## OH H 3 

## C O



# 4 th 

# Priority List

Volume : 

# 68

Institute for Health and Consumer Protection


# European Chemicals Bureau

Existing SubstancesEuropean Chemicals Bureau 

# European Union Risk Assessment Report

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


# 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) Part I - environmentEuropeanUnion Risk Assessment Report2-butoxyethanol(EGBE)111-76-2203-905-0CAS:EC:



### PL-4



# 68 EUR 22501 ENThe mission of the IHCP is to prov ide 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 chem ical, physical and biological agents from various sources to which consumers are exposed.

The Toxicology and Chemical Substances Unit (T CS), 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 danger ous 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 dang erous 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 deve lopment of technical guidance for industry and new chemicals agency and tools for chemical dossier r egistration (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 direct ives and regulation on chemicals. The research and support activities of the TCS are executed in close co-operation with the relev ant 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 Co nsumer 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 acti ng on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following inform ation. 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 Publ ications 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 info rmation 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 Public ations 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 re port has been prepared by: Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques (INERIS) Direction des Risques Chroniques Unité Evaluation des Ris ques 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 TH E 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 Buty l Ether). Other synonyms: 2-BE; butoxyethanol; 2-butoxy-1-ethano l; n-butoxyethanol; butyl ethoxol; 3-oxa-1-heptanol; o-butyl ethylen e 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 assessm ent 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 wh ich are being applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e 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 wh ich are being applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

Conclusions to the risk assessmen t 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 wh ich are being applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

Conclusions to the risk asse ssment for secondary poisoning Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk reduction measures beyond those wh ich are being applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

Human Health (to be added later).

VII

## CONTENTS

1 GENERAL SUBSTANC E 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 me tal 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



### 13.1.3 Continental and regional predicted environmental concentrations ................................................ 42 3.1.4 Local predicted environmental concentrations (PEC local ) .............................................................. 43 3.1.4.1 Aquatic compartment ....................................................................................................... 43 3.1.4.1.1 PEC local for production .................................................................................... 43 3.1.4.1.2 Calculation of PEC local for formulation, processing and private use ............... 43 3.1.4.1.3 Measured levels .............................................................................................. 45 3.1.4.1.4 Comparison between predic ted and measured levels ...................................... 46 3.1.4.2 Terrestrial compartment ................................................................................................... 46 3.1.4.2.1 PEC local for production .................................................................................... 46 3.1.4.2.2 Calculation of PEC local for formulation, processing and private use ............... 46 3.1.4.3 Atmosphere ...................................................................................................................... 48 3.1.4.3.1 PEC local for production .................................................................................... 48 3.1.4.3.2 Calculation of PEC local for formulation, processing and private use ............... 48 3.1.4.3.3 Measured levels .............................................................................................. 49 3.1.4.3.4 Comparison between predic ted 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 fo r 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 th e 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 EU ............................................................. 28

U 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 chemical s’, ‘squeeze treatments’ and ‘hydrotest chemicals’) (Thatcher et al., 2004). ..................................................................................................... 33 Table 3.12 PEC intermittent 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 pr ocessing and private use of paints .................................................... 39 Table 3.19 Local releases of EGBE from formulati on, 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 PEC STP and PEC aqua for EGBE .................................................................................................. 44 Table 3.27 PEClocal soil at production and in situ processing (according to EUSES) ............................................ 46 Table 3.28 Local PEC soil for EGBE ....................................................................................................................... 47 Table 3.29 Local PEC air 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 PNEC aqua ......................................................................... 61 Table 3.38 QSAR ecotoxicity data for EGBE ....................................................................................................... 61 Table 3.39 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of the intermittent PNEC aqua ............................................... 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: C 6 

### H 14 

### O 2 

### Structural formula: CH 3 

### -CH 2 

### -CH 2 

### -CH 2 

### -O-CH 2 

### -CH 2 

### -OH

CH

3 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 Buty l Ether). Other synonyms: 2-BE; butoxyethanol; 2-butoxy-1-ethanol; n-butoxyethanol; butyl ethoxol; 3-oxa-1-heptanol; o-butyl ethylen e glycol; butyl glycol; butyl monoether glycol; ethylene glycol bu tyl 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 reac tion 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.

5EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006



### 1.3 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Note: When the reliability of values do not enab le 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 di scussed 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.m 3 /mol at 25°C Conversion factors (101 kPa, 20°C) 1 ppm = 4.9 mg/m 3 1 mg/m 3 = 0.204 ppm



### 1.3.1 Physical state EGBE is a neutral, colourle ss liquid with a very weak pl easant 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 Ch emical Co, 2001) and handbooks show values

6CHAPTER 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 BA SF, 2002; -70°C Verschueren, 2001). The median of all different values f ound is retained for this study: -74.8°C.

1.3.3 Boiling point
Most of the values found in literature ar e in the following range: 168-172°C (BASF, 2002; Ullmann, 2000). A boiling point of 170.8°C for EG BE 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 info rmation 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 b een reported. Data come from technical data sheets: 0.8 hP a (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 give s a vapour pressure of 1 hPa, at 20°C. It will be used in the risk assessment (based on this value, a vapou r pressure of 1.41 hPa ha s 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 a nother 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 reta ined 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 chai n. The values reported in the literature for EGBE tend to indicate that this substance is a surface-active reagent ev en if no indication has been found about the concentratio n of the substance during the te sts listed above. Indeed, OECD

7EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006


### guideline n°115 suggests that surface tension m easurements should be performed using a concentration of 1 g/L for soluble substances. The fact that EGBE shows surface-active proper ties 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 su rface activity of solutions like EGBE. What is observed with the glycol ethers during the surface tension measurem ents 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 tens ion and concentration is the disruption of the hydrogen bonding of the water causing non-linear beha viour of the surface tension agai nst the concentr ation. 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 measurem ents of the physical chemical properties. One should also notice that glycol ethe rs do not form micelles. They ar e 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 targ et 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 wate r in several data sheet s 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 1.10 6 

### 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), 1.10 5 

### mg/L, is retained for modelling purposes.

1.3.8 Partition coefficient n-octanol/water Several QSAR calculations of partition coeffi cient n-octanol/water for EGBE have been performed. They are presented hereafter usin g 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 K ow 

### can be found in literature: 0.74 (Verschueren, 2001), 0.81 (Staples et al., 1998), 0.83 (Korenman and Dobromyslova, 1975; Ha nsch 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 K ow 

### of 0.8 that is retained for this study.

8CHAPTER 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 me thod. 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 us ing 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 da ta from one of the producers, shown below, indicates that peroxide production levels for EGBE remain lo w, 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.

9EU 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 (b etween 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 commerc ial 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 (calcu lated 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.m 3 /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.m 3 

### /mol are reported (SRC, 1988, cited in Envirofate). Another study shows a calculated Henry’s law constant of 0.551 Pa.m 3 

### /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 th is study: 141 Pa for vapour pressure and 1.10 6 

### mg/L for water solubility. Calculation gives a Henry’s law constant of 0.017 Pa.m 3 

### /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

.

10CHAPTER 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.m 3 /mol T = 22°C ; H = 0.063 Pa.m 3 /mol T = 25°C ; H = 0.081 Pa.m 3 /mol T = 23°C ; H = 0.068 Pa.m 3 /mol T = 25°C ; H = 0.082 Pa.m 3 /mol T = 30°C ; H = 0.101 Pa.m 3 /mol T = 30°C ; H = 0.135 Pa.m 3 /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.m 3 

### /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 co mmunication 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 addi ng n-butyl alcohol and ethylene oxide. The standard ethoxylation reaction for glycol ethers is as follows:
Equation 2.1 EGBE synthesis reaction

O 

# + H C 3 OH 

# → H C 3 O OH


### ethylene oxide butanol EGBE

Ethylene oxide and butanol react together with a typical industrial catal yst. This catalysed reaction produces a range of butyl glycol ethe rs (monoglycol, diglycol and triglycol ethers) which are separated by fracti onation 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 Eu rope 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



### 12CHAPTER 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 calculat ion: (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 de mand 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 site s are located in the same area. Consequently the locations of bot h German sites and the Dutch one have been checked so as to establish whether they could pertain to the same region (T GD definition EC, 2003). Distances between Marl and Ludwigshaven on one hand an d Marl and Hoogvliet on the other hand are 259 and 188 km, respectively. So, in the regional assessment, none of th ese sites will be considered in a same region. Ten EGBE importers are also repo rted. 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 th e uses of EGBE in Western Europe has been established based on the data collect ed for years 2001 to 2003 by CEFIC (see Table 2.3 ).

13EU 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 r easonable 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 significan t fluctuation in the annual tonnage figures for the smaller uses. Typically, 25-40% of volume goes via distributors. To reflect these uncertai nties, 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



### 14CHAPTER 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 ca ptive 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 tim e, 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 tota l 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),

15EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006


### figures reported does not seem to indicate a real a nnual use of the substance since stockpiles could be made during several years w ithout using the produc t (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 de tergent 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 pa ragraphs 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 t ypes were calculated from the figures in Table 2.3 and end use information for EGBE (OECD, 1996). They are presented in Table 2.5

.

