Rapid screening of substances with limited general population exposure
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Health Canada
June 2017
Table of contents
- Synopsis
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Approach
- 3. Rapid screening results
- 4. Summary of uncertainties
- 5. Conclusion
- References
- Appendicies
- Appendix A. Substances requiring further assessment based on potential for exposure of the general population
- Appendix B. Substances with low potential for exposure of the general population and low ecological concern
- Appendix C. Substances with low potential for exposure of the general population, but requiring further assessment because of potential ecological concerns
- Appendix D. Substances with health or ecological effects of concern
List of figures
- Figure 1. Overview of approach for evaluation of indirect and direct exposures to the general population
- Figure 2. Considerations for the determination of potential for direct exposure to the general population
- Figure 3. Considerations for the determination of potential for indirect exposure to the general population
- Figure 4. Results of the evaluation of direct and indirect exposure to the general population
- Figure 5. Determining substances of low concern for human health and ecological risk
Synopsis
On the basis of available information, 171 substances for which potential for direct exposure to humans was not anticipated were identified and were therefore considered to be candidates for a rapid screening approach. These 171 substances met categorization criteria under subsection 73(1) of CEPA or were considered a priority because of other human health or ecological concerns.
For this draft rapid screening analysis, the approach for the human health component has been updated from past rapid screening approaches to incorporate elements of Health Canada's threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)-based approach. Rather than a volume cut-off based on the commercial status of the substances, a two-fold approach was used to determine exposure for the general population of Canada. The initial screening was based on the potential for direct exposure as outlined in previous rapid screening publications. If no direct exposure was identified, rather than using a volume cut-off based on quantities of the substance in commerce, as in most previous rapid screening approaches, the potential for indirect human exposure from environmental media (e.g., air, water, or soil) was determined using an approach based on Health Canada's TTC approach.
Based on this approach, both direct and indirect exposure to the general population of Canada is expected to be negligible for 99 of the 171 substances. Direct and/or indirect exposure potential was identified for the remaining 72 substances, and as a result, these substances will undergo further assessment to evaluate risk to human health.
The ecological risks of 89 of the 99 substances identified in this rapid screening assessment as having negligible exposure to the general population were characterized using the ecological risk classification of organic substances (ERC). The ERC is a risk-based approach that employs multiple metrics for assessing both hazard and exposure on the basis of weighted consideration of various lines of evidence to determine risk classification. Hazard profiles based primarily on metrics regarding mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web-derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity are established. Metrics considered in the exposure profiles include potential emission rate, overall persistence, and long-range transport potential. A risk matrix is used to assign a low, moderate or high level of potential concern for substances on the basis of their hazard and exposure profiles. Three of the 99 substances have previously been determined not to be of ecological concern through rapid screening evaluations. The ecological risks of seven of the 99 substances remain to be evaluated. As a result of these approaches, 88 of the 99 substances were identified as being of moderate or low ecological concern.
When the results of the human health exposure analysis and the ERC are considered together, 88 of the 99 substances for which human exposure is considered to be negligible were identified as not being of concern to human health or the environment. The remaining 11 substances, although considered to be of low concern to human health, require further assessment because of potential ecological concerns. The results supporting low risk to human health for these 11 substances may form the basis, in conjunction with other relevant information that becomes available after publication of this document, for conclusions made under section 68 or 74 of CEPA at a later time.
Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this draft screening assessment, there is low risk of harm to organisms and the broader integrity of the environment from the 88 substances listed in Appendix B. It is proposed to conclude that these 88 substances do not meet the criteria under paragraphs 64(a) or (b) of CEPA as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
Based on the information presented in this draft screening assessment, it is proposed to conclude that these 88 substances do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Therefore, it is proposed to conclude that the 88 substances identified in Appendix B do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.
1. Introduction
On the basis of available information, 171 substances for which potential for direct exposure to humans was not anticipated were identified and were therefore considered to be candidates for a rapid screening approach. Substances that met the above criteria, but that are currently being addressed under other assessment activities, were not included in this rapid screening. The 171 substances met categorization criteria under subsection 73(1) of CEPA or were considered a priority on the basis of other human health or ecological concerns (ECCC, HC [modified 2007]). Unlike most previous rapid screening assessments (e.g., Environment Canada, Health Canada 2014; ECCC, HC 2016), the substances selected as candidates for this initiative were not limited to those reported to be in commerce in Canada at less than or equal to 1000 kg/year; potential for direct human exposure to the substance was the determining factor for consideration.
Seven substances from the Confidential Domestic Substances List (CDSL) were included as a part of the 171 substances in this rapid screening approach. Pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Masked Name Regulations, a confidential accession number is given to a substance whose identity has been reported as confidential. The identity of the seven substances has been masked in this rapid screening in accordance with sections 88 and 113 of CEPA. Assessments and conclusions pertaining to some of the substances in this rapid screening may be subsequently updated as part of future assessments if the substance is found to be part of a larger class or moiety.
The approach used to determine exposure for the general population of Canada was two-fold. The initial screening was based on the potential for direct exposure using a process consistent with that of previous rapid screenings. Substances reported as having commercial activity in Canada were evaluated on the basis of their presence in several "streams" (e.g., food, non-prescription drugs, natural health products, cosmetics, and other products available to consumers). If no direct exposure was identified, rather than using a volume cut-off based on quantities of the substance in commerce, as in previous rapid screening approaches, the potential for indirect human exposure from environmental media (e.g., air, water, or soil) was determined using an approach based on Health Canada's threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) approach. Potential releases to the environment were modelled using information on manufacturing and import quantities provided in response to notices regarding commercial activity in Canada collected via mandatory surveys under section 71 of CEPA. For the general population, estimated intakes of less than or equal to 2.5 ng/kg bw/day were considered to be negligible. For the purposes of this assessment, this value is based on the lowest human TTC value for a chemical, below which there is a low probability of risk to human health.
The ecological risks of the majority of substances in this rapid screening were characterized using the ecological risk classification of organic substances (ERC) (ECCC 2016a). The ERC describes the hazard of a substance using key metrics including mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web-derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity. It considers the possible exposure of organisms in the aquatic and terrestrial environments on the basis of such factors as potential emission rates, overall persistence and long-range transport potential in air. The various lines of evidence are combined to identify substances warranting further evaluation of their potential to cause harm to the environment or as having a low likelihood of causing harm to the environment.
This draft rapid screening was prepared by staff in the CEPA Risk Assessment Program at Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada and incorporates input from other programs within these departments. The ERC document was subject to an external peer-review and a 60-day public comment period. While external comments were taken into consideration, the final content and outcome of the draft screening assessment remain the responsibility of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada.
This draft rapid screening focuses on scientific information critical to determining whether substances meet the criteria as set out in section 64 of CEPA and incorporates a weight-of-evidence approach and precautionFootnote 1. The draft rapid screening presents the critical information and considerations on which the proposed conclusions are based.
2. Approach
2.1 Overall approach for evaluation of exposure to the general population
The human health component of this rapid screening approach is illustrated in Figure 1. It consists of multiple steps that address the potential for exposure to a substance.
Long description for figure 1
Candidate substances were identified from the remaining priorities from the 3rd phase of the Chemicals Management Plan. The first step was to determine if a candidate substance a potential for direct exposure. If yes, then the substance is no longer considered within this rapid screening approach and requires further assessment. If no, then the candidate substance proceeds to the second step in the approach and the potential for indirect exposure is evaluated. If a potential for indirect exposure is identified then the substance is removed from the approach, and requires further assessment. If no potential for low exposure is identified, then the candidate substance is considered within this approach to have a low potential for exposure.
