ and Singh HB (1988) Distribution of volatile organic chemicals in outdoor and indoor air: a national VOCs 

database. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22 (12), 1381-1388. 

Shell Chemicals (2001) Data sheet for butyl oxitol, July: 4. 

SICOS (1999) Syndicat de l'Industrie Chimique Organique de Synthèse et de la biochimie. Personal 

communication., March 1999. 

Silverstein RM and Bassler GC (1963) Ultraviolet spectrometry. Spectrometric identification of organic compounds, 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, London, Sydney. 

SRC (1988) Syracuse Research Corporation calculated values. 

Staples CA, Boatman RJ and Cano ML (1998) Ethylene glycol ethers: an environmental risk assessment. 

Chemosphere 36 (7), 1585-1613. 

Stephan CE (1974) Methods for acute toxicity tests with fish, macroinvertebrates and amphibians, July 29, 1974, 

National Water Quality Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency. 

Stonebreaker RD and Smith AJ (1980) Containment and treatment of a mixed chemical discharge from the "Valley 

of the Drums" near Louisville, Kentucky. Control of hazardous materials spills, Louisville, Kentucky. 

Tanii H and Hashimoto K (1982) Structure-toxicity relationship of acrylates and methacrylates. Toxicol. Letters 

11, 125-129. 

Thatcher M, Robson M, Henriquez LR, Karman CC and Payne G (2004) User guide for the evaluation of chemicals 

used and discharged offshore. A CIN revised CHARM III report, Version 1.3: 72 pp. 

75
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

Tuazon EC, Aschmann SM and Atkinson R (1998) Products of the gas-phase reactions of the OH radicals with 

1-methoxy-2-propanol and 2-butoxyethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (21), 3336-3345. 

Ullmann (2000) Solvents. Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, VCH. A24: 476-497. 

US EPA (1975) EPA-660/3-75-009, Committee on Methods for Toxicity tests with Aquatic Organisms. 

US EPA and Syracuse Research Corporation (2001) EPI Suite, v.3.10, US EPA. 

Verschueren K (2001) Handbook of Environmental Data of Organic Chemicals, vol. New York, NY, Van Nostrand 

Reinhold Co. 

Von Viebahn C (2002) Oil spill statistics of German territories. Proc. EARSeL, Prague, Czech Republic, 4-6 June 

2002, Rotterdam. 

Waggy GT, Conway RA, Hansen JL and Blessing RL (1994) Comparison of 20-d BOD and OECD closed-bottle 

biodegradation tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13 (8), 1277-1280. 

Welchem Inc (1984) Acute toxicity studies on Wellaid 311 [2-butoxyethanol], unpublished report H-6954 submitted 

to the US EPA by Amoco Corporation, OTS 50533457; 86-920000096. Houston, Texas, 5 June 1984, MBA 

Laboratories. 

Yasuhara A, Shiraishi H, Tsuji M and Okuno T (1981) Analysis of organic substances in highly polluted river water 

by mass. Environmental Science & Technology 15 (5), 570-573. 

76 
ABBREVIATIONS 

ADI Acceptable Daily Intake 

AF Assessment Factor 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATP Adaptation to Technical Progress 

AUC Area Under The Curve 

B Bioaccumulation 

BBA Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 

BCF Bioconcentration Factor 

BMC Benchmark Concentration 

BMD Benchmark Dose 

BMF Biomagnification Factor 

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

bw body weight / Bw, bw

C Corrosive (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and preparations 

according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

CA Chromosome Aberration 

CA Competent Authority 

CAS Chemical Abstract Services 

CEC Commission of the European Communities 

CEN European Standards Organisation / European Committee for Normalisation 

CEPE European Committee for Paints and Inks 

CMR Carcinogenic, Mutagenic and toxic to Reproduction 

CNS Central Nervous System 

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand 

CSTEE Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (DG SANCO) 

CT50 Clearance Time, elimination or depuration expressed as half-life 

d.wt dry weight / dw 

dfi daily food intake 

DG Directorate General 

DIN Deutsche Industrie Norm (German norm) 

DNA DeoxyriboNucleic Acid 

DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon 

DT50 Degradation half-life or period required for 50 percent dissipation / degradation 

DT90 Period required for 90 percent dissipation / degradation 

E Explosive (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and preparations 

according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

EASE Estimation and Assessment of Substance Exposure Physico-chemical properties [Model] 

77
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

EbC50 Effect Concentration measured as 50% reduction in biomass growth in algae tests 

EC European Communities 

EC10 Effect Concentration measured as 10% effect 

EC50 median Effect Concentration 

ECB European Chemicals Bureau 

ECETOC European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals 

ECVAM European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods 

EDC Endocrine Disrupting Chemical 

EEC European Economic Communities 

EINECS European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances 

ELINCS European List of New Chemical Substances 

EN European Norm 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA) 

ErC50 Effect Concentration measured as 50% reduction in growth rate in algae tests 

ESD Emission Scenario Document 

EU European Union 

EUSES European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances [software tool in support of 

the Technical Guidance Document on risk assessment] 

F(+) (Highly) flammable (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and 

preparations according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 

FELS Fish Early Life Stage 

foc Organic carbon factor (compartment depending) 

GLP Good Laboratory Practice 

HEDSET EC/OECD Harmonised Electronic Data Set (for data collection of existing substances) 

HELCOM Helsinki Commission -Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 

HPLC High Pressure Liquid Chromatography 

HPVC High Production Volume Chemical (> 1000 tonnes/annum) 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