16CHAPTER 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 al l types of cleaners. They reduce surface tension and are excellent coupling agents. Working in conjunction with a surf actant, they facilitate wetting of the surface, penetration of the soil, and help to suspend th e soil in water until it is wiped or rinsed away. The analysis of uses of 434 cl eaning products identified during risk assessment of EGBE in cleaning products (NICNAS, 1996) revealed th e 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 ha ve 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 th e 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.

17EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006



### 2.2.3 Chemicals used in synthesis: in termediate 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-butoxyeth anol acetate synthesis, it is also employed for the synthesis of di(-2butoxyethyl) phtha late (ATSDR, 1998).

2.2.4 Printing inks Combination of glycol et hers and other solvents can be used to achieve the right evaporation rates, levelling properties, water miscibility and so lubility 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 maximu m percentage of EGBE in formulated printing inks is 20% (OECD, 1996). Specifi c information shows a decline in this particular use due to the switch to radiation cure d 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 id entified, for example, in printer’s inks for screen printing on paper and paper boards. The EG BE concentrations range in such formulated products was 0.1-0.4%. The value quoted in OECD, 1996, 20% , will be retained as the ty pical 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, workover 4 

### and drill-in base fluids. Other en d-use and intermediate applications include antifoams, drilling lubricants, emulsifi ers, 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 concen trations are in the range 5-40%. However, one product used for th e cleaning of oilfield equipment has been reported with concentrations of EGBE be tween 60 and 100%. This latter product is a concentrated one intended for dilution before use. Metal cleaning (2.06%): metal cl eaning/degreasing is used in industries where the production process includes fabricating and/or assembling me tal parts: mainly the automotive, aviation, appliance and railroad industries. During the various steps of th e production process, metal parts must be cleaned of oils, fluxes and grease. Electronic industry (0.62%): among the uses of glyc ol ethers in electronic industry, those in copper clad laminating, lamina tes or photoresistors are re ported (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 so lvent in leather protect ion 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.



### 18CHAPTER 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 us ed 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 to tal production information in the TGD of 314 Mm 2 

### leather per year, 25% of whic h is sheep/goatskin, and assumi ng a leather weight of 2 kg/m 2 

### would suggest total GE use in this application of around 500 tonnes/year. Glycol ethers are also used in leather finishing. EG BE is quoted as being used in this application, which is effectively a “coating” operation wh ere a preparation is applied by air atomised spraying in a spray booth. Actual us age rates are quoted as up to 0.4 g/kg of dry finished leather, which, following the above assumptions, would l ead 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 th is is a coating operation, it is already covered by the existing painting scenarios. Consequently, ther e 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 us ed 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 a nd 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 fr om 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 e nquiries). 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 synthe tic 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-s olvent in pesticide formulations represents a minor application fo r this chemical. EGBE is used as a coupling solvent to help disperse the activ e component in water when the conc entrate is diluted for use. It may be used at a significant le vel in the concentrate but thes e 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 f actor 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/y ear for such oils. As a worst-ca se, 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).

19EU 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 woul d be < 300 tonnes/year (OSPA enquiries). Photographic solutions: EGBE seems to be no longer used in photographic solutions. Rubber, oil industry: EGBE is reporte d 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 de gradation, 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 rate s (SRC, 1988, cited in E nvironment Canada and Health Canada, 2000): the overall OH rate consta nt for EGBE has been calculated by the AOP program v1.90 and is estimated to be 2.3.10 -11 

### cm 3 

### /molecule.second at 25°C. The estimated value corresponds to an atmospheric half-l ife of about 16.7 hours at an atmospheric concentration of 5.10 5 

### hydroxyl radicals/cm 3 

### . Atkinson, 1987 has calculate d an OH rate constant for EGBE of 1.96.10 -11 

### cm 3 

### /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 ph otodegradation 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 in directly using a well-known compound, for three different sensitizers: OH, O 3 

### and NO 3 

### . 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 O 3 

### or NO 3 

### are of minor or negligible importance as tropospheric loss processes. Indeed, rate constants with NO 3 

### and O 3 

### have been measured at 3.10 -15 

### cm 3 

### /molecule.second and < 1.1.10 -19 

### cm 3 

### /molecule.second respectively. The main loss process for EGBE in ambient air is the reaction with OH radicals. The corre sponding measured rate constant was 2.94.10 -11 

### cm 3 

### /molecule.second. Using this last data, a pseudo firs t order rate constant for degrad ation in air is calculated using TGD (EC, 2003): K deg-air 

### = 1.27 d -1 

### . This rate constant gives a half-life value of ~ 13 hours for EGBE in air.

21EU 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 b een identified: propiona ldehyde (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-hydr oxybutyl 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 ou t according to (inter national) standard te st guidelines. Although the current information on several technical aspect s is incomplete for some biodegradation tests the total data set available is regarded as being sufficient to draw conclusions on the biodegradation poten tial 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 BOD 5 - test O 2 uptake 73% (BOD/ThOD) 5 APHA n°219, 1971 Unknown 10 mL 2,c Bridié et al., 1979a Valid with restrictions 2 BOD 5 - test O 2 uptake 31% (BOD/ThOD) 5 APHA n°219, 1971 Unknown 10 mL 1,c Bridié et al., 1979a Valid with restrictions 3 BOD 5 - test O 2 uptake 8% (BOD/ThOD) 5 DEV H5 A2 Unknown River water taken below

a factory effluent Knappe and Popp, 1974 Valid with restrictions

4 BOD 20 -test O 2 uptake 75% 70% 64% 29% (BOD/ThOD) 20 15 10 5 APHA n°219, 1971 3, 7 and 10 mg/L** 3 mL 4 (filtered seawater

seed) Price et al., 1974 Valid with restrictions

5 BOD 20 -test O 2 uptake 88% 82% 74% 26% (BOD/ThOD) 20 15 10 5 APHA n°219, 1971 3, 7 and 10 mg/L** 3 mL 1,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/L 1,b BASF AG, 1980 Valid with restrictions

Table 3.1 continued overleaf



### 22CHAPTER 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 Unknown 1,a Huels, 1982* Lack of data

8 Inherent biodeg Test DOC 100% 63% 22% 5 3 1 OECD 302B 450 mg/L Unknown 1,a Hoechst, 1976 Valid with restrictions

9 Ready biodeg Test O 2 uptake 88% 28 OECD 301C 100 mg/L 30 mg/L 3,b CEFIC, 1993* Lack of data

10 Ready biodeg Test DOC 95% 28 OECD 301E 10 mg/L DOC Unknown 1,a Huels, 1982* Lack of data

11 Ready biodeg Test O 2 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 O 2 uptake 96% 14 OECD 301C 100 mg/L 30 mg/L 1,a CITI, 1992 Valid with restrictions

13 Ready biodeg Test O 2 uptake 75% 70% 47% 28 15 5 OECD 301D Unknown Unknown 1 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 inoc ulum was reported as non-a dapted 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 f our tests, the biodegradation was quantified comparing the measured BOD to the Theoretical Oxygen Demand (ThOD). Concerning the three tests showing the biodegradati on 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 OE CD guideline 302B (Zahn- Wellens test) tend to demonstrate the inherent biodegradability of EGBE. Biodegradation percentages were > 70%

23EU 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 performe d 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 inoc ulum from a domestic se wage (as specified in the OECD guidelines n°301). Tests 11, 12 a nd 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 read y biodegradation and further experimental data which confirmed high biodegradation rates, EGBE can be regarded as readily biodegradable. As no result from biodegradation simulation test s 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) K STP

= 1 h -1 0.7 hour Surface water K freshwater = 4.7.10 -2 d

-1 15 days Marine water K saltwater = 1.4.10 -2 d

-1 50 days Soil* K soil = 2.3.10 -2 d

-1 30 days Marine and freshwater sediments ** K sed

= 2.3.10 -3 d

-1 300 days * Biodegradation rates in sediment and soil take account of adsorption to solid matter (K oc

=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.m 3 

### /mol at 25°C (Kim et al., 2000), the air-water partitioning coefficient (K air-water 

### ) can be calculated. K air-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 K ow 

### of 0.8 and according to the TGD (EC, 2003) (QSAR for soil and sediment sorption for nonhydrophobic chemicals) a K oc 

### of 27.3 L/kg can be estimated. The solid/water partition coefficients in each co mpartment can be calculated as supplied in TGD (EC, 2003) (see Table 3.3 ).

24CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.3 Estimated solids / water partition coefficients Water / Compartment OC fraction in solid phase (F OCcomp ) Solids / water partition coefficients Total compartment water partition coefficient Soil / water 0.02 K p_soil = 0.55 L/kg K soil-water = 1.03 m 3 /m

3 Sediment / water 0.05 K p_sed = 1.37 L/kg K sed-water = 1.49 m 3 /m

3 Suspended matter / water 0.1 K p_susp = 2.73 L/kg K susp-water = 1.58 m 3 /m

3


### 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 K oc 

### = 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 av ailable. 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. Anothe r 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.

25EU 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 Gu idance 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 anhydrous 5 

### 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 alcoho l is used. Unreacted excess al cohol 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 remain ing reactor stream is dr awn 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 tetraet hylene glycol alkyl ether). Th e 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 fo r environmental release. Such exposure is only likely during sampling, filling or loadin g operations along with campaign changes (most of producers revealed periodic campaigns of EGBE synthesis), when the plant is switched to a different glycol ether (differe nt alcohol or using propylene ra ther than ethylene oxide).
Figure 3.1 Basic schematic of t he EGBE productio n units (OSPA)



### REACTO R A B C D E

Reaction section (Oxide-Alcohol-Catalyst) Alcohol removal Distillation section Mono-GE Di-GE Tri-GE... Alcohol + mono-GE

Polymeric stream

5 Presence of water during the reaction is not expected as this reacts viol ently with ethylene oxide under the prevailing conditions.