Figure 1 illustrates the human health component of this rapid screening approach. The potential for direct exposure of a candidate substance is evaluated as the first step. If potential for direct exposure to the general population is identified, the substance requires further assessment and is subsequently removed from further consideration in the rapid screening approach. If potential for direct exposure is not identified, an additional step to evaluate the potential for indirect exposure to the general population is conducted. The results of this second step determine whether or not the substance requires further assessment or can be considered to represent a negligible risk for exposure to the general population.
The approach used in this rapid screening is similar to that of previous rapid screenings (e.g., Environment Canada, Health Canada 2014; ECCC, HC 2016). However, in most previous rapid screening approaches, the candidate substances were typically identified on the basis of their low potential for indirect exposure at the outset (i.e., reported quantities in Canadian commerce not exceeding 1000 kg/year). The scope of those screening assessments was therefore limited to evaluation of the potential for direct exposure. The scope of this draft rapid screening was broadened and updated to reflect and utilize elements of the TTC approach. For example, if no direct exposure was identified, rather than using a volume cut-off based on quantities of the substance in commerce, as in previous rapid screening approaches, the potential for indirect human exposure from environmental media (e.g., air, water, or soil) was determined using an approach based on the TTC approach.
2.2 Process for evaluating the potential for direct exposure of the general population
In this rapid screening, the term “direct exposure” refers to a substance that is available to Canadians for their use either directly or as part of a mixture, product, or manufactured item. In this context, direct use does not include exposures from chemical products used by workers in an industrial or workplace setting. A user is considered to be anyone from the general population who has access to a product that is advertised, imported, or sold in Canada (including those marketed and sold online in Canada). Considerations for determination of direct exposure potential are described below and outlined in Figure 2.
Long description for figure 2
Candidate substances are evaluated for the potential for direct exposure by first identifying if the substance is used in or present in a product used by the general population of Canada. If the substance is not found to used in or present in a product used by the general population of Canada then it is determined to have a low potential for direct exposure and moves on to further evaluation of the potential for indirect exposure. If the substance was found to be used in or present in a product it proceeds to a further evaluation to determine if there is potential for direct exposure from use of the product. If yes, then the substance is no longer considered within this approach and requires further assessment. If no, then the substance is considered to have a low potential for direct exposure and proceeds to indirect exposure evaluation.
Figure 2 illustrates the process for determining the potential for direct exposure of the general population of Canada. In some cases, the process requires two steps for direct use determination. To determine if a substance is used or present in a product used by Canadians, numerous sources of both domestic and international use and product information were consulted, including but not limited to:
Domestic
- Information from a mandatory section 71 survey under CEPA - Notice with respect to selected substances identified as priority for action (Canada 2006)
- Information from a mandatory section 71 survey under CEPA - Phase One of the Domestic Substances List (DSL) Inventory Update (DSL IU) (Canada 2009)
- Information from a mandatory section 71 survey under CEPA - Phase Two of the DSL IU (Canada 2012)
- Health Canada's Lists of Permitted Food Additives (Health Canada [modified 2016])
- Health Canada's Natural Health Products Ingredients Database (NHPID 2016)
- Health Canada's Licensed Natural Health Products Database (LNHPD 2016)
- Health Canada's Drug Product Database (DPD 2016)
- Pest Management Regulatory Agency's Product Information Database (PMRA 2016)
- Pest Management Regulatory Agency's List of Formulants (PMRA 2010)
- List of Pharmaceuticals sold in Canada (Health Canada 2011 & 2012) (IMS 2013)
- Notifications submitted under the Cosmetic Regulations to Health Canada
- Notifications submitted under the Food and Drugs Act to Health Canada
International
- United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA) Chemical and Product Categories Database (CPCat 2016)
- Everything Added to Food in the United States Database (EAFUS 2011)
- United States Food and Drug Administration's Food Additive Status List (US FDA 2013)
- United States Food and Drug Administration's List of Indirect Additives used in Food Contact Substances (US FDA 2011)
- European Commission's Food Additive Database (EU 2014a)
- European Commission's Food Flavourings Database (EU 2014b)
- European Commission's Cosmetic Ingredient Database (COSING 2014)
- Household Products Database (HPD 2016)
- Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB c1993-2008)
- Danish Surveys on Chemicals in Consumer Products - various (Denmark 2016)
- Material safety data sheets (MSDS) - various internet sources
- National and international assessments and databases
If there is identified or expected use of a candidate substance, or if the substance is found in a product used by Canadians, a subsequent step is required to determine the potential for direct exposure from use of the product. The following considerations were used to determine potential for direct exposure:
- Substances for which direct exposures of the general population are not expected include, but are not limited to, those used only:
- as intermediates in the manufacturing process;
- for commercial or industrial use; or
- for research purposes.
- Substances with potential for direct exposure of the general population include those that are present, either intentionally or unintentionally, in products or manufactured items that are commonly used by Canadians. These include, but are not limited to, substances used in:
- products intended for use by children, and manufactured items such as plastic or wooden toys;
- cosmetics, non-prescription drugs and natural health products;
- commercial paints and inks;
- commercial adhesives;
- hobby activities or do-it-yourself products;
- clothing, fabric and other textiles, including bedding and furniture;
- cleaning products; and
- food additives and packaging.
- Information on the potential of the substance to migrate from products is also considered, including the type of product that the substance is present in, the substance's functional use in that product, as well as the substance's physical-chemical properties. For example, direct exposure would not be expected to occur for a substance used as a curing agent in a polymer as the substance would be reacted into the stable matrices of the cured polymer and would therefore not typically be available for migration. If this information is not known for a substance, it is assumed that the substance may be migrating out of the final product, which may lead to direct exposure for users.
If there is no evidence for use of a substance in a product used by Canadians, the substance is determined to have a low potential for direct exposure, and its potential for indirect exposure is then considered.
2.3 Process for evaluating the potential for indirect exposure of the general population
In most previous rapid screenings (e.g., Environment Canada, Health Canada 2014; ECCC, HC 2016), the cut-off for inclusion of a candidate substance was based on reported quantities in commerce in Canada that were less than or equal to 1000 kg/year per substance. However, for this draft rapid screening, no quantity cut-off value was used, and the scope of this rapid screening was broadened and updated to reflect and utilize elements of the TTC approach. For example, if no direct exposure was identified, rather than using a volume cut-off based on quantities of the substance in commerce, as in previous rapid screening approaches, the potential for indirect human exposure from environmental media (e.g., air, water, or soil) was determined using an approach consistent with that reported in Health Canada's Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)-based Approach for Certain Substances (Health Canada 2016). As a result, some substances included in this rapid screening approach may result in some level of indirect exposure from environmental media. The general scheme for evaluating the potential for indirect exposure of the general population in Canada is shown in Figure 3.
Long description for figure 3
Candidates identified as not having a potential for direct exposure in this approach proceed to an evaluation of the potential for indirect exposure. At the first step, if the candidate substance was notified via the DSL IU with volumes in Canadian commerce greater than or equal to 1000 kg/yr then it is considered to have a low potential for indirect exposure. If the volumes are >1000 kg/yr then a further step is involved to derive intake rates for indirect exposures. If the intake rates are determined to be less than or equal to 2.5 ng/kg body weight/day, then the substance is considered to have a low potential for indirect exposure. If the intake rates are > 2.5 ng/kg body weight/day, then the substance is no longer considered within this approach and requires further assessment.
