Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.
The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 236-068-5 | CAS number: 13138-45-9
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
![](https://echa.europa.eu./o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/print_environmental-fate-and-pathways.png)
Bioaccumulation: terrestrial
Administrative data
Link to relevant study record(s)
Description of key information
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
BAF (terrestrial) Endpoint Summary:
For the terrestrial food chains in which birds are the predator, it was assumed that the diet of birds consisted solely of worms. Two food chains were evaluated for worm eating mammals: a 100% earthworm diet and a mixed diet of earthworms and other invertebrates (30% and 70%, respectively). Estimating the Ni concentrations to which a worm-eating bird or mammal may be exposed requires representative Ni concentrations in soil and a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) to estimate the Ni concentration in the earthworm (or other invertebrate) from the soil concentration. The choice of earthworms as the prey for terrestrial predators follows TGD guidance. The TGD uses earthworms because they ingest soil. An assumption is made that when predators ingest earthworms, they also ingest the full gut content of the worms, which is comprised of soil. As such, the earthworm would represent the highest dose of soil among potential prey organisms, and hence the largest dose of Ni as well. In nature, the diet of birds and mammals does not consist 100% of earthworms. For example, the European starling, which consumes earthworms, also feeds on other invertebrates and fruits and grains. The common shrew may also consume substantial quantities of insects, spiders, isopods, centipedes, snails, and slugs (Churchfield 1990). Accordingly, assuming a 100% earthworm exposure for these species may overestimates Ni exposure if earthworms have higher Ni concentrations than other prey species. This appears to be the case. For example, based on Ni data reported in Torres and Johnson (2001), the mean Ni BAF in isopods was approximately 0.066 on a dry wt. basis,which is l ower than the geometric mean earthworm BAF of 0.30 that was calculated as part of this analysis. Therefore, the assumption that the diet of the birds and mammals addressed in this assessment are comprised 100% of earthworms is a cautious approach, as earthworms contribute a higher dose of soil to the consumer organism than other food sources, and because the earthworm shows a higher BAF than other soil invertebrates, e.g., isopods. As discussed above, therefore, a second food chain was assumed for the shrew that consists of earthworms and other invertebrates, as represented by isopods. The isopod was selected to represent another terrestrial invertebrate in the shrew diet because a Ni BAF is available and isopods were a relatively common prey item in a southern England shrew study (Churchfield 1990).
Earthworm BAFs were compiled for various soil types based on a review of the scientific literature and ranged from 0.05 to 1.86 on a dry weight basis. The maximum BAF of 1.86 is from a soil that likely has elevated Ni bioavailability due to its combined low cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 5.3 meq/g and low pH of 4.8. However, BAFs from other studies are similar in magnitude, suggesting that perhaps this maximum BAF is not unique. Although there is an overall trend of decreasing BAFs with increasing soil Ni concentrations (based on the Neuhauser et al. [1995] and Janssen et al. [1997a] studies), the two lowest BAFs (0.05 and 0.07 from Ma (1982) were derived using control soils. Accordingly, all BAFs were pooled and log normally distributed. The resulting BAF geometric mean from the cumulative frequency distribution is 0.30.
Nickel bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for earthworms. (Note: Soil content was voided from the earthworm gut, at least partially in each study).
Species |
Soil Type |
pH |
OM (%) |
CEC (meq/ 100 g)
|
Soil Ni (mg/kg dry wt.)
|
Earthworm Ni (mg/kg dry wt.)
|
BAF (dry wt.)
|
References |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Marine clay loam |
7.1 |
5.8 |
26.3 |
a |
a |
0.05 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Sandy loam |
6.6 |
2.8 |
9.4 |
a |
a |
0.20 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Riverine clay loam |
5.3 |
6.9 |
26.4 |
a |
a |
0.07 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Peaty sand |
4.7 |
12.4 |
20.5 |
a |
a |
0.34 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Sandy podzolized soil |
5.4 |
6.4 |
13.5 |
a |
a |
0.21 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora caligonosa |
Plaggen soil |
4.8 |
2.8 |
5.3 |
a |
a |
1.86 |
Ma 1982 |
Allolobophora tuberculata |
Silt loam (fine) |
a |
a |
a |
12.6 |
4.7 |
0.37 |
Neuhauser et al. 1995 |
Allolobophora tuberculata |
Silt loam (fine) |
a |
a |
a |
12.6 |
4.5 |
0.36 |
Neuhauser et al. 1995 |
Allolobophora tuberculata |
Silt loam (coarse) |
a |
a |
a |
64.5 |
14 |
0.22 |
Neuhauser et al. 1995 |
Allolobophora tuberculata |
Silt loam (coarse) |
a |
a |
a |
95.5 |
20 |
0.21 |
Neuhauser et al. 1995 |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
3.42 |
b |
b |
7.1 |
4.5 |
0.63 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
5.67 |
b |
b |
71.5 |
7.9 |
0.11 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
5.35 |
b |
b |
74.9 |
9.0 |
0.12 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
7.17 |
b |
b |
18.7 |
9.0 |
0.48 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.53 |
b |
b |
51.1 |
5.6 |
0.11 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.51 |
b |
b |
48.2 |
3.4 |
0.07 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.8 |
b |
b |
99.9 |
9.0 |
0.09 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
4.98 |
b |
b |
27.4 |
11.2 |
0.41 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
3.77 |
b |
b |
1.9 |
2.2 |
1.2 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
3.85 |
b |
b |
12.2 |
4.5 |
0.37 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
5.26 |
b |
b |
15.2 |
9.0 |
0.59 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.75 |
b |
b |
45.6 |
16.9 |
0.37 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.69 |
b |
b |
50.9 |
21.4 |
0.42 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.89 |
b |
b |
82.8 |
15.7 |
0.19 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
7.02 |
b |
b |
56.2 |
14.6 |
0.26 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Eisenia andrei |
Dutch soils |
6.95 |
b |
b |
37.5 |
5.6 |
0.15 |
Janssen et al. 1997a |
Not specified |
Clay |
a |
a |
a |
859 |
66.7 |
0.08 |
Jacques Whitford Limited 2005a |
Mixture |
Mixed types |
6.9 |
3.3 |
a |
13.6 |
25.2 |
1.85 |
Gish and Christensen 1973 |
Mixture |
Lansdale loam |
5.9-6.3 |
a |
a |
14 |
16 |
1.14 |
Beyer et al. 1982 |
Mixture |
Hagerstown silt loam |
5.4-6.4 |
3.0 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
1.25 |
Beyer et al. 1982 |
Mixture |
Lansdale loam |
4.9-6.4 |
2.5 |
8 |
13 |
11 |
0.85 |
Beyer et al. 1982 |
Mixture |
Readington silt loam |
5.3-6.1 |
2.6 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
0.75 |
Beyer et al. 1982 |
Geometric mean BAF (all data): 0.30 |
aNot reported
bNot reported for individual samples, but the minimum, median, and maximum OM contents were 2.0, 5.5, and 21.8%, respectively, and
the minimum, median, and maximum CECs were 1.7, 10.6, and 41.8 meq/100 g (Janssen et al. 1997b).
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.
![ECHA](/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/echa_logo.png)