### 26CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### Releases to water Data of releases to water for EG BE 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 corre spond to the order of companies in Table 2.2 ). As there are only five EGBE production sites in Europe, the regional pro duction will not be set at 10% of total EGBE production (TGD default) but at the maximum vol ume produced at one site. The amount remaining corre sponds to the continental produc tion. Fraction releases and number of days of emission are taken fr om Table A1.1 and Table B1.5 (TGD - EC, 2003; Chapter 3 – Appendix I), with Main Category equa l 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 remove d by degradation processe s. When more precise data were available (EGBE concentration in STP effluents) they were also used. Relevant data for the calculati on of Predicted Environmental Con centrations (PEC) in a STP and local concentrations in the aqua tic compartment are presented in Table 3.6 . When such data was not available the effluent concentration leaving the STP (PEC STP 

### ) has been calculated according to Equation 3.1 . This PEC STP 

### is divided by a dilution fact or so as to obtain the local concentration in surface water - Clocal aqua 

### (see Equation 3.2 ).
Equation 3.1 Calculation of PEC STP

STP STPwater water STP 

### EFFLUENT F Elocal PEC 6 

### 10 ××
=

Elocal water 

### local release to waste wa ter during episode [kg/d] F

STPwater 

### fraction of emission directed to water by STP 0.126 EFFLUENT STP 

### effluent discharge rate of STP [L/day] PEC STP 

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

Equation 3.2 Calculation of Clocal aqua


### DILUTIO N PEC Clocal STP aqua 

### =



### PEC STP 

### concentration of the substance in the STP effluent [mg/L] Clocal aqua 

### local concentration in surface wa ter during emission episode [mg/L] DILUTION (STP flow + river flow ) / STP flow [-]
The calculation of Clocal aqua 

### is reduced to this equation due to the low adsorption of EGBE on suspended matter (Kp susp 

### = 2.73 L/kg).

27EU 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 r eal 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* m 3 /day. PEC STP

= 0.18* mg/L and Clocal aqua = 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* m 3 /s; 10th percentile of receiving water flow = 734* m 3 /s; dilution in receiving water = 150*. PEC STP

= 2.10 -2

* mg/L ; Clocal aqua = 1.3.10 -4

* mg/L Assuming 87.4% removal in STP: PEC STP = 0.49 mg/L ; Clocal aqua = 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* m 3 /s; 10 th percentile of receiving water flow = 18.4* m 3 /s; dilution in receiving water = 23*. PEC STP

= 3.9.10 -2 mg/L ; Clocal aqua = 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. PEC STP

= 8.9.10 -2 mg/L ; Clocal aqua = 2.2.10 -3 mg/L (assuming a dilution factor of 40 and a STP flow of 10,000 m 3 /day – default value for chemical industry, Cf. emission sc enario 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 orig inal data. Other data is calculated using default TGD values


### Releases to air Release data to air for EGBE produc tion 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.

28CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.7 Atmospheric emissions of EGBE from European producers
Site # Release to air (kg/d) Clocal air,ann * (mg/m 3 ) 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/m 3 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 produc tion 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 scenario s are based on the different use categories of EGBE (see Section 2.2 ). An overview of the various environmental exposure scenarios for formulation, processing a nd private use of EGBE is given in Table 3.9

.
Table 3.9 Environmental exposure scenarios for form ulation, processing and private uses of EGBE
Scenario names Designation Life cycle step Paints I F / Paints I P ¤ General industrial coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing Paints II F / Paints II P ¤ Decorative trade coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing Paints III F / Paints III U Decorative retail coatings (water-based) Formulation/Private use Paints IV F / Paints IV P ¤ Can coatings Formulation/Processing
Table 3.9 continued overleaf



### 29EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.9 continued Environmental exposure scenarios for formulat ion, processing and private uses of EGBE
Scenario names Designation Life cycle step Paints V F / Paints V P ¤ Coil coatings Formulation/Processing Paints VI F / Paints VI P ¤ Automotive OEM coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing Paints VII F / Paints VII P ¤ Anticorrosion coatings Formulation/Processing Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P ¤ Automotive OEM coatings Formulation/Processing Paints IX F / Paints IX P ¤ Wood coatings (water-based) Formulation/Processing Detergents I F / Detergents I P Industrial detergents Formulation/Processing Detergents II F / Detergents II U Domestic detergents Formulation/Private use Intermediates I P Intermediate for chemicals synthesis Processing Inks I F / Inks I P ¤ Printing inks Formulation/Processing Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P ¤ Oilfield chemicals Formulation/Processing Metal I F / Metal I P ¤ Metal cleaning Formulation/Processing Elec I P Electronic industry Processing Leather I P Leather treatment operations Processing Pharm I P Pharmaceuticals Processing Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P Adhesives Formulation/Processing Cosmet I F / Cosmet I U Cosmetics / Personal care Formulation/Private use Agri I F / Agri I P Agricultural products Formulation/Processing Fire I F / Fire I P Fire foams Formulation/Processing P Processing F Formulation U Private use ¤ For these end uses there is a possibility that formul ation and processing steps take place at a same site. These cases will be treated dur ing risk characterisation.



### 3.1.2.2.1 Continental and regional releases The total continental and regional EGBE emissi ons 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 emi ssions due to the scenario “Agr i 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 regiona l emissions is negligible.

Table 3.10 Total continental and regional EGBE emissions
Air Water (total / waste water*) Soil Continental 9.69.10 4 kg/day 4.90.10 4 kg/day/3.92.10 4 kg/day 6.81.10 3 kg/day Regional 1.08.10 4 kg/day 5.56.10 3 kg/day/4.45.10 3 kg/day 7.59.10 2 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



### 30CHAPTER 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(

_ fix chemical product water local 

# F QQ E

− × × =

E local_water 

### daily amount released to waste water [kg/d] Q

product 

### mass of processed raw hide per day [15 t/d - default] Q chemical 

### mass of substance used per mass of raw hide [3 kg/t 6 

### – personal communication from the European Leather Industry] F

fix



### 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 fo rmulations contained 4% of th is 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 dr ag out into the rinse bath and subsequent release of the rinse water. Here, as a worst case, th e following assumptions are made:

− 

### it is considered that there is no return of the rinse water (F recycle 

### = 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 clea ning bath of 25-75 g/L, the concentration of substance in the treatment bath (C bath 

### ) 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.



### 31EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Equation 3.4 Daily emission to wastewater during metal cleaning operations

process recycle bath metal process type dragout water process 

## TF C AREA Q Elocal
⋅−⋅⋅⋅ ⋅ = − 

## )1(10 3

, , , 

## dkg Elocal water process 

## /792.022)01(103403.0 3

, 

## =⋅−⋅⋅⋅⋅= −



### Elocal process,water 

### emission from process to water per day [kg/d] Q dragout,type 

### amount of solution removed from treatment bath per unit area [0.3 L/m2] AREA process,metal 

### surface area of metal proce ssed per hour [40 m2/hr] C

bath 

### concentration of substance in treatment bath [3 g/L] 10 -3 

### conversion factor for g to kg [kg/g] F

recycle 

### fraction of drag out returned to treatment bath [0] T

process 

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

In addition, it will be considered that the cleaning bath is dispos ed 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 o ilfield chemicals (processing) a) Estimation of exposure concen trations 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 report ed end use is as oilfield chemicals used on offshore platforms. Oilfield chemicals are in general brines and brin e components used as completion, workover and drill-in base fluids. A ge neric 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 envir onment in a different way. Application groups are:

− 

### production chemicals (with injection chemi cals and surfactants as special cases)

− 

### drilling chemicals (water based mud only)

− 

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

− 

### completion and workover chemicals including we ll 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 dependi ng on the use of the chemicals during those operations. A distinction has been made betwee n surface/well cleaning and the other operations (other completion, workover, squeez e treatment and hydrotest chemical s). This is due to the fact that during cleani ng operations, as noted in the CHARM ma nual, discharge is considered to be

32CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT


### 100% of the amount used, while for all other operati ons a fraction of the chem ical 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 ha s 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 PEC water 

### for completion, workover squeeze treatment and hydrotest chemicals are presented below. For surface and well cleaning chemical s, the PEC is calculated using:
PEC water 

### = C i,cleaning 

### × D batch, cleaning 

### With C i, cleaning 

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

### )
D batch, cleaning 

### = batchwise dilution fact or for cleaning fluids For other completion, workover, squeeze treatm ent and hydrotest chemicals, the PEC is calculated using:
PEC water 

### = f r 

### × C i, completion 

### × D batch, completion 

### With f r 

### = fraction released - chemical C i, completion 

### = initial concentrat ion of chemical in completion and workover including squeeze treatments and hydrotest fluids (dosage, mg.L -1 

### )
D batch, completion 

### = batchwise dilution factor for completion and workover including squeeze treatments and hydrotest fluids Default values for the fraction released-chemical (f r 

### ) and the batchwise dilution factor (D batch 

### ) are reported in Table 3.11 as proposed in the CHARM model. Fo r cleaning chemicals, the fraction released should be set at 1 as the model a ssumes 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 chem icals’, ‘squeeze treatments’ and ‘hydrotest chemicals’) (Thatcher et al., 2004).
Parameter Symbol Cleaning chemicals Other chemicals Fraction released-chemical Dilution factor at 500 m f r D batch 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 f r D batch 0.33 7.1 10 -5 (1:14,000) 1 0.001 (1:1,000)


### EGBE has been reported in a manufactured pr oduct at concentrations between 60 and 100%. Different dilution ratios are suggested for this pr oduct, depending on the type of use. The lowest dilution ratio (1:10) applies to th e cleaning of drilling a nd construction equipmen t. This ratio will be used as a worst case and gives a concentratio n of EGBE in cleaning fl uids of 100 g/L. With this figure, the different scenarios ca n be used. Results are presented in Table 3.12

.

33EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.12 PEC intermittent for the use of oilfield chemicals containing EGBE on offshore platforms (marine compartment)
PEC seawater (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 Harmonise d Mandatory Control System for the Use and Reduction of the Discharge of Offshore Chemicals. At the heart of OSPAR Decision 2000/2 are two R ecommendations: 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 supporti ng 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 Environmenta l Concentration (PEC) to Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC). It also obliges auth orities 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 count ries (United Kingdom and Norway). However other countries which have offshore oil and gas installations 7 

### 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. Synthe tic muds are similarly evaluate d 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 mo re than 1% oil, by weight, is forbidden - whether the drilling fluid is water- , oil- or synthetic-based. The re gulations also deal explicitly with well testing, workover and cementing. Norwegian regulations: 1. Norwegian State Pollution Control Au thority (SFT). 1998. Requirements for Ecotoxicological Test ing and Environmental Assessmen t 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 Author ity (SFT). 1999b. Pollution Control Act, 1981. SFT, Oslo)

7 In some countries there are no offshore oil and gas inst allations in the OSPAR maritime area under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties (i.e. Belgium, Finland, France, Portugal, Sweden).



### 34CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT


### Norway uses the standard OSPA R “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 we ll known. All discharges mu st 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 sche me, which classified chemicals using test protocols approved by the Oslo an d Paris Commissions (OSPAR). Th is was modified in detail, in early 1996, to meet the requirements of the OSPAR Harmonised Offshore Chemical Notification Format (HOCNF) whic h co-ordinates the testing requirements for oilfield chemicals throughout the NE Atlantic sector. In June 2000, OSPAR introduced Decision 2000/2 on a Harmonise d 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 Regu lations 2002 (OCR 2002) which came into force on 15th May 2002. The UK operates the Offshore Chem ical Notification Scheme (OCNS 8 

### ). This is operated by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aqu aculture Science (CEFAS ) on behalf of the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI). CE FAS 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 th e UK Continental Shelf. Dossiers on individual products rather than substances have to be notified. The require d 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 in formation 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 hazar d 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 supp liers 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 rati ng 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 pr oducts where CHARM is

8 http://www.cefas.co.uk/ocns/index.htm



### 35EU 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 regard ed as more precise than those carried out in this assessment. For instance, detailed inform ation 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 in crease in number of accidents. A summary of dispersants used t oday is provided in Table 3.14 and a list of agreed di spersants according to the Bonn Agreement is also available 9



### .

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 sp ills. A survey of international uses of dispersants was performed by Lindgren et al., 2001. From this su rvey it seems clear that most of the time mechanical ac tions 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 HELC OM’s recommendations (Helsinki Commission; Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and the Russian Federation). In specific situations dispersant s can nevertheless be used if the national authority approves it. This is also the case in the USA and Canada wh ere mechanical methods are used unless weather prevents the use of these methods. In Belgium, France, United Kingdom and Germany, di spersants are used, part icularly in England where the total number of approved dispersants is high in comparison with other countries. However dispersants in these different count ries are applied under specific rules and recommendations and usually afte r approval by the government or the competent authority in this field. Apart from these theoretical considera tions, it seems that disper sants are nevertheless used in a lot of situations because it is often the easiest way to ma nage an oil spill (personal com. Cedre). Therefore small oil spills resulting from usual practice are most of the time treated with dispersants when of cour se this is possible.

9 This list of agreed dispersants will be updated in 2005.



### 36CHAPTER 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 successfu lly 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 Wella id 3315 (5% EGBE) and Corexit 9527 10 

### (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 rate s 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 repor ted. 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 conse quently treated as an intermittent release. Figures on the number of oil spills detected ar e 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 re leased, 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 scenario s 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 t ype 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 th eir use is intended to mitigate the even worse potential effects of environmen tally hazardous oil products. For this reason, even if detailed composition information was available, it would s till 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.



### 37EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.15 Local releases of EGBE from formulation of paints
Scenario Paints I F Paints II F and Paints III F Paints IV F Paints V F 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 VI F Paints VII F Paints VIII F Paints IX F 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



### 38CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.17 Local releases of EGBE from processing of paints
Scenario Paints I P Paints II P and Paints III U * Paints IV P Paints V P
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 VI P Paints VII P Paints VIII P Paints IX P 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 treatmen t for solvent-based coatings and 80% for water-based coatings). Indeed, automotive producers operate VOC emission abatement systems to control air emissions



### 39EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.19 Local releases of EGBE from formulati on, processing and private use of detergents
Scenario Detergents I F Detergents I P Detergents II F Detergents II U 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 I P Inks I F Inks I P Pharm I P Elec I P 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 tonna ge is the total to nnage (3 EGBEA produ cers in the EU) ** Captive use: these amounts will be added to the releases at production



### 40CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.21 Local releases of EGBE from formulat ion and processing of other uses (continued)
Scenario Leather I P Adhesives I F Adhesives I P Agri I F Agri I P 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 formulat ion and processing of other uses (continued)
Scenario Oilfield I F Oilfield I P Metal I F Metal I P 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



### 41EU 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 I F Oilfield I P Metal I F Metal I P 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 formulat ion and processing of other uses (continue)
Scenario Cosmet I F / Fire I F Cosmet I U Fire I P 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 cont inental 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 th e calculation program EUSES (EC, 2004) and do not integrat e the emissions due to the scenario “Agri I” because of the scenario number limitations of the software. Neve rtheless, 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.

42CHAPTER 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/m 3 1.15.10 -4 mg/m 3 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 (PEC local 

### )

3.1.4.1 Aquatic compartment

3.1.4.1.1 PEC local 

### for production

PEC STP 

### At production level, the local Pr edicted Environmental Concentr ation 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 )

PEC aqua 

### Emissions at production and pro cessing 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 PEC aqua 

### for the different production sites are presented in Table 3.25

.

Table 3.25 Local PEC in water at production
Production sites #1 (PEClocal marine ) #2 #3 #4 #5 PEClocal aqua (μg/L) 0.8 10.6 9.0 9.6 -



### 3.1.4.1.2 Calculation of PEC local 

### 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 wate r 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 m 3 

### /day.

43EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006


### The effluent concentration leaving the STP (Predi cted Environmental Concentration in a STP or PEC STP 

### ) is calculated according to Equation 3.1 . This PEC STP 

### 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 s cenarios are the basis for th e calculation of the PECs. Table 3.26 gives the PECs for the aquatic compartment. PEC seawater 

### have been calculated with EUSES 2.0 (EC, 2004).

Table 3.26 Local PEC ST P and PEC aqua for EGBE
Scenario Daily release to waste water (kg/d) PEC STP (μg/L) Local PEC aqua (μg/L) Total local PEC aqua * (μg/L) Total local PEC seawater ¤ (μg/L) Paints I F / Paints I P 8.2 / 22.8 519 / 1,430 52 / 144 59 / 151 42 / 114 Paints II F & III F 8.4 533 54 61 43 Paints II P and Paints III U 2.1 132 13 21 11 Paints IV F / Paints IV P 0 / 0 - / - - / - 7 / 7 1 / 1 Paints V F / Paints V P 0 / 1.8 - / 110 - / 11 7 / 18 1 / 9 Paints VI F / Paints VI P 28.3 / 17.7 1,780/1,090 179 / 109 186 / 116 142 / 87 Paints VII F / Paints VII P 9.9 / 1.4 623 / 87 63 / 9 70 / 16 50 / 8 Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P 0 / 0 - / - - / - 7 / 7 1 / 1 Paints IX F / Paints IX P 2.8 / 0.4 178 / 22 18 / 3 25 / 10 15 / 2 Detergents I F / Detergents I P 2.0 / 7.4 125 / 464 13 / 47 20 / 54 11 / 37 Detergents II F / Detergents II U 0.8 / 1.5 52 / 93 6 / 10 13 / 17 5 / 8

Intermediates** I P *** 58.3 736 19 26 59 Inks I F / Inks I P 16.7 / 0.3 1,050 / 17 105 / 2 112 / 9 84 / 2 Pharm I P *** 20.3 254 7 14 21 Elec I P 12.5 791 80 87 63 Leather I P 44.5 2810 281 288 223 Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P 3.3 / 0.9 167 / 55 17 / 6 24 / 13 14 / 5 Agri I F / Agri I P 1.3 / 0 82 / - 8 / - 15 / 7 7 / 1 Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P 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 I F / Metal I P Metal intermittent 10.7 / 0.8 3 673 / 51 1500 68 / 5 19 75 / 12 26 54 / 5 16 Table 3.26 continued overleaf



### 44CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.26 continued Local PEC STP

and PEC aqua for EGBE
Scenario Daily release to waste water (kg/d) PEC STP (μg/L) Local PEC aqua (μg/L) Total local PEC aqua * (μg/L) Total local PEC seawater ¤ (μg/L) Cosmet I F & Fire I F /Cosmet I U 5.3 / 0.2 335 / 14 34 / 2 41 / 9 27 / 3 Fire I P 0.5 32 4 11 2 * Total local PEC aqua = Local PEC aqua + regional PEC aqua ¤ Total local PEC seawater = Local PEC seawater + regional PEC seawater ** Captive use not included *** Dilution factor = 40 and EFFLUENT STP

= 10,000 m 3 /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 c oncentration 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 industr y 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 compos ite were taken in the influe nt (four samples during 1990 and eight samples in 1991) and the effluent (sev en samples during 1989-1991). EGBE was separated by liquid – liquid extraction with dichlorometh ane 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). An alysis was performed with purge and trap – high resolution capillary GC/MS. EGBE was det ected at a concentration of 3.5.10 -2 

### mg/L Nguyen et al., 1994). Concentrations of EGBE have b een measured with GC/MS in a queous 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 cons isted mostly of municipal wast e (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. Indu strial 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).