Figure 3 illustrates the process for determining the potential for indirect exposure of the general population. The initial step for candidate substances in this rapid screening approach considers the total volumes reported in Canadian commerce via mandatory surveys. This was based on information provided in response to notices regarding commercial activity in Canada collected from both Phase One and Phase Two of the DSL IU (Canada 2009, Canada 2012) and a survey conducted in 2006 (Canada 2006) under section 71 of CEPA.
As with most previous rapid screening approaches, substances reported at less than or equal to 1000 kg/year were considered to represent a low potential for exposure of the general population via indirect sources (Environment Canada, HealthCanada 2014; ECCC, HC 2016). For substances that were reported at volumes greater than 1000 kg/year, an additional step was undertaken to determine the estimated intake rates from indirect exposure. This evaluation step was adopted from the approach described in Health Canada 2016.
Briefly, the approach relied on empirical or modelled physical-chemical properties and environmental degradation half-lives of substances obtained using EPI Suite (EPI Suite 2012). Data and results obtained from EPI Suite, along with Canadian manufacturing and import data (Canada 2006, Canada 2009, Canada 2012), were then entered into the environmental fugacity model, ChemCAN (ChemCAN 2003) to estimate environmental concentrations for each substance. As a conservative approach, emission volumes modelled in ChemCAN were based on the total volumes reported to be manufactured and imported in Canada (i.e., assuming 100% of the substance manufactured or imported into Canada is released to the environment).
As required, modelling was refined by considering wastewater treatment (WWT) removal rates estimated using SimpleTreat (Struijs et al. 1991) and the STP model in EPI Suite (EPI Suite 2012). The lower of the two removal rates generated by the two models for a substance was applied to reduce the initial emission volume used for the ChemCAN modelling.
If a substance was not a suitable candidate for fugacity modelling because of its physical-chemical properties (e.g., vapour pressure less than 10-7 Pa or water solubility less than 1 ng/L), theoretical environmental intake estimates were generated. See Health Canada 2016 for a detailed discussion regarding the assessment of indirect exposure for substances not amenable to fugacity modelling.
The estimated environmental concentrations were used to derive human intake values to estimate indirect exposure of the general population to each substance on the basis of Canadian exposure factors (Health Canada 1998). Empirical Canadian monitoring or emissions release data were used, when available, provided the empirically-based predicted environmental concentrations exceeded the environmental concentration estimates derived from in-commerce quantities.
The approach used to estimate indirect exposure is considered conservative as it assumes (1) an emission factor of 100%, (2) a worst-case mode-of-entry into the environment, and (3) all releases as occurring in only one region of Canada. For the purposes of this assessment, human exposure is considered to be negligible for all substances having predicted indirect exposures of 2.5 ng/kg bw/d or lessFootnote 2.
2.4 Ecological approach
The ecological risks of the majority of substances in this rapid screening were characterized using ERC (ECCC 2016a). The ERC is a risk-based approach that considers multiple metrics for assessing both hazard and exposure on the basis of weighted consideration of multiple lines of evidence to determine risk classification. The various lines of evidence are combined to discriminate between substances of lower or higher potency and lower or higher potential for exposure in various media. This approach reduces the overall uncertainty with risk characterization compared to an approach that relies on a single metric in a single medium (e.g., LC50) for characterization. The approach, which is described in detail in ECCC (2016a), is summarized below.
Data on physical-chemical properties, fate (chemical half-lives in various media and biota, partition coefficients, fish bioconcentration), acute fish ecotoxicity, and chemical import or manufacture volume in Canada were collected from scientific literature, from available empirical databases (e.g., OECD QSAR Toolbox), and from responses to surveys under section 71 of CEPA or were generated using selected quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) or mass-balance fate and bioaccumulation models. These data were used as inputs to other mass-balance models or to complete the substance hazard and exposure profiles.
Hazard profiles based primarily on metrics regarding mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web-derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity were established. Exposure profiles were also established using multiple metrics including potential emission rate, overall persistence, and long-range transport potential. Hazard and exposure profiles were compared to decision criteria in order to classify the hazard and exposure potentials for each organic substance as low, moderate, or high. Additional rules were applied (e.g., classification consistency, margin of exposure) to refine the preliminary classifications of hazard or exposure.
A risk matrix was used to assign a low, moderate or high classification of potential risk for each substance on the basis of its hazard and exposure classifications. ERC classifications of potential risk were verified using a two-step approach. The first step adjusted the risk classification outcomes from moderate or high to low for substances that had a low estimated rate of emission to water after wastewater treatment, representing a low potential for exposure. The second step reviewed low risk potential classification outcomes using relatively conservative, local-scale (i.e., in the area immediately surrounding a point-source of discharge) risk scenarios designed to be protective of the environment to determine whether the classification of potential risk should be increased.
3. Rapid screening results
3.1 Assessment of the potential to cause harm to human health
Figure 4 illustrates the results of the evaluation of direct and indirect exposure of the general population for the candidate substances, with an accompanying number of substances associated with each step of the process.
Long description for figure 4
The rapid screening approach identified 171 candidates. At the first step in the evaluation of the potential to cause harm to human health the potential for direct exposure is determined. There was no potential for direct exposure identified for 103 of the 171 candidates. The potential for indirect exposure was then evaluated for these 103 substances. As a result of the approach applied in this assessment, a further 4 substances had a potential for indirect exposure identified. The remaining 99 substances were then determined to have a low potential for exposure after applying the rapid screening approach utilized in this assessment.
As a result of this exposure characterization, 68 of the 171 substances were identified as having the potential to result in direct exposure of the general population, and so further assessment of these substances is required. Four of the remaining 103 substances had predicted indirect exposure estimates higher than the TTC value (i.e., 2.5 ng/kg bw/day). Therefore, 72 substances in total will undergo further human health assessment in future publications (see Appendix A).
On the basis of the evaluation of both direct and indirect exposure conducted as part of this rapid screening approach, exposure of the general population was considered to be negligible for the remaining 99 substances.
3.2 Assessment of the potential to cause ecological harm
The ecological risks of 89 of the 99 substances that were determined to have negligible exposure to the general population in this rapid screening were characterized using ERC. Three additional substances were previously determined not to be of ecological concern through rapid screening evaluations (Environment Canada, Health Canada 2014; ECCC, HC 2016). As a result of this approach, 88 substances were identified as being of moderate or low ecological concern. The critical data and considerations used to create substance-specific profiles and classifications associated with ecological hazard, exposure and risk, as well as identification of potential need for tracking of future use patterns, are presented in ECCC (2016b).
A summary of the hazard, exposure and risk classifications can be found in Appendix B.
3.3 Determination of substances of low concern for human health and the environment
Figure 5 illustrates the combined results of the assessment to cause harm to human health, as determined via the potential for direct and indirect exposure of the general population, and the assessment to cause ecological harm, as determined via the ERC Approach.