IC Industrial Category 

IC50 median Immobilisation Concentration or median Inhibitory Concentration

ILO International Labour Organisation 

IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety 

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation 

IUCLID International Uniform Chemical Information Database (existing substances) 

IUPAC International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry 

JEFCA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 

JMPR Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues 

78 
ABBREVIATIONS

Koc organic carbon normalised distribution coefficient 

Kow octanol/water partition coefficient 

Kp solids-water partition coefficient 

L(E)C50 median Lethal (Effect) Concentration 

LAEL Lowest Adverse Effect Level 

LC50 median Lethal Concentration 

LD50 median Lethal Dose 

LEV Local Exhaust Ventilation 

LLNA Local Lymph Node Assay 

LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level 

LOEC Lowest Observed Effect Concentration 

LOED Lowest Observed Effect Dose 

LOEL Lowest Observed Effect Level 

MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration 

MATC Maximum Acceptable Toxic Concentration 

MC Main Category 

MITI Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan 

MOE Margin of Exposure 

MOS Margin of Safety 

MW Molecular Weight 

N Dangerous for the environment (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous 

substances and preparations according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC 

NAEL No Adverse Effect Level 

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

NOEL No Observed Effect Level 

NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration 

NTP National Toxicology Program (USA) 

O Oxidising (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and preparations 

according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

OC Organic Carbon content 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OEL Occupational Exposure Limit 

OJ Official Journal 

OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the Northeast 

Atlantic 

P Persistent 

PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic 

PBPK Physiologically Based PharmacoKinetic modelling 

79
EU RISK ASSESSMENT – 2-BUTOXYETHANOL (EGBE) FINAL REPORT, 2006 

PBTK Physiologically Based ToxicoKinetic modelling 

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration 

pH logarithm (to the base 10) (of the hydrogen ion concentration {H+

} 

pKa logarithm (to the base 10) of the acid dissociation constant 

pKb logarithm (to the base 10) of the base dissociation constant 

PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration 

POP Persistent Organic Pollutant 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

QSAR (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship 

R phrases Risk phrases according to Annex III of Directive 67/548/EEC 

RAR Risk Assessment Report 

RC Risk Characterisation 

RfC Reference Concentration 

RfD Reference Dose 

RNA RiboNucleic Acid 

RPE Respiratory Protective Equipment 

RWC Reasonable Worst-Case 

S phrases Safety phrases according to Annex IV of Directive 67/548/EEC 

SAR Structure-Activity Relationships 

SBR Standardised birth ratio 

SCE Sister Chromatic Exchange 

SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Envionment Risks 

SDS Safety Data Sheet 

SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology And Chemistry 

SNIF Summary Notification Interchange Format (new substances) 

SSD Species Sensitivity Distribution 

STP Sewage Treatment Plant 

T(+) (Very) Toxic (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and 

preparations according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

TDI Tolerable Daily Intake 

TG Test Guideline 

TGD Technical Guidance Document

TNsG Technical Notes for Guidance (for Biocides) 

TNO The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research 

ThOD Theoritical Oxygen Demand 

UC Use Category 

UDS Unscheduled DNA Synthesis 

UN United Nations 

80 
ABBREVIATIONS

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

US EPA Environmental Protection Agency, USA 

UV Ultraviolet Region of Spectrum 

UVCB Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products of Biological material 

vB very Bioaccumulative 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

vP very Persistent 

vPvB very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative 

v/v volume per volume ratio 

w/w weight per weight ratio 

WHO World Health Organisation 

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant 

Xn Harmful (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and preparations 

according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

Xi Irritant (Symbols and indications of danger for dangerous substances and preparations 

according to Annex II of Directive 67/548/EEC) 

81

European Commission 

DG Joint Research Centre, Institute of Health and Consumer Protection 

European Chemicals Bureau 

EUR 22501 EN European Union Risk Assessment Report 

 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) – Part I – Environment, Volume 68 

Editors: S.J. Munn, K. Aschberger, O. Cosgrove, S. Pakalin, A. Paya-Perez, B. Schwarz-Schulz, 

S. Vegro 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

2006 – VIII pp., 82 pp. – 17.0 x 24.0 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series; ISSN 1018-5593 

The report provides the comprehensive risk assessment of the substance 2-butoxyethanol 

(EGBE). It has been prepared by France in the frame of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 on 

the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, following the principles for 

assessment of the risks to humans and the environment, laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) 

No. 1488/94. 

Part I – Environment 

The evaluation considers the emissions and the resulting exposure to the environment in all life 

cycle steps. Following the exposure assessment, the environmental risk characterisation for each 

protection goal in the aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric compartment has been determined. 

The environmental risk assessment for 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) concludes that there is at present 

no concern for the atmosphere, the aquatic ecosystem, the terrestrial ecosystem or for 

microorganisms in the sewage treatment plant. There is at present no need for further information 

and/or testing and no need for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied 

already. 

Part II – Human Health 

This part of the evaluation considers the emissions and the resulting exposure to human 

populations in all life cycle steps. The scenarios for occupational exposure, consumer exposure 

and humans exposed via the environment have been examined and the possible risks have 

been identified. 

This part of the evaluation will be added later. 

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support 

for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a 

service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of 

science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the 

common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, 

private or national. 

European Commission – Joint Research Centre 

Institute for Health and Consumer Protection 

European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) 

European Union Risk Assessment Report 

2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) 

Part I – environment 

CAS No: 111-76-2 EINECS No: 203-905-0 

Series: 4th Priority List Volume: 68