45EU 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 so me uses. In this section, they are compared to the concentrations predicte d by exposure scenarios. EGBE concentrations measured by Yasuhara et al., 1981 can be put in parallel with values calculated with scenario “Leather I P 

### ”. 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 co nsider that these data come from a 20 year-old study and measurements were performed in a place where EG BE contamination from the leather industry was expected. Therefore, these results shoul d be considered as a highly worst-case. EGBE was also measured in municipal wast e water effluents. In the study by Paxeus et al., 1992 EGBE concentrations reach 3.10 -3 

### mg/L. In a first time this va lue can be compared to PEC STP 

### 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 PEClocal soil

soil natural soil soil 

## l PECregiona Clocal PEClocal

_ 

## + =

3.1.4.2.1 PEC local 

### for production
The different PEC local 

### in soil at production and proces sing (EGBE captive use for on-site EGBEA production) levels are presented in Table 3.27

.

Table 3.27 PEClocal soil 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 PEC local 

### for formulation, processing and private use The EUSES models (EC, 2004) take into acc ount both the application of STP sludge on agricultural soil and deposition from air for the calculation of EGBE concentrations in the

46CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT


### terrestrial compartment. Table 3.29 8 gives the terrestrial PECs at local scale for the various generic scenarios.

Table 3.28 Local PEC soil for EGBE
Scenario PEC soil - average concentration in agricultural soil over 30 days (μg/kg ww) PEC soil - average concentration in agricultural soil over 180 days (μg/kg ww) PEC soil - average concentration in grassland over 180

days (μg/kg ww) Paints I F / Paints I P 30 / 84 11 / 32 6 / 23 Paints II F & III F 31 11 6 Paints II P and Paints III U 9 4 3 Paints IV F / Paints IV P 4 / 10 4 / 10 5 / 17 Paints V F / Paints V P 2 / 8 2 / 4 3 / 3 Paints VI F / Paints VI P 96 / 59 31 / 20 13 / 8 Paints VII F / Paints VII P 5 / 9 12 / 6 6 / 7 Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 Paints IX F / Paints IX P 12 / 4 5 / 3 3 / 4 Detergents I F / Detergents I P 9 / 26 4 / 9 3 / 5 Detergents II F / Detergents II U 5 / 7 3 / 3 2 / 2 Intermediates** I P 41 14 6 Inks I F / Inks I P 57 / 6 19 / 5 8 / 8 Pharm I P 15 6 3 Elec I P 44 15 7 Leather I P 150 47 19 Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P 11 / 5 5 / 3 3 / 2 Agri I F / Agri I P 7 / 3 3.8 / 2.5 3.0 / 2.5 Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P 57 / 17 19 / 6 8 / 4 Metal I F / Metal I P 38 / 9 13 / 7 6 / 10 Cosmet I F & Fire I F / Cosmet I U 20 / 3 7 / 2 4 / 2

Fire I P 4 2 2 * Captive use not included - PECregional natural_soil ~ 1.89 μg/kg (ww)Atmosphere P Processing F Formulation U Private use



### 47EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006



### 3.1.4.3 Atmosphere

3.1.4.3.1 PEC local 

### for production Emissions of EGBE in air, both at production an d processing (on-site EGBEA production), result in an average annual concentration in air (Clocal air,ann 

### ) of 1.67 μg/m 3 

### in the worst case (site specific information for site #2). This results in a PEClocal air,ann 11 

### of 1.77 μg/m 3



### .

3.1.4.3.2 Calculation of PEC local 

### for formulation, processing and private use The calculated annual average EGBE con centrations in air are presented in Table 3.29 for the different use patterns.

Table 3.29 Local PEC air

for EGBE
Scenario Concentration during emission (μg/m 3 ) C local_air,ann 100m from source

(μg/m 3 ) Annual deposition (μg/m2/d) PEC local_air,ann * (μg/m 3 )

Paints I F / Paints I P 3.81 / 50.40 3.13 / 41.40 4.51 / 59.60 3.25 / 41.50 Paints II F & III F 3.91 3.22 4.63 3.33 Paints II P and Paints III U 3.11 2.55 3.67 2.67 Paints IV F / Paints IV P 14.30 / 62.00 11.70 / 51.00 16.90 / 73.40 11.90 / 51.10 Paints V F / Paints V P 3.93 / 0.49 3.23 / 0.40 4.65 / 0.58 3.35 / 0.51 Paints VI F / Paints VI P 1.97 / 0.48 1.62 / 0.39 2.33 / 0.57 1.73 / 0.51 Paints VII F / Paints VII P 0.69 / 17.20 0.56 / 14.10 0.81 / 20.40 0.68 / 14.30 Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P 2.35 / 0.10 1.93 / 0.08 2.78 / 0.11 2.05 / 0.19 Paints IX F / Paints IX P 1.57 / 9.13 1.29 / 7.51 1.86 / 10.80 1.40 / 7.62 Detergents I F / Detergents I P 0.12 / 7.12.10 -4 0.10 / 3.90.10 -4 0.14 / 5.62.10 -4 0.22 / 0.12 Detergents II F / Detergents II U 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** I P 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.13 Inks I F / Inks I P 1.16 / 22.50 1.00 / 18.50 1.37 / 26.60 1.07 / 18.60 Pharm I P 0.30 0.02 0.04 0.14 Elec I P 0.70 0.02 0.03 0.14 Leather I P 4.29.10 -3 2.33.10 -3 3.35.10 -3 0.12 Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P 0.23 / 8.37.10 -5 0.19 / 1.15.10 -5 0.27 / 1.65.10 -5 0.27 / 0.12 Agri I F / Agri I P 0.09 / 27.6 0.08 / 0.15 0.10 / 0.22 0.23 / 0.30 Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P 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 PEClocal air,ann = Clocal air,ann + PECregional air



### 48CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.29 continued Local PEC air

for EGBE
Scenario Concentration during emission (μg/m 3 ) C local_air,ann 100m from source

(μg/m 3 ) Annual deposition (μg/m2/d) PEC local_air,ann * (μg/m 3 )

Metal I F / Metal I P 0.93 / 32.4 0.76 / 26.7 1.10 / 38.4 1.33 / 26.80 Cosmet I F & Fire I F / Cosmet I U 0.37 / 2.06.10 -5 0.30 / 2.06.10 -5 0.44 / 2.96.10 -5 0.42 / 0.12 Fire I P 4.82.10 -5 6.60.10 -6 9.49.10 -6 0.12 * PEC local_air,ann = C local_air,ann + regional PEC air ** Captive use not included P Processing F Formulation U Private use



### 3.1.4.3.3 Measured levels EGBE was detected at 8 μg/m 3 

### 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 co ncentration for 14 samples was 1.05 μg/m 3 

### (median = 0.37 μg/m 3 

### ; lower quartile = 0.15 μg/m 3 

### ; upper quartile = 1.77 μg/m 3 

### ) (Shah and Singh, 1988). EGBE was also detected in the clean flue gas of a municipal wa ste incinerator in Germany, in 1995. It has been measured using the tec hnique of adsorption/thermodesorption and adsorption/elution on selected XAD resins and then detected with FID. EGBE concentration was 0.23 μg/m 3 

### (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 S outhern Europe, in Himalayas and in Antarctica. In the first study, concentrations ranged between 0.1 and 1.59 μg/m 3 

### and in the second between 1.26 and 14.85 μg/m 3 

### . Industrial or domestic emissions of EG BE were avoided in both studies. Major sources seemed to be vegetation in the first case and in the s econd, 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 ai r take place during industrial uses of paints. For example, PEC local_air,ann 

### reaches 51 μg/m 3 

### for the scenario “Paints IV P 

### ”. No measured data is available in the neighbourhood of pl ants using paints at high scal e so comparison is not possible. EGBE emissions in air are often a ten order less at formulation th an 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/m 3 

### 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 a ppropriate places in or der to avoid industrial and domestic sources (by Ciccioli et al., 1993 and Ciccio li, 1996). These studi es show a natural

49EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006


### production of EGBE by plants and the second st udy 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 e xpected 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 Harm ful (Xn and R48), it is assumed that there is a low potential for the substance to cause toxi c effects if accumulated in higher organisms.

50CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### 3.2 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT: HAZ ARD IDENTIFICATION AND DOSE (CONCENTRATION) - RESPONSE (EFFECT ASSESSMENT) Studies are classified as valid if they fully descri be the test material use d, 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 th e tests may be used with care or considered not valid. Moreover for some studies or results, some da ta 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 studi es 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 LC 50 983 Not specified Konemann, 1981 Valid with restrictions 2 Menidia beryllina * 96 hours LC 50 1,125 Not specified Dawson et al., 1975 Valid with restrictions 3 Lebistes reticulatus 96 hours LC 0 LC 50 LC 100 1,000 1,400 2,000 Not specified Knappe and Popp, 1974 Invalid

4 Oncorhynchus mykiss 96 hours LC 50 1,474 OECD guideline 203, 1999 INERIS, 1999b Valid

5 Lepomis macrochirus 96 hours LC 50 1,490 Not specified Dawson et al., 1975 Valid with restrictions 6 Leuciscus idus melanotus 48 hours LC 0 LC 50 LC 100 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 LC 50 1,700 APHA n°231 Bridié et al., 1979b Valid with restrictions 8 Leuciscus idus 48 hours LC 50 1,880 DIN 38412 part 15 Huels, 1982 Invalid

9 Pimephales promelas 96 hours LC 50 2,137 US EPA Dow Chemical Co, 1979 Valid with restrictions 10 Lepomis macrochirus 96 hours LC 50 2,950 Not specified Dow Chemical Co, 1981, cited in Neely, 1984 Invalid

Table 3.30 continued overleaf



### 51EU 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 LC 50 4 6.7 Stephan, 1974 Biospherics Inc., 1981b Invalid**

- Cyprinodon variegatus * 96 hours LC 50 116 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 1984 Invalid**

- Lepomis macrochirus 96 hours LC 50 127 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 fo llowing conditions: 22 +/- 1°C, oxygen content > 5 mg/L, water hardness = 25 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ). Test solutions were renewed daily and a solvent vehicle was also employed (aceto ne or 2-propanol). A log EC 50 

### was measured at 3.92 μmol/L (983 mg/L). In test #2, performed by Dawson et al., 1975, a chemically pure gr ade EGBE was tested on the marine fish Menidia beryllina . Test was conducted in syntheti c seawater, at 20°C with mild aeration according to the oxygen demand, water hardness was 55 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ). For other test conditions see test #5 description. A LC 50 

### 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 LC 50 

### of 1,474 mg/L was obtained after 96 hours (95% confidence interval = 1,145-1,840 mg/L). Seve n fish were disposed per aquarium, in 15 L test medium with continuous aeratio n. Water hardness was 250 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ), the range of pH during the test was 7.6-8.0 (measured before a nd 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 subs tance 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 LC 50 

### of 1,490 mg/L was obtained after 96 hours. Th e 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 us ed 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 desc ribed as having relatively low t oxicity but most samples did not required dilution (it can be expected that EG BE 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 av ailable. Different Lethal Concentrations were measured after 48 hours. Results for both laboratories are presented in Table 3.30

.

52CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### Standard methods for the examination of wate r 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 LC 50 

### 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 LC 50 

### of 2,137 mg/L after 96 hours (95% c onfidence 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: temp erature = 12°C, pH between 7.6 and 7.8, water hardness 101 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ), three test concentr ations (1,550, 2,100, 2,800 mg/L) plus control. A water temperature be tween 20 and 24°C is recommended for Pimephales promelas in the directive 92/CEE, met hod C1 “acute toxicity to fish”. The lo w water temperature employed in this test is thus a reason to restrict its validity. Tests number 8 and 10 must be considered as inva lid 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 Con centration 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

.

53EU 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 EC 50 540

690 Regeneration potential test Morphological characteristics Bowden et al

. , 1995 Valid with restrictions

2 Crangon crangon (crustacea) 96 hours LC 50 698 Not specified Blackman, 1974 Lack of data

3 Daphnia magna 48 hours EC 50 835 Not specified Dow Chemical Co, 1979 Valid with restrictions 4 Artemia salina * (crustacea) 24 hours EC 50 1,000 Not specified Price et al

. , 1974 Valid with restrictions 5 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC 0 EC 50 EC 100 1,140 1,720 2,500 DIN 38412 part 11 Bringmann and Kühn, 1977 Valid with restrictions

6 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC 0 EC 50 EC 100 1,283 1,815 2,500 DIN 38412 part 11 Bringmann and Kuhn, 1982 Valid with restrictions

7 Daphnia magna 48 hours EC 50 1,550 OECD guideline n°202 INERIS, 1999a Valid

8 Daphnia magna 24 hours EC 50 5,000 DIN 38412 part 11 Hoechst, 1982 Lack of data

- Palaemonetes pugio* (crustacea) 96 hours NOEC EC 50 2 5.4 US EPA, 1975 Biospherics Inc., 1981a Invalid**

- Crassostrea virginica (oyster) 96 hours LC 50 80.5 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 1984 Invalid**

- Panaeus setiferus (white shrimp) 96 hours LC 50 117 US EPA, 1975 Welchem Inc, 1984 Invalid**

* Marine species ** Test performed with a preparation containing EGBE 

### Bowden et al., 1995 have conducted thei r EGBE toxicity test on Hydra attenuata – test #1. The aim of this test was to measure the regeneration potential of this organi sm. Test conditions were as follow: 10 isolated digestive regions per test concentration, fi ve test concentrations (90, 180, 370, 740, 920 mg/L) plus one control, test soluti ons 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 EC 50 

### was derived from these results: 540 mg/L. It should be noticed that there wa s 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 EC 50 

### of 690 mg/L. Here, the endpoint was based on morphological char acteristics. Test conditions were similar and 10 adult polyps were used per test concentratio ns. Varying degrees of shortened tentacles and body were seen at 740 mg/L and at 920 mg /L polyps were totally contracted.

54CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### Blackman, 1974 conducted a EG BE toxicity test on Crangon crangon and determined a LC 50 

### of 698 mg/L after 96 hours (test #2). 20 animals were us ed 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 EC 50 

### 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 te n 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 (CaCO 3 

### ). Test #4 has been performed with a crustacean, Artemia salina , by Price et al

. , 1974 and a 24-hour EC 50 

### of 1,000 mg/L has been determined. The te st medium was cons tituted by artificial seawater, at 24.5°C. 30 to 50 shrimp / mL were di sposed at the beginning of the test in 100 mL test solution. The following EGBE concentr ations 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 EC 50 

### of 1,720 mg/L. The test was conducted in an open system with 24 hour-old daphnids (wild species) in tap water. Temp erature 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 O 2 

### concentration at the end of the test wa s 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 EC 50 

### after 24 hours was 1,815 mg/L (95% confidence interval = 1,698-1,940 mg/L). Other te st conditions were as follow: open system, 20°C, pH = 8 +/- 0.2, water hardness was 250 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ) 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 da phnids were used per containe rs 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: wa ter hardness 25 0 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ), pH = 7.8 +/- 0.2, DO = 5.3-6.8 mg/L. Less than 10% immobilisation was obs erved in the control after 48 hours and the analytical monitoring revealed a loss of substance during the test < 20%. A 48-hour EC 50 

### of 1,550 mg/L (95% confidence interv al = 1,390-1,720 mg/L) was observed. We can notice another 24-hour EC 50 

### result of 5,000 mg/L with Daphnia Hoechst, 1982) – test #8. But as no further data is available, this test is clas sified as invalid. Long-term toxicity Chronic toxicity tests for EGBE are presented in Table 3.33

.

55EU 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 EC 10 EC 20 EC 50 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 EC 10 EC 20 EC 50 100 134 175 297 OECD guideline n°211 INERIS, 1999d Valid

3 Ceriodaphnia dubia 7 days EC 10 134.9 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 ensu re 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 c onsisted 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 in cubation occurred at 25°C in dar kness, in a covered microplate. After 48 hours, the tota l number of rotifers per well was counted and EC 10 

### , EC 20 

### and EC 50 

### were determined by non-linear regression using a log logistic model. The respective confidence intervals for these endpoints were as follow: EC 10 

### = 4.5-13.7 mg/L, EC 20 

### = 8.8-37.8 mg/L and EC 50 

### = 75-486 mg/L. No analytical mon itoring 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



### 56CHAPTER 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-conventionalconcentration/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 f ound to fully invalidate the test. However, considering all the elements highli ghted that have triggere d off some concerns for the validation of this test, this study will be ex cluded from the PNEC derivation. This decision is also supported by the availability of standard toxici ty test results such as the one performed with Daphnia magna (test #2).