Long description for figure 5
Figure 5 illustrates the flow through of decisions after applying the rapid screening approach developed for identifying the potential to cause harm to human health utilized in this assessment, as well as the alignment with the results of this evaluation with the results of ecological risk classification (ERC) of organic substances approach. After evaluating the potential for direct and/or indirect exposure of the 171 candidate substances, 72 were found to require further human health assessment via another initiative, and 99 were determined to have negligible potential exposure to the general population. These 99 substances were then cross-referenced with the substances found to have low potential for ecological risk, as determined by the ERC approach. As a consequence, 88 substance were found to have both low concern for human health and risk assessment. The remaining 11 substances, while having a low concern for human health, have the potential for ecological risk still to be determined.
From the subset of 99 substances for which exposure of the general population was considered to be negligible, 88 substances were also identified as having low potential to pose ecological risk (ECCC 2016b) (see Appendix B). The remaining 11 substances were found to be of low concern to human health, but were identified as requiring further assessment because of potential ecological concerns (see Appendix C). The results supporting low risk to human health for these 11 substances may form the basis, in conjunction with other relevant information that becomes available after publication of this document, for conclusions made under section 68 or 74 of CEPA at a later time.
Although the above-mentioned 88 substances were determined to be of low risk for the environment and human health, several of these substances are associated with health and/or ecological effects of concern because of inherent hazard (see Appendix D). Substances associated with health effects of concern were identified on the basis of classifications assigned by other national or international agencies for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity. Substances associated with ecological effects of concern include those that are highly reactive chemicals, potential endocrine disrupting chemicals which target estrogen receptor signalling, possible substitutes for a substance in a high concern ERC group, moderate concern substances not associated with a high concern ERC group, substances having greater potential for local-scale exposures, or substances having high hazard but low current exposure according to ERC results. While use patterns and quantities dictate that these substances are not currently of concern, given the associated ecological and/or human health effects, there may be a concern for human health and/or the environment if use patterns were to change or quantities were to increase.
4. Summary of uncertainties
It is recognized that the conclusions resulting from the use of this rapid screening approach have associated uncertainties. However, the use of a wide range of filters (e.g., the domestic and international sources listed in Section 2.2) and conservative exposure scenarios gives confidence that the substances identified as not requiring further assessment are unlikely to be of concern.
Modelled data for physical-chemical properties, environmental degradation half-lives, wastewater treatment removal rates, and environmental concentrations were used in the estimation of indirect exposure when empirical data was unavailable. Despite uncertainty associated with modelled data, the assumptions and inputs used to estimate indirect exposure are likely to lead to an overestimation. The uncertainties associated with determining the potential for indirect exposure of the general population are outlined in Health Canada's Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)-based Approach for Certain Substances (Health Canada 2016).
The ERC uses a weighted approach to minimize the potential for both over- and under- classification of hazard, exposure and subsequent risk. The balanced approaches for dealing with uncertainties are described in greater detail in ECCC 2016a.
5. Conclusion
Based on the information presented in this draft screening assessment, it is proposed to conclude that the 88 substances identified in Appendix B are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends, or that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Therefore, it is proposed to conclude that the 88 substances identified in Appendix B do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.
References
Blackburn K, Stickney JA, Carlson-Lynch HL, McGinnis PM, Chappell L, Felter SP. 2005. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern approach to ingredients in personal and household care products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 43:249-259. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
Canada. 1999. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. S.C. 1999, c. 33. Canada Gazette Part III, vol. 22, no. 3.
Canada, Dept. of the Environment, 2006. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Notice with respect to selected substances identified as priority for action. Canada Gazette, Part I, vol. 140, no. 9, p. 435-459.
Canada, Dept. of the Environment. 2009. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Notice with respect to certain inanimate substances (chemicals) on the Domestic Substances List. Canada Gazette, Part I, vol. 143, no. 40, p. 2945-2956.
Canada, Dept. of the Environment. 2012. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Notice with respect to certain inanimate substances (chemicals) on the Domestic Substances List. Canada Gazette, Part I, vol. 146, no. 48, 1 December, 2012.
Canada. 2013. Search engine for the results of DSL Categorization. [accessed 2016 Oct].
ChemCAN [Level III fugacity model of regional fate of chemicals]. 2003. Version 6.00. Peterborough (ON): Trent University, Canadian Centre for Environmental Modelling and Chemistry.
COSING. 2014. European Cosmetic ingredient inventory [database]. European Commission Cosmetics Directive. [accessed 2014 Mar].
[CPCat] Chemical and Product Categories [database]. 2016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed 2016 Oct].
Denmark. 2014. Danish Surveys on Chemicals in Consumer Products. Danish Ministry of the Environment (Danish EPA). Copenhagen, Denmark. [accessed 2016 Oct]..
[DPD] Drug Product Database [database]. [modified 2016]. Ottawa (ON): Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Canada. [accessed 2016 Nov].
[EAFUS] Everything Added to Food in the United States [database]. 2013. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [accessed 2014 Feb].
[EC] European Commission. 2014a.European Commission Food Additives Database [database]. European Commission Directorate General Health & Consumers. Brussels, Belgium. Taken from Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. [cited 2014 Mar].
[EC] European Commission. 2014b. European Commission Food Flavourings database [database]. European Commission Directorate General Health & Consumers. Brussels, Belgium. Taken from Part I of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. [cited 2014 Mar].
[ECCC] Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016a. Science Approach Document: Ecological Risk Classification of Organic Substances. July 2016.
[ECCC] Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016b. Gatineau (QC): Data used to create substance-specific hazard and exposure profiles and assign risk classifications in the Ecological Risk Classification of organic substances.
[ECCC, HC] Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada. 2016. Rapid Screening of Substances Identified from Phase Two of the Domestic Substances List Inventory Update. Results of the Final Screening Assessment.
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2012. Scientific opinion on exploring options for providing advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). EFSA Journal 10(7):2750. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority / [WHO] World Health Organisation. 2016. Review Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and development of new TTC decision tree. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
Environment Canada, Health Canada. 2014. Rapid Screening of Substances from Phase One of the Domestic Substances List Inventory Update. Results of the Final Screening Assessment. March 2014.
Feigenbaum A, Pinalli R, Giannetto M, Barlow S. Reliability of the TTC approach: Learning from inclusion of pesticide active substances in the supporting database. Food Chem Toxicol. 75:24-38. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
Health Canada. 1998. Exposure factors for assessing total daily intake of priority substances by the general population of Canada. Unpublished report. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, Environmental Health Directorate.
Health Canada. [modified 2016 Sep 9]. Lists of Permitted Food Additives. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada.
Health Canada. 2016. Science Approach Document. Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)-based Approach for Certain Substances. September 2016..
[HPD] Household Products Database [database]. 2016. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. [accessed 2016 Oct].
[HSDB] Hazardous Substances Data Bank [database]. c1993-2008. United States National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. [cited 2016 Oct].
[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 1996. Printing Processes and Printing Inks, Carbon Black and Some Nitro Compounds. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 65.
IMS. 2013. Health Canada Sales Database 2011 and 2012 [MIDAS database on CD]. Toronto (ON): IMS Brogan.
Kalkhof H, Herzler M, Stahlmann R, Gundert-Remy U. 2011. Threshold of toxicological concern values for non-genotoxic effects in industrial chemicals: re-evaluation of the Cramer classification. Arch Toxicol. 86:17-25. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, Schilter B, Schlatter J, van Schothorst F, Vos JG, Wurtzen G. 2004. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol. 42:65–83. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
Laufersweiler MC, Gadagbui B, Baskerville-Abraham IM, Maier A, Willis A, Scialli AR, Carr GJ, Felter SP, Blackburn K, Daston G, 2012. Correlation of chemical structure with reproductive and developmental toxicity as it relates to the use of the threshold of toxicological concern. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 62:160-182. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
[LNHPD] Licensed Natural Health Products Database [database]. 2016. Health Canada, Government of Canada. [accessed 2016 Oct-Nov].
Mackay D. 2001. Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers; p. 1-261.
[NHPID] Natural Health Products Ingredients Database [database]. 2016. Health Canada, Government of Canada. [accessed 2016 Oct-Nov]..
Pinalli R, Croera C, Thebold A, Feigenbaum A. 2011. Threshold of toxicological concern approach for the risk assessment of substances used for the manufacture of plastic food contact materials. Trends Food Sci Technol. 22:523-534. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
[PMRA] Pest Management Regulatory Agency. 2016. PMRA Product Information Search [database]. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, PMRA. [accessed 2016 Oct].
[PMRA] Pest Management Regulatory Agency. 2010. List of Formulants. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, PMRA. HC Pub No.: 100460. [verified with PMRA 2014 Jan].
Struijs J, Stoltenkamp J, Van de Meent D. 1991. A spreadsheet-based box model to predict the fate of xenobiotics from a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 25(7):891-900.
Tluczkiewicz I, Buist HE, Martin MT, Mangelsdorf I, Escher SE. 2011. Improvement of the Cramer classification for oral exposure using the database TTC RepDose - A strategy description. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 61:340-350. [cited in Health Canada 2016].
[US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986. EPA/600/8-87/045, Sep 1987. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington (DC).
[US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Chemical Engineering Branch. Memorandum: Standard Assumptions for PMN Assessments. From the CEB Quality Panel to CEB (Environment Canada) Staff and Management. October 1992.
[US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. March 2005.
[US FDA] US Food and Drug Administration. 2011. List of Indirect Additives Used in Food Contact Substances [database]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.[data last updated 14 November 2011].
[US FDA] US Food and Drug Administration. 2013. Food Additive Status List. [retrieved 2014 Feb] US Food and Drug Administration [last updated 2013 Mar 21].
Appendices
Appendix A. Substances requiring further assessment based on potential for exposure of the general population
| CAS RN | Chemical name | Potential exposure identified |
|---|---|---|
| 57-97-6 | Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12-dimethyl- | Direct |
| 59-50-7 | Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl- | Direct |
| 61-82-5 | 1H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-amine | Direct |
| 68-26-8 | Retinol | Direct |
| 75-05-8 | Acetonitrile | Indirect |
| 75-18-3 | Methane, thiobis- | Direct |
| 77-09-8 | 1(3H)-Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)- | Direct |
| 81-15-2 | Benzene, 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitro- | Direct |
| 86-30-6 | Benzenamine, N-nitroso-N-phenyl- | Direct |
| 88-19-7 | Benzenesulfonamide, 2-methyl- | Direct |
| 95-55-6 | Phenol, 2-amino- | Direct |
| 101-84-8 | Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis- | Direct |
| 101-96-2 | 1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N'-bis(1-methylpropyl)- | Direct |
| 106-92-3 | Oxirane, [(2-propenyloxy)methyl]- | Direct |
| 110-85-0 | Piperazine | Direct |
| 111-82-0 | Dodecanoic acid, methyl ester | Direct |
| 112-05-0 | Nonanoic acid | Direct |
| 112-69-6 | 1-Hexadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl- | Direct |
| 120-78-5 | Benzothiazole, 2,2'-dithiobis- | Indirect |
| 123-77-3 | Diazenedicarboxamide | Direct |
| 124-40-3 | Methanamine, N-methyl- | Direct |
| 132-27-4 | [1,1'-Biphenyl]-2-ol, sodium salt | Direct |
| 136-60-7 | Benzoic acid, butyl ester | Direct |
| 137-26-8 | Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide ([(H2N)C(S)]2S2), tetramethyl- | Direct |
| 2390-60-5 | Ethanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(diethylamino)phenyl][4-(ethylamino)-1-naphthalenyl]methylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-ethyl-, chloride | Direct |
| 2492-26-4 | 2(3H)-Benzothiazolethione, sodium salt | Direct |
| 3147-75-9 | Phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- | Direct |
| 4193-55-9 | Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis[5-[[4-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-6-(phenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-, disodium salt | Direct |
| 4572-09-2 | Olean-12-en-29-oic acid, 3-hydroxy-11-oxo-, (3β,20β)-, compd. with (2,5-dioxo-4-imidazolidinyl)urea (1:1) | Direct |
| 6408-72-6 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,4-diamino-2,3-diphenoxy- | Direct |
| 7778-54-3a | Hypochlorous acid, calcium salt | Direct |
| 7789-38-0a | Bromic acid, sodium salt | Direct |
| 8005-03-6 | C.I. Acid Black 2 | Direct |
| 8008-57-9 | Oils, orange, sweet | Direct |
| 9007-13-0 | Resin acids and Rosin acids, calcium salts | Direct |
| 10038-98-9a | Germane, tetrachloro- | Indirect |
| 11103-57-4 | Vitamin A | Direct |
| 12136-45-7a | Potassium oxide (K2O) | Direct |
| 15647-08-2 | Phosphorous acid, 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl ester | Direct |
| 16090-02-1 | Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis[5-[[4-(4-morpholinyl)-6-(phenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-, disodium salt | Direct |
| 25155-23-1 | Phenol, dimethyl-, phosphate (3:1) | Direct |
| 25167-32-2 | Benzenesulfonic acid, oxybis[dodecyl-, disodium salt | Direct |
| 26264-05-1 | Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compd. with 2-propanamine (1:1) | Direct |
| 26694-69-9 | Xanthylium, 9-[2-(ethoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-3,6-bis(ethylamino)-2,7-dimethyl-, ethyl sulfate | Direct |
| 28519-02-0 | Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl(sulfophenoxy)-, disodium salt | Direct |
| 37310-83-1 | 9-Octadecen-1-ol, (Z)-, phosphate | Direct |
| 57855-77-3 | Naphthalenesulfonic acid, dinonyl-, calcium salt | Direct |
| 58713-21-6 | 1,3,5,7-Tetraazatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, hydrochloride | Direct |
| 61788-44-1 | Phenol, styrenated | Direct |
| 61790-44-1 | Fatty acids, tall-oil, potassium salts | Direct |
| 61791-34-2 | Onium compounds, morpholinium, 4-ethyl-4-soya alkyl, Et sulfates | Direct |
| 68122-86-1 | Imidazolium compounds, 4,5-dihydro-1-methyl-2-nortallow alkyl-1-(2-tallow amidoethyl), Me sulfates | Direct |
| 68153-35-5 | Ethanaminium, 2-amino-N-(2-aminoethyl)-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl-, N,N'-ditallow acyl derivs., Me sulfates (salts) | Direct |
| 68186-14-1 | Resin acids and Rosin acids, Me esters | Direct |
| 68308-67-8 | Quaternary ammonium compounds, ethyldimethylsoya alkyl, Et sulfates | Direct |
| 68391-01-5 | Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-C12-18-alkyldimethyl, chlorides | Direct |
| 68411-30-3 | Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-13-alkyl derivs., sodium salts | Direct |
| 68442-97-7 | 1H-Imidazole-1-ethanamine, 4,5-dihydro-, 2-nortall-oil alkyl derivs. | Indirect |
| 68476-03-9 | Fatty acids, montan-wax | Direct |
| 68511-50-2 | 1-Propene, 2-methyl-, sulfurized | Direct |