57EU 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 c oncentrations (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 (CaCO 3 

### ). A partial analytical monitoring has been performed, i.e. only for concentrations of 100 and 500 mg/L, a nd loss of substance over test duration was ranging between 3 and 14%. The c onfidence intervals for the endpoints measured were as follow: EC 10 

### = 110-140 mg/L, EC 20 

### = 150-180 mg/L and EC 50 

### = 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 EC 10 

### of 134.9 mg/L has been determined after seven days. One daphnid was disposed per container, in ten replicates. The pa rental mortality and the number of offspring per living parent were used as endpoi nts. Other test conditions are s hown here: eight concentrations plus control were tested at a temperature of 23 +/- 1°C an d pH = 8-9, DO = 8.1-8.3 mg/L and water hardness was 200 +/- 40 mg/L (CaCO 3 

### ). There was no analytical monitoring because preliminary studies showed that EGBE was stab le 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 EC 10 

### ranged between 25.3 and 147.4 mg /L. A NOEC (55.6 mg/L) and an EC 50 

### (138.2 mg/L) have also been calculated in anothe r report (INERIS, 1999c) but methods used for calculation tend to give a preference to the EC 10 

### 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 EC 3 (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 EC 50 125 250 >1,000 US EPA 600/9-78- 018 Dill and Milazzo, 1988 Not useable for PNEC derivation

4 Scenedesmus quadricauda 8 days EC 3 (biomass) 900 Cell multiplication inhibition test Bringmann and Kühn, 1978 Not useable for PNEC derivation 

### Note: in some tests performed by Bringmann, T GK (Toxische GrenzKonzentration) values were established. As the percentage effect at the TG K 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 tw o from a stock solution). Agitation took place once a day and the test was conducte d at 27°C in a neutral pH. The biomass was measured by spectrophotometry at 578 nm and an EC 3 

### of 35 mg/L was determined after eight days. This EC 3 

### can be considered as a NOEC. It should be noted that several drawbacks ar e associated with this

58CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT


### study. Indeed, the test should have been performed during the expone ntial growth phase of algal cells. However, algal cells could not have been ma intained 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 (EC 3 

### ) to a NOEC or EC 10 

### . 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 m easurement 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) base d 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 a nd 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 EC 10 

### of 308 mg/L and an EC 50 

### 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 count er. It can be noticed that the highest concentration te sted did not inhibit 50% growt h. 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 EC 3 

### of 900 mg/L (equivalent to a NOE C) was determined according to biomass measurement by spectrometry at 578 nm. Test conditions are shown hereafter: closed static system, neutral pH, temp erature = 27°C, agitation once a day. 14 concentrations were tested in duplicate but no analy tical 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

.

59EU 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 EC 5 91 Cell multiplication inhibition test Bringmann, 1978 Valid with restrictions

2 Uronema parduzci (protozoa) 20 hours EC 5 463 Cell multiplication inhibition test Bringmann and Kühn, 1980 Valid with restrictions

3 Pseudomon as putida (bacteria) 16 hours EC 3 700 Cell multiplication inhibition test Bringmann and Kühn, 1976 Valid with restrictions

4 Chilomonas paramecium * (protozoa) 48 hours EC 5 911 Cell multiplication inhibition test Bringmann et al

. , 1980 Valid with restrictions

* Unciliated 

### The toxicity of EGBE on protoz oa has been evaluated in three tests (#1,2,4). To assess the toxicity of a chemical on micro-organisms te sts conducted on ciliated pr otozoa are accepted but only one micro-organism is matching this characteristic: Uronema parduzci (#2), the others belong to unciliated protozoa. The cell multiplica tion 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 inhib ition 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 neutra l pH. A range of 14 concentrati ons 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 accordi ng 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 c ontrol. No mortality was observed at any test concentration. Moreover the subs tance did not induce a higher vitellogenin synthesis (lower quantities than in the control were actually measured). Alth ough a lower gonado-somatic index 12 

### was observed at the lowest concen tration this was not the case fo r higher ones. After an exposure to the positive control substan ce (oestradiol, an oestrogenic chemical) the brachydanio female presented genito-urinary buds wh ich 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 potenti al for endocrine disruption.

12 Ratio of weight of gonads compared to weight of total organism.



### 60CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### 3.2.1.6 PNEC for the aquatic compartment Three long term test results from three species repres enting three trophic levels will be used to derive the PNEC aqua 

### for EGBE. These tests are gathered in Table 3.37

.

Table 3.37 Toxicity tests retained for the derivation of PNEC aqu a 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 LC 50 after 7 days = 983 mg/L (Konemann, 1981).

Invertebrates: Daphnia magna 21 days NOEC 100 DeVillers et al

. , 2002a Hydra attenuata EC 50 after 72 hours =540 mg/L (Bowden et al., 1995) Daphnia magna EC 50 after 48 hours = 835 mg/L (Dow Chemical Co, 1979) Algae: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata 72 hours NOEC 286 INERIS, 1999e Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata EC 50 after 72 hours = 911 mg/L (INERIS, 1999e)


### An assessment factor of 10 is a pplied to the lowest test result in order to derive the PNEC aqua 

### : PNEC aqua 

### = 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. fiel d data or model ecosystems, could result, after a review on a case by case basis, in a lower assessment factor. Ne vertheless, the knowledge of a non-specific mode of action for EGBE seconds the PNEC aqua 

### proposal. Table 3.38 shows ecotoxicity results calculated from a log K ow 

### 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 LC 50 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 EC 50 1,103 

### The close relationship between predicted ecotoxicit y of EGBE and results from ecotoxicity tests confirms that EGBE does not ac t with a specific action manner.

61EU 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 PNEC aqua Species Duration Endpoint Result (mg/L) Reference

Fish: Poecilia reticulata 7 days LC 50 983 Konemann, 1981 Invertebrates: Hydra attenuata 72 hours EC 50 540 Bowden et al., 1995 Algae: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata 72 hours EC 50 911 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: PNEC aqua,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 organism s (fish and invertebra tes) are available. Nevertheless, the species tested do not show higher sensitivitie s than freshwater organisms. According to TGD (EC, 2003), both freshwater a nd 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 PNEC saltwater 

### 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 th e 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: PNEC saltwater,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 PNEC sed 

### will be calculated from the PNEC aqua 

### using the equilibrium partitioning method.

62CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT

Equation 3.6 Formula for the calculation of PNEC sed

using the equilibrium partitioning approach



## 1000 × × = − aqua susp watersusp sed 

## PNEC RHO K PNEC

PNEC sed 

### Predicted No Effect Concentrati on in sediment [mg/kg, wet weight] K susp-water 

### partition coefficient susp ended matter / water [~1.58 m 3 

### /m 3 

### ] RHO susp 

### bulk density of wet suspended matter [~1150 kg/m 3 

### ] PNEC aqua 

### Predicted No Effect Concentration in water [10 mg/L]

This results in: PNEC sed 

### = 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 se diment. The PNEC for organisms living in marine sediments may provi sionally be calculated using the equilibrium partitioning method from the PNEC for th e marine aquatic compartment (PNEC saltwater 

### ). Thus, the PNEC marine sed 

### = 1.4 mg/kg wet weight of marine sediment.

3.2.1.8 PNEC for micro-organisms in STP Four EGBE toxicity te sts on micro-organisms are quoted. Three tests were conducted with protozoa and one with an indivi dual bacteria species. Studies test ing ciliated protozoa can be used for the determination of a PNEC micro-organisms 

### . That is why the test conducted on Uronema parduzci will be retained for the PNEC determination. PNEC micro-organisms 

### = 463 mg/L.

3.2.2 Terrestrial compartment Since there are no EGBE toxicity data for terrestrial organisms, no PNEC soil 

### 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 PNEC soil

using the equilibrium partitioning approach 

## 1000 × × = − aqua soil watersoil soil 

## PNEC RHO K PNEC

PNEC soil 

### Predicted No Effect Concentra tion in soil [mg/kg, wet weight] K soil-water 

### partition coefficient soil water [~1.025 m 3 

### /m 3 

### ] RHO soil 

### bulk density of wet soil [~1700 kg/m 3 

### ] PNEC aqua 

### Predicted No Effect Concentration in water [10 mg/L]

This results in: PNEC soil 

### = 6 mg/kg (ww)

63EU 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 quan tify the risk for this compartment, inhalation toxicity da ta 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/m 3 

### ) has been identified from a sub-chronic study. Du ring these studies, haemol ysis was consistently observed and sometimes associated with hepati c 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/m 3 

### ) has been determined for mice and rats. Due to the closeness of the apparent LOAEC and NOAEC, it ha s 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 compartmen t) should be considered as a first tier, the NOAEC will be retained.

3.2.4 Secondary poisoning No specific data available.

64CHAPTER 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 ratio s 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 PNEC STP 

### and 10 mg/L for PNEC aqua 

### (1 mg/L for PNEC saltwater 

### ).

Table 3.40 Risk characterisation for micr o-organisms in STP and aquatic organisms
Scenario RCR STP RCR aqua RCR seawater 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 I F / Paints I P 0 (7.10 -5

) / 0 (2.10 -4

) 0.006 / 0.015 0.042 / 0.114 Paints II F & III F 0 (7.10 -5

) 0.006 0.043 Paints II P and Paints III U 0 (3.10 -4

) 0.002 0.011 Paints IV F / Paints IV P - / - 0 (7.10 -4

) / 0 (7.10 -4

) 0.001 / 0.001 Paints V F / Paints V P - / 0 (1.4.10 -5

) 0 (7.10 -4

) / 0.002 0.001 / 0.009 Paints VI F / Paints VI P 0 (3.10 -4

) / 0 (1.4.10 -4

) 0.019 / 0.012 0.142 / 0.087 Paints VII F / Paints VII P 0 (7.10 -5

) / 0 (1.4.10 -5

) 0.007 / 0.002 0.050 / 0.008 Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P - / - 0 (7.10 -4

) / 0 (7.10 -4

) 0.001 / 0.001 Paints IX F / Paints IX P 0 (3.10 -5

) / 0 (4.10 -6

) 0.003 / 0.001 0.015 / 0.002 Detergents I F / Detergents I P 0 (2.10 -5

) / 0 (7.10 -5

) 0.002 / 0.005 0.011 / 0.037 Detergents II F / Detergents II U 0 (7.10 -6

) / 0 (1.10 -5

) 0.001 / 0.002 0.005 / 0.008 Intermediates** I P 0 (1.10 -4

) 0.003 0.059 Inks I F / Inks I P 0 (1.10 -4

) / 0 (3.10 -6

) 0.011 / 0 (9.10 -4

) 0.084 / 0.002 Pharm I P 0 (4.10 -5

) 0.001 0.021 Elec I P 0 (1.10 -4

) 0.009 0.063 Leather I P 0 (4.10 -4

) 0.029 0.223 Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P 0 (3.10 -5

) / 0 (7.10 -6

) 0.002 / 0.001 0.014 / 0.005 Agri I F / Agri I P 0 (1.10 -5

) / - 0.002 / 0 (7.10 -4

) 0.007 / 0.001
Table 3.40 continued overleaf



### 65EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.40 continued Risk characterisation for micro-organisms in STP and aquatic organisms
Scenario RCR STP RCR aqua RCR seawater Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P 0 (1.10 -4

) / 0 (4.10 -5

) 0.011 / 0.004 0.084 / 0.023 Metal I F / Metal I P 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 I F & Fire I F / Cosmet I U 0 (5.10 -5

) / 0 (2.10 -6

) 0.004 / 0 (9.10 -4

) 0.027 / 0.003 Fire I P 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 char acterisation ratio of 0.001 for freshwater and 8.10 -4 

### for seawater. For some end uses, formulation a nd 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 performe d concerning the use of EGBE in oil spill dispersants (see Section 3.1.2.2.5). Ne vertheless, no conclusion will be drawn concerning this use in the EU risk assessment since it has to be acknow ledged that the deci sion whether to use a dispersant is made with the regulatory authoritie s 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 concer ned, specific regulations ar e 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 inst ance, detailed information is provided by the manufactures on actual usage and em ission 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 pot ential 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 fre shwater 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 da ta 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 wate r for EGBE is low. So it can be assumed that the risk assessment for the sediment is cove red by that for surface water (freshwater and seawater).

66CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### Conclusions to the risk assessm ent for the aquatic compartment Conclusion (ii)

. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

3.3.2 Terrestrial compartment
Risk characterisation for the te rrestrial 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 RCR agricultural_soil_over_30_days RCR grassland_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 I F / Paints I P 0.005 / 0.014 0 (9.10 -4

) / 0.004 Paints II F and III F 0.005 / 0.013 0 (9.10 -4

) / 0.003 Paints II P and Paints III U 0.002 0 (6.10 -4

) Paints IV F / Paints IV P 0 (5.10 -4

) / 0.002 0 (8.10 -4

) / 0.003 Paints V F / Paints V P 0 (3.10 -4

) / 0.001 0 (4.10 -4

) / 0 (3.10 -4

) Paints VI F / Paints VI P 0.016 / 0.011 0.002 / 0.003 Paints VII F / Paints VII P 0.006 / 0.001 0 (9.10 -4

) / 0.001 Paints VIII F / Paints VIII P 0 (2.10 -4

) / 0 (4.10 -4

) 0 (3.10 -4

) / 0 (6.10 -4

) Paints IX F / Paints IX P 0.002 / 0 (6.10 -4

) 0 (4.10 -4

) / 0 (6.10 -4

) Detergents I F / Detergents I P 0.001 / 0.004 0 (3.10 -4

) / 0 (7.10 -4

) Detergents II F / Detergents II U 0 (7.10 -4

) / 0.001 0 (2.10 -4

) / 0 (3.10 -4

) Intermediates** I P 0.032 0.004 Inks I F / Inks I P 0.009 / 0 (9.10 -4

) 0.001 / 0.001 Pharm I P 0.011 0.001 Elec I P 0.007 0 (9.10 -4

) Leather I P 0.025 0.003 Adhesives I F / Adhesives I P 0.002 / 0 (7.10 -4

) 0 (4.10 -4

) / 0 (2.10 -4

) Agri I F / Agri I P 0.001 / 0 (4.10 -4

) 0 (5.10 -4

) / 0 (4.10 -4

) Oilfield I F / Oilfield I P 0.009 / 0.003 0.001 / 0 (4.10 -4

)
Table 3.41 continued overleaf



### 67EU RISK ASSESSMENT

– 2- BUTOXYETHANOL ( EGBE ) FINAL REPORT , 2006

Table 3.41 continued Risk characterisation for terrestrial compartment
Scenario RCR agricultural_soil_over_30_days RCR grassland_over_180_days Metal I F / Metal I P 0.008 / 0.002 0.001 / 0 (4.10 -4

) Cosmet I F and Fire I F / Cosmet I U 0.003 / 0 (3.10 -4

) 0 (5.10 -4

) / 0 (2.10 -4

) Fire I P 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 pl ace on-site it can be noticed that no risk is expected. Accord ing 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 al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

3.3.3 Atmosphere No specific effect data are avai lable in order to accurately asse ss 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/m 3 

### will be compared to the PECs calculated for air. This NOAEC has been determined in a study where rats wher e exposed via inhalation. The worst PEC local_air,ann 

### of 51 μg/m 3 

### has been calculated for the scenario Paint IV P 

### (use in can coatings). Using the methodology described in the risk characterisation for c onsumers, 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

68CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENT



### The ratio between the threshold reta ined in the effect assessment and this worst case exposure is about a factor of 2,400. This rough risk charac terisation 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 al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

3.3.4 Secondary poisoning

Conclusions to the risk asse ssment for secondary poisoning Conclusion (ii)

. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e 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 assessm ent for the aquatic compartment Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for furthe r information and/or testing and no need for risk reduction measures beyond t hose which are bei ng applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e 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 furthe r information and/or testing and no need for risk reduction measures beyond t hose which are bei ng applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

Conclusions to the risk assessmen t for the atmospheric compartment Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for furthe r information and/or testing and no need for risk reduction measures beyond t hose which are bei ng applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e cycle of EGBE: production, formulation, processing and private use.

Conclusions to the risk asse ssment for secondary poisoning Conclusion (ii) There is at present no need for furthe r information and/or testing and no need for risk reduction measures beyond t hose which are bei ng applied already. Conclusion (ii) is applied to al l levels of the lif e 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-phas e reactions of the OH radi cal 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 Resear ch Lanoratory, US EPA. Atkinson R (1987) A structure-activity relationship for the es timation of rate contants for the gas-phase reactions of OH radicals with organic compounds. Int. J. Chem. Kinetics 19 , 799-828. ATSDR (1998) Toxicological prof ile for 2-butoxyethanol and 2-but oxyethanol 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 Biosphe rics 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 toxi city 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 Ciliate n. Zeitschrift Wasse r-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 improv ed 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.



### 72CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES

Cedre (2004) www.le-cedre.fr/ceppol CEFIC (1993) An assessment of the ready biodegradabilit y 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 su nfish (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 Antarc tica. 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 T hybaud E (2003) Effects of ethylene gl ycol ethers on the reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. Chemosphere 50 , 373-376. DeVillers J, Chezeau A, Thybaud E, Poul sen V, Graff L, Vasseur P, Chenon P, Mouchet F, Ferrier V and Quiniou F (2002b) Ecotoxicity of ethylene glyc ol 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 th e 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 th e 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 - includ ing a supplement fo r 2-butoxyethyl acet ate. 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 En vironmental 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.



### 73EU 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 décem bre 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, Fr ance, 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 décem bre 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, Fr ance, 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) Identifica tion 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). Encycl opedia 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 dispersa nts: Risk assessment for Swed ish 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.



### 74CHAPTER 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 LC 50 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 (197 4) Brine shrimp bioassay and seawat er 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 glyc ol monobutyl ether. Hazardou s 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 Orga nique de Synthèse et de la biochimie. Personal communication., March 1999. Silverstein RM and Bassler GC (1963) Ultraviolet spectrome try. 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 tr eatment of a mixed chemical discharge from the "Valley of the Drums" near Louisville, Ke ntucky. Control of hazardous mate rials spills, Louisville, Kentucky. Tanii H and Hashimoto K (1982) Structure-toxicity relati onship of acrylates and meth acrylates. Toxicol. Letters 11 , 125-129. Thatcher M, Robson M, Henriquez LR, Karman CC and Payn e G (2004) User guide for the evaluation of chemicals used and discharged offshore. A CIN revised CHARM III report, Version 1.3: 72 pp.



### 75EU 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 Corpora tion (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 te rritories. 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, Ec otoxicity and the Environment (DG SANCO) CT 50 Clearance Time, elimination or de puration 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]



### 77EU 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 Existin g 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 In formation 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



### 78ABBREVIATIONS

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



### 79EU 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 Environmen tal Toxicology And Chemistry SNIF Summary Notification Interc hange 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



### 80ABBREVIATIONS

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 em issions 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 custom er-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementati on 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, wh ile 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: 4 th Priority List Volume: 68