| 68584-24-7 | Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs., compds. with 2-propanamine | Direct |
| 68649-12-7 | 1-Decene, tetramer, mixed with 1-decene trimer, hydrogenated | Direct |
| 68909-20-6 | Silanamine, 1,1,1-trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-, hydrolysis products with silica | Direct |
| 68937-41-7 | Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) | Direct |
| 68966-38-1 | 1H-Imidazole-1-ethanol, 4,5-dihydro-2-isoheptadecyl- | Direct |
| 68990-53-4 | Glycerides, C14-22 mono- | Direct |
| 70321-86-7 | Phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)- | Direct |
| 71011-26-2 | Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides, compds. with hectorite | Direct |
| 72391-24-3 | Benzenesulfonic acid, [[(chloroacetyl)amino]methyl][4-[[4-(cyclohexylamino)-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-1-anthracenyl]amino]phenoxy]methyl-, monosodium salt | Direct |
| 92113-31-0 | Collagens, hydrolyzates | Direct |
| 111174-63-1 | Protein hydrolyzates, leather, reaction products with isostearoyl chloride | Direct |
| 120547-52-6 | Oxirane, mono[(C12-13-alkyloxy)methyl] derivs. | Direct |
a. Ecological risk of substance to be evaluated
Appendix B. Substances with low potential for exposure of the general population and low ecological concern
| CAS RN/confidential ascension number | Chemical name | ERC hazard | ERC exposure | ERC risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74-88-4 | Methane, iodo- | high | low | lowa |
| 78-21-7 | Morpholinium, 4-ethyl-4-hexadecyl-, ethyl sulfate | moderate | low | low |
| 90-93-7 | Methanone, bis[4-(diethylamino)phenyl]- | high | low | lowa |
| 91-66-7b | Benzenamine, N,N-diethyl- | low | low | low |
| 95-54-5 | 1,2-Benzenediamine | high | low | lowa |
| 98-88-4 | Benzoyl chloride | high | low | low |
| 100-00-5b | Benzene, 1-chloro-4-nitro- | low | low | low |
| 101-90-6b | Oxirane, 2,2'-[1,3-phenylenebis(oxymethylene)]bis- | moderate | low | low |
| 112-90-3 | 9-Octadecen-1-amine, (Z)- | high | low | lowa |
| 118-96-7 | Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitro- | moderate | moderate | moderate |
| 121-14-2b | Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro- | moderate | moderate | moderate |
| 126-99-8b | 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro- | low | low | low |
| 134-09-8 | Cyclohexanol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-, 2-aminobenzoate | low | low | low |
| 271-89-6b | Benzofuran | low | low | low |
| 556-52-5b | Oxiranemethanol | moderate | low | low |
| 630-20-6b | Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro- | low | low | low |
| 632-99-5b | Benzenamine, 4-[(4-aminophenyl)(4-imino-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene)methyl]-2-methyl-, monohydrochloride | low | low | lowa |
| 647-42-7 | 1-Octanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluoro- | low | low | low |
| 1533-45-5 | Benzoxazole, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyldi-4,1-phenylene)bis- | high | low | lowa |
| 2387-03-3 | 1-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-, [(2-hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl)methylene]hydrazone | high | low | lowa |
| 2422-91-5 | Benzene, 1,1',1''-methylidynetris[4-isocyanato- | high | low | lowa |
| 2475-45-8b | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,4,5,8-tetraamino- | high | low | lowa |
| 2478-20-8 | 1H-Benz[de]isoquinoline-1,3(2H)-dione, 6-amino-2-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)- | low | low | lowa |
| 3426-43-5 | Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis[5-[[4-methoxy-6-(phenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-, disodium salt | high | low | lowa |
| 4035-89-6 | Imidodicarbonic diamide, N,N',2-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- | high | low | lowa |
| 4051-63-2 | [1,1'-Bianthracene]-9,9',10,10'-tetrone, 4,4'-diamino- | high | low | lowa |
| 4151-51-3 | Phenol, 4-isocyanato-, phosphorothioate (3:1) (ester) | high | low | lowa |
| 4378-61-4 | Dibenzo[def,mno]chrysene-6,12-dione, 4,10-dibromo- | low | low | lowa |
| 5521-31-3b | Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d'e'f']diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone, 2,9-dimethyl- | moderate | moderate | moderate |
| 5718-26-3 | 1H-Indole-5-carboxylic acid, 2-[(1,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1-phenyl-4H-pyrazol-4-ylidene)ethylidene]-2,3-dihydro-1,3,3-trimethyl-, methyl ester | high | low | lowa |
| 7576-65-0 | 1H-Indene-1,3(2H)-dione, 2-(3-hydroxy-2-quinolinyl)- | moderate | low | low |
| 7789-36-8 | Bromic acid, magnesium salt, hexahydrate | lowc | ||
| 8021-39-4 | Creosote, wood | low | low | lowa |
| 12068-03-0 | Benzenesulfonic acid, methyl-, sodium salt | low | low | lowa |
| 13676-91-0 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-bis(phenylthio)- | high | low | lowa |
| 13680-35-8 | Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-diethyl- | low | low | lowa |
| 16294-75-0 | 14H-Anthra[2,1,9-mna]thioxanthen-14-one | low | low | lowa |
| 18917-89-0b | Magnesium, bis(2-hydroxybenzoato-O1,O2)-, (T-4)- | lowd | ||
| 19286-75-0 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1-hydroxy-4-(phenylamino)- | high | low | lowa |
| 21564-17-0 | Thiocyanic acid, (2-benzothiazolylthio)methyl ester | high | low | lowa |
| 24448-20-2 | 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, (1-methylethylidene)bis(4,1-phenyleneoxy-2,1-ethanediyl) ester | moderate | low | lowa |
| 25428-43-7 | 3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-, (R,R)-(±)- | low | low | lowa |
| 25638-17-9b | Naphthalenesulfonic acid, butyl-, sodium salt | low | low | lowa |
| 26446-73-1 | Phosphoric acid, bis(methylphenyl) phenyl ester | moderate | low | lowa |
| 28768-32-3 | Oxiranemethanamine, N,N'-(methylenedi-4,1-phenylene)bis[N-(oxiranylmethyl)- | high | low | lowa |
| 31135-57-6 | 1H-Benzimidazolesulfonic acid, 2-heptadecyl-1-[(sulfophenyl)methyl]-, disodium salt | low | low | lowa |
| 33204-76-1 | Cyclotetrasiloxane, 2,2,4,6,6,8-hexamethyl-4,8-diphenyl-, cis- | low | low | lowa |
| 43048-08-4 | 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, (octahydro-4,7-methano-1H-indene-5,?-diyl)bis(methylene) ester | moderate | low | low |
| 53980-88-4 | 2-Cyclohexene-1-octanoic acid, 5(or 6)-carboxy-4-hexyl- | moderate | low | low |
| 61789-85-3b | Sulfonic acids, petroleum | high | low | lowa |
| 62973-79-9 | Xanthylium, 9-(2-carboxyphenyl)-3,6-bis(diethylamino)-, molybdatesilicate | high | low | lowa |
| 63022-09-3 | Xanthylium, 9-(2-carboxyphenyl)-3,6-bis(diethylamino)-, molybdatephosphate | high | low | lowa |
| 66072-38-6 | Oxirane, 2,2',2''-[methylidynetris(phenyleneoxymethylene)]tris- | high | low | lowa |
| 66241-11-0b | C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 | moderate | moderate | moderate |
| 68310-07-6 | Xanthylium, 3,6-bis(ethylamino)-9-[2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-2,7-dimethyl-, molybdatephosphate | low | low | low |
| 68409-66-5 | Ethanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(diethylamino)phenyl][4-(ethylamino)-1-naphthalenyl]methylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-ethyl-, molybdatephosphate | high | low | lowa |
| 68442-82-0b | Calcium, carbonate dimethylhexanoate complexes | low | low | Lowe |
| 68478-81-9b | 9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-, reaction products with 3-(dodecenyl)dihydro-2,5-furandione and triethylenetetramine | low | low | lowa |
| 68527-01-5 | Alkenes, C12-30 α-, bromo chloro | high | low | moderatef |
| 68527-02-6b | Alkenes, C12-24, chloro | high | low | moderatef |
| 68604-99-9 | Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., phosphates | high | low | lowa |
| 68647-55-2 | Fatty acids, tall-oil, esters with triethanolamine | low | low | lowa |
| 68814-02-8 | Ethanaminium, N-[4-[bis[4-(diethylamino)phenyl]methylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-ethyl-, molybdatephosphate | high | low | lowa |
| 68890-99-3 | Benzene, mono-C10-16-alkyl derivs. | low | low | lowa |
| 68909-77-3 | Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine derivs. Residues | low | high | low |
| 68952-35-2b | Tar acids, cresylic, Ph phosphates | moderate | low | lowa |
| 68953-80-0b | Benzene, mixed with toluene, dealkylation product | low | low | low |
| 68987-42-8 | Benzene, ethylenated, residues | low | low | low |
| 70833-37-3 | Nickel, bis(3-amino-4,5,6,7-tetrachloro-1H-isoindol-1-one oximato-N2,o1)- | lowd | ||
| 71011-25-1 | Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides, compds. with bentonite and bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium chlorides | high | low | lowa |
| 71820-35-4 | Fatty acids, tall-oil, low-boiling, reaction products with 1-piperazineethanamine | low | low | lowa |
| 75627-12-2 | Xanthylium, 3,6-bis(ethylamino)-9-[2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-2,7-dimethyl-, molybdatesilicate | high | low | moderate |
| 80083-40-5 | Xanthylium, 9-[2-(ethoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-3,6-bis(ethylamino)-2,7-dimethyl-, molybdatetungstatesilicate | high | low | lowa |
| 80939-62-4 | Amines, C11-14-branched alkyl, monohexyl and dihexyl phosphates | low | low | low |
| 90367-27-4 | Ethanol, 2,2'-[[3-[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]propyl]imino]bis-, N-tallow alkyl derivs. | low | low | low |
| 90459-62-4 | Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized | high | low | lowa |
| 91081-53-7 | Rosin, reaction products with formaldehyde | high | low | lowa |
| 102082-92-8 | Xanthylium, 3,6-bis(diethylamino)-9-[2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-, molybdatesilicate | high | low | lowa |
| 106276-80-6 | Benzoic acid, 2,3,4,5-tetrachloro-6-cyano-, methyl ester, reaction products with p-phenylenediamine and sodium methoxide | high | low | moderate |
| 111174-61-9 | Alcohols, C8-16, reaction products with phosphorus oxide (P2O5), compds. with 2-ethyl-1-hexanamine | high | low | lowa |
| 115340-80-2 | 1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-ethyl-N,N-dimethyl-, N-wheat-oil acyl derivs., Et sulfates | high | low | lowa |
| 129828-23-5 | Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with Bu phenylmethyl phthalate, 2-(dimethylamino)ethanol, morpholine and overbased calcium petroleum sulfonates | low | low | lowa |
| CDSL#10685-2 | Substituted dimercaptodithiazole | high | low | moderate |
| CDSL#10703-2 | Substituted alkylphenol, calcium salt | high | low | moderate |
| CDSL#11053-1 | Fatty acids compounded with ethylenediamine | low | low | low |
| CDSL#11555-8 | Fatty acids, reaction products with maleic anhydride and triethanolamine | low | low | low |
| CDSL#11556-0 | Fatty acids, reaction products with maleic anhydride | low | low | low |
| CDSL#11557-1 | Fatty acids, reaction products with maleic anhydride and oleylamine | low | low | low |
a. The risk classification outcome for this substance was adjusted to low risk on the basis of its low potential for exposure.
b. This substance was not identified under subsection 73(1) of CEPA but was included in this assessment as it was considered a priority because of other human health or ecological concerns.v c. Low ecological concern as a result of the rapid screening of substances identified from phase one of the Domestic Substances List inventory update.
d. Low ecological concern as a result of rapid screening of substances identified from phase two of the Domestic Substances List inventory update.
e. Substance was run through ERC following publication of the science approach document.
f. On the basis of additional evaluation, the ERC classification of ecological risk of the substance decreased following publication of the science approach document.
Appendix C. Substances with low potential for exposure of the general population, but requiring further assessment because of potential ecological concerns
| CAS RN/confidential ascension number | Chemical name |
|---|---|
| 5470-11-1a | Hydroxylamine, hydrochloride |
| 8050-28-0 | Rosin, maleated |
| 8052-10-6 | Tall-oil rosin |
| 25619-56-1 | Naphthalenesulfonic acid, dinonyl-, barium salt |
| 61789-87-5 | Sulfonic acids, petroleum, magnesium salts |
| 61790-48-5 | Sulfonic acids, petroleum, barium salts |
| 65652-41-7 | Phosphoric acid, bis[(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl] phenyl ester |
| 68188-19-2a | Paraffin waxes and Hydrocarbon waxes, chloro, chlorosulfonated |
| 68425-61-6 | Naphthalenesulfonic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, compd. with cyclohexanamine (1:1) |
| 72854-22-9a | Paraffin waxes and Hydrocarbon waxes, chloro, sulfonated, ammonium salts |
| CDSL#11105-8 | Phosphorothioic acid, dialkyl ester, alkylamine salt |
a. Ecological risk of substance to be evaluated
Appendix D. Substances with health or ecological effects of concern
| CAS | Chemical name | Health/ecological effect(s) of concern |
|---|---|---|
| 74-88-4 | Methane, iodo- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalb |
| 78-21-7 | Morpholinium, 4-ethyl-4-hexadecyl-, ethyl sulfate | Ecologicald |
| 90-93-7 | Methanone, bis[4-(diethylamino)phenyl]- | Ecologicalb |
| 95-54-5 | 1,2-Benzenediamine | Human Healtha, Ecologicalb |
| 98-88-4 | Benzoyl chloride | Human Healtha Ecologicalf |
| 100-00-5 | Benzene, 1-chloro-4-nitro- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalf |
| 101-90-6 | Oxirane, 2,2'-[1,3-phenylenebis(oxymethylene)]bis- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalf |
| 112-90-3 | 9-Octadecen-1-amine, (Z)- | Ecologicalb |
| 118-96-7 | Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitro- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalg |
| 121-14-2 | Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalg |
| 126-99-8 | 1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloro- | Human Healtha |
| 134-09-8 | Cyclohexanol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-, 2-aminobenzoate | Ecologicalh |
| 271-89-6 | Benzofuran | Human Healtha |
| 556-52-5 | Oxiranemethanol | Human Healtha |
| 630-20-6 | Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro- | Human Healtha |
| 632-99-5 | Benzenamine, 4-[(4-aminophenyl)(4-imino-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene)methyl]-2-methyl-, monohydrochloride | Human Healtha, Ecologicalh |
| 1533-45-5 | Benzoxazole, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyldi-4,1-phenylene)bis- | Ecologicalb |
| 2387-03-3 | 1-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-, [(2-hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl)methylene]hydrazone | Ecologicalb |
| 2422-91-5 | Benzene, 1,1',1''-methylidynetris[4-isocyanato- | Ecologicalb |
| 2475-45-8 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,4,5,8-tetraamino- | Human Healtha, Ecologicalb |
| 2478-20-8 | 1H-Benz[de]isoquinoline-1,3(2H)-dione, 6-amino-2-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)- | Ecologicalh |
| 3426-43-5 | Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis[5-[[4-methoxy-6-(phenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-, disodium salt | Ecologicalb |
| 4035-89-6 | Imidodicarbonic diamide, N,N',2-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)- | Ecologicalb |
| 4051-63-2 | [1,1'-Bianthracene]-9,9',10,10'-tetrone, 4,4'-diamino- | Ecologicalb |
| 4151-51-3 | Phenol, 4-isocyanato-, phosphorothioate (3:1) (ester) | Ecologicalb |
| 5521-31-3 | Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d'e'f']diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone, 2,9-dimethyl- | Ecologicalg |
| 5718-26-3 | 1H-Indole-5-carboxylic acid, 2-[(1,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1-phenyl-4H-pyrazol-4-ylidene)ethylidene]-2,3-dihydro-1,3,3-trimethyl-, methyl ester | Ecologicalb |
| 8021-39-4 | Creosote, wood | Ecologicalh |
| 13676-91-0 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-bis(phenylthio)- | Ecologicalb |
| 19286-75-0 | 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1-hydroxy-4-(phenylamino)- | Ecologicalb |
| 21564-17-0 | Thiocyanic acid, (2-benzothiazolylthio)methyl ester | Ecologicalb |
| 25638-17-9 | Naphthalenesulfonic acid, butyl-, sodium salt | Ecologicald |
| 26446-73-1 | Phosphoric acid, bis(methylphenyl) phenyl ester | Ecologicald |
| 28768-32-3 | Oxiranemethanamine, N,N'-(methylenedi-4,1-phenylene)bis[N-(oxiranylmethyl)- | Ecologicalb |
| 31135-57-6 | 1H-Benzimidazolesulfonic acid, 2-heptadecyl-1-[(sulfophenyl)methyl]-, disodium salt | Ecologicalb |
| 53980-88-4 | 2-Cyclohexene-1-octanoic acid, 5(or 6)-carboxy-4-hexyl- | Ecologicalk |
| 61789-85-3 | Sulfonic acids, petroleum | Ecologicalb |
| 62973-79-9 | Xanthylium, 9-(2-carboxyphenyl)-3,6-bis(diethylamino)-, molybdatesilicate | Ecologicalb |
| 63022-09-3 | Xanthylium, 9-(2-carboxyphenyl)-3,6-bis(diethylamino)-, molybdatephosphate | Ecologicalb |
| 66072-38-6 | Oxirane, 2,2',2''-[methylidynetris(phenyleneoxymethylene)]tris- | Ecologicalb |
| 66241-11-0 | C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 | Ecologicalg |
| 68409-66-5 | Ethanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(diethylamino)phenyl][4-(ethylamino)-1-naphthalenyl]methylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-ethyl-, molybdatephosphate | Ecologicalb |
| 68527-01-5 | Alkenes, C12-30 α-, bromo chloro | Ecologicald |
| 68527-02-6 | Alkenes, C12-24, chloro | Ecologicald |
| 68604-99-9 | Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., phosphates | Ecologicalb |
| 68647-55-2 | Fatty acids, tall-oil, esters with triethanolamine | Ecologicalb |
| 68953-80-0 | Benzene, mixed with toluene, dealkylation product | Human Healtha, Ecologicalk |
| 71011-25-1 | Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides, compds. with bentonite and bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium chlorides | Ecologicalb |
| 75627-12-2 | Xanthylium, 3,6-bis(ethylamino)-9-[2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-2,7-dimethyl-, molybdatesilicate | Ecologicalg |
| 80083-40-5 | Xanthylium, 9-[2-(ethoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-3,6-bis(ethylamino)-2,7-dimethyl-, molybdatetungstatesilicate | Ecologicalb |
| 80939-62-4 | Amines, C11-14-branched alkyl, monohexyl and dihexyl phosphates | Ecologicalk |
| 90367-27-4 | Ethanol, 2,2'-[[3-[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]propyl]imino]bis-, N-tallow alkyl derivs. | Ecologicald |
| 90459-62-4 | Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized | Ecologicalb |
| 91081-53-7 | Rosin, reaction products with formaldehyde | Ecologicalb |
| 102082-92-8 | Xanthylium, 3,6-bis(diethylamino)-9-[2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]-, molybdatesilicate | Ecologicalb |
| 106276-80-6 | Benzoic acid, 2,3,4,5-tetrachloro-6-cyano-, methyl ester, reaction products with p-phenylenediamine and sodium methoxide | Ecologicalg |
| 111174-61-9 | Alcohols, C8-16, reaction products with phosphorus oxide (P2O5), compds. with 2-ethyl-1-hexanamine | Ecologicalb |
| 115340-80-2 | 1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-ethyl-N,N-dimethyl-, N-wheat-oil acyl derivs., Et sulfates | Ecologicalb |
| CDSL#10685-2 | Substituted dimercaptodithiazole | Ecologicalg |
| CDSL#10703-2 | Substituted alkylphenol, calcium salt | Ecologicalg |
a. High health hazard was identified on the basis of classifications by other national or international agencies for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity.
b. ERC classified this substance as having low potential for risk on the basis of current use patterns; however, given the high hazard of the substance identified in ERC, significant increases in use quantities could result in risk.
c. The risk classification outcome for this substance was adjusted to low risk given its low potential for exposure.
d. ERC classified this substance as having low potential for risk on the basis of current use patterns; however, it is structurally similar to substances having a higher potential for risk, so could be used as a substitute for them in future.
e. This substance was not identified under subsection 73(1) of CEPA but was included in this assessment as it was considered a priority because of other human health or ecological concerns.
f. High ecological hazard – ERC classified this substance as having low risk on the basis of current use patterns; however, given the high potential for reactivity of the substance with biological tissues, significant increases in use quantities could result in risk.
g. High ecological hazard – ERC classified this substance as having a moderate potential for risk; however, its chemical group was not prioritized for assessment at this time.
h. High ecological hazard – ERC classified this substance as having low risk on the basis of current use patterns; however, given the possible endocrine disrupting properties of the substance, significant increases in use quantities could result in risk.
i.Low ecological concern as a result of rapid screening of substances identified from phase one of the Domestic Substances List inventory update.
j. Low ecological concern as a result of the rapid screening of substances identified from phase two of the Domestic Substances List inventory update.
k. High ecological hazard - ERC classified this substance as having low potential for risk on the basis of current use patterns; however, greater potential for local-scale exposure and risk in future was identified if quantities were to increase significantly.
- Date modified: