S - OSPAR Commission

Environmental Risk Evaluation 

Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate 

(CAS Number 51000-52-3) 

Draft 

Environment Risk Evaluation Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate

The Environment Agency is the leading public body protecting and 

improving the environment in England and Wales. 

It’s our job to make sure that air, land and water are looked after 

by everyone in today’s society, so that tomorrow’s generations 

inherit a cleaner, healthier world. 

Our work includes tackling flooding and pollution incidents, 

reducing industry’s impacts on the environment, cleaning up rivers, 

coastal waters and contaminated land, and improving wildlife 

habitats. 

2 

Published by: 

Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, 

Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD 

Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409 

www.environment-agency.gov.uk 

ISBN: XXXXXXXXXX 

© Environment Agency – Month, Year 

All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced 

with prior permission of the Environment Agency. 

The views and statements expressed in this report are 

those of the author alone. The views or statements 

expressed in this publication do not necessarily 

represent the views of the Environment Agency and the 

Environment Agency cannot accept any responsibility for 

such views or statements. 

This report is printed on Cyclus Print, a 100% recycled 

stock, which is 100% post consumer waste and is totally 

chlorine free. Water used is treated and in most cases 

returned to source in better condition than removed. 

Further copies of this report are available from our 

publications catalogue: http://publications.environmentagency.gov.uk 

or our National Customer Contact 

Centre: T: 08708 506506 

E: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk. 

Author: Daniel Merckel 

Dissemination Status: Publicly available / Restricted 

Draft 

Keywords: maximum of 10 

Research Contractor: 

Contractors name and address with tel. no. 

Environment Agency’s Project Manager: 

Steve Dungey 

Chemicals Assessment Unit, Wallingford, OX10 8BD 

Tel: +44(0)1491 828 559 

Collaborator(s): 

In alphabetical order 

Project Number: 

Insert project reference number 

Product Code: 

XXXXXXXXXXXX-E-P 

Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate

Evidence at the Environment Agency 

Evidence is the basis for the work of the Environment Agency. It provides an up-to-date 

understanding of the world about us, helps us to develop tools and techniques to monitor and 

manage our environment as efficiently and effectively as possible. It also helps us to understand 

how the environment is changing and to identify what the future pressures may be. 

The work of the Environment Agency’s Evidence Directorate is a key ingredient in the partnership 

between research, guidance and operations that enables the Environment Agency to protect and 

restore our environment. 

The Research & Innovation programme focuses on four main areas of activity: 

• Setting the agenda, by providing the evidence for decisions; 

• Maintaining scientific credibility, by ensuring that our programmes and projects are fit 

for purpose and executed according to international standards; 

• Carrying out research, either by contracting it out to research organisations and 

consultancies or by doing it ourselves; 

• Delivering information, advice, tools and techniques, by making appropriate 

products available. 

Miranda Kavanagh 

Director of Evidence 

Draft 

Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate 3

Acknowledgments 

We would like to acknowledge and thank Hexion Specialty Chemicals for their help in 

providing much of the information for this assessment through the OECD SIDS 

programme. This information helped to reduce the number of assumptions made, 

amongst other things aiding refinement of modelled releases and exposures for some 

scenarios. Information from the British Coatings Federation, Resolution Performance 

Products and the European Resin Manufacturers Association submitted to the Chemical 

Stakeholders Forum also proved useful. 

The Science Information Analysis Team of the Environment Agency conducted several 

thorough and exhaustive searches of the literature in the public domain relating to the 

substance. This information proved very useful in the assessment, specifically towards 

the section describing uses, and we thank the SIA team for this service. 

The work conducted over the years in the context of the EU Existing Substances 

regulation and UK activities on chemicals assessment by Dave Brooke and Mike 

Crookes has been of great help in the preparation of this evaluation. Work also carried 

out by Mike Crookes and Dave Brooke on earthworm bioaccumulation and on (kinetic) 

bioaccumulation in fish has proved extremely useful in this report. 

4 

Draft 


Executive Summary 

Vinyl neodecanoate (CAS 51000-52-3) is a reactive monomer used in the production of 

latex polymers. These latex polymers can be used in a range of products, the chief of 

these being indoor decorative emulsion wall paints. 

The substance was prioritised under the OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) convention criteria for its 

potential hazard in the marine environment. This risk evaluation report has been carried 

out for the lifecycle steps of the substance which are relevant for Europe rather than just 

for the tonnage and usage in the UK, as a contribution towards subsequent evaluation 

under OSPAR. 

Vinyl neodecanoate is made at one location in the EU (the Netherlands) in a continuous 

dry process from neodecanoic acid and acetylene. The monomer is used at an unknown 

number of sites throughout Europe to produce latex polymer (often called latex 

emulsion), which is further processed into final products. Both latex polymer and final 

products may contain residual, unreacted quantities of vinyl neodecanoate (it is 

extremely unlikely that reacted polymer can degrade to reform vinyl neodecanoate). 

Industry, in collaboration with the UK, produced a hazard assessment of the substance 

for the OECD High Production Volume Chemicals programme. This was agreed in the 

programme in 2007. Information from this assessment has been used here, along with 

additional information from industry relating to exposure. A review of the public literature 

(Information Services Unit, Environment Agency 2008) found no uses of the substance 

“as such” (i.e. unreacted; all uses involved polymers produced from vinyl neodecanoate). 

Recently the substance was registered under the REACH regulation in the EU. As part of 

this evaluation, the Chemical Safety Report submitted with the REACH registration has 

been reviewed. 

Draft 

This evaluation report characterises the possible risks to the environment from the 

substance and recommends further information requirements to refine them. The risk 

evaluation report has been conducted according to the EU TGD (technical guidance 

document) method for the risk assessment of existing substances. (A similar process is 

used to assess substances under the current EU chemicals regulation, REACH.) 

PBT Assessment 

An assessment of the PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) properties of vinyl 

neodecanoate has been carried out using the available measured and estimated data 

against the EU PBT criteria, as contained in annex XIII of the REACH regulation. This 

data suggest that vinyl neodecanoate does not meet the screening criteria for a PBT 

substance. Furthermore, the criteria for a vPvB (very persistent, very bioaccumulative) 

substance are not met based on current data. 

• Persistence: No measured data relating to degradation in the freshwater or marine 

environment are available for vinyl neodecanoate. Available laboratory studies 

conducted according to OECD test guidelines (301D and 302C) show that the 

substance is neither readily nor inherently biodegradable. Although there are 

uncertainties associated with these tests (and especially the inherent test), and QSAR 


6 

predictions indicate that the substance should biodegrade rapidly, in the absence of 

further test data the “P” screening criteria are considered to be fulfilled. 

• Bioaccumulation: The measured octanol-water partition coefficient of vinyl 

neodecanoate suggested that the “B” screening criteria were met. A 

bioaccumulation study in fish following a protocol in which the substance was 

dosed via food was conducted. This study resulted in a biomagnification factor of 

0.137. Using the depuration data to estimate a BCF involved estimating what the 

uptake rate constant would have been had the substance been tested via water 

exposure. According to the method of Sijm et al (1995), an estimated uptake rate 

constant resulted in a bioconcentration factor in the range of 1100 – 1600. Other 

methods are available to estimate uptake rate constants, one resulting in higher 

estimates of bioconcentration with BCFs >2000. However there is a great deal of 

uncertainty attached to this estimation. On balance, considering the food 

assimilation efficiency and high depuration rate (short half-life in the fish) that were 

measured directly in the feeding study, it can be concluded that the substance is 

unlikely to meet the “B” (or “vB”) criteria. 

• Toxicity: No long term studies are available. The available laboratory data 

indicate that invertebrates are the taxonomic group most sensitive to vinyl 

neodecanoate; two acute studies have been conducted with the marine copepod 

Acartia tonsa (Girling et al, 1991; Worden et al, 2001). The former indicated that 

the EC50 ranged between 0.06 and 1.3 mg/l, the latter gave an EC50 of 0.3 mg/l 

(and a NOEC of 0.11 mg/l). In both studies variable analytical recoveries were 

recorded. These were more marked in the Girling et al study, which was not 

conducted to GLP. Given the shortcomings with this study (most likely owing to the 

physico-chemical properties of the substance) it is questionable whether the “T” 

screening criteria are truly fulfilled. As a precautionary approach and in the 

absence of confirmatory chronic test data, the substance is considered to meet 

the “T” screening criteria. 

Draft 

Studies relating to potential human health risks indicate that the substance has a low 

degree of toxicity. 

Quantitative Risk Assessment Summary 

The dataset on the physico-chemical properties of vinyl neodecanoate is reasonably 

thorough and allows the application of standard methods to model environmental 

behaviour. Risks from normal use of the substance have been modelled, and risk 

characterisation ratios for water, sediment, soil and predators have been calculated. The 

major areas of uncertainty for this evaluation are in the total quantity of substance 

supplied in the EU per annum, quantities of substance used for the various applications, 

actual releases of the substance from processing and formulation scenarios for the 

applications, the partitioning behaviour of the substance in waste water treatment plants, 

and longer term adverse effects in organisms (on which there are no data currently). The 

effect that varying some of these parameters has on the outcome of the evaluation is 

explored in an annex to this report. 

It should be noted that releases to the marine environment are modelled in a specific, 

“reasonable worst case” approach following the EU TGD methodology: any site in a 


coastal region is assumed to release waste water to estuarine waters with very limited or 

no treatment. No information is available indicating that sites (other than the vinyl 

neodecanoate production facility) are in fact near the sea (but as a reasonable worst 

case a proportion are assumed to be). This is a key area of uncertainty in the 

assessment for the marine environment. 

Vinyl neodecanoate is acutely toxic to aquatic invertebrates, especially so to the marine 

copepod Acartia tonsa. It is not readily biodegradable and shows a potential for 

bioaccumulation (although likely to be below the EU PBT criteria for a bioaccumulative or 

very bioaccumulative substance, as discussed above). This risk evaluation indicates 

several possible risks from the substance, relating to releases from processing of vinyl 

neodecanoate into polymer and releases of residual, unreacted monomer from the 

formulation of latex emulsion into coatings and adhesives. Some risks for secondary 

poisoning are also indicated. These risks are indicative and based on a number of 

necessary assumptions, some of which are “worst case,” and so further refinement of the 

evaluation is likely to alter the risks identified. The scenarios resulting in a risk are 

presented in the table below. 

Lifecycle 

stage 

Processing 

(reaction of 

the 

substance 

into copolymer) 

Use in 

coatings – 

emulsion 

paints 

Use in 

adhesives 

Use in 

cement 

composites 

Use in 

plasters/ 

fillers 

Step/type PEC/PNEC PEC/PNEC PEC/PNEC PEC/PNEC ratios for 

ratios for ratios for soil ratios for secondary poisoning 

freshwater 

marine 

and sediment 

water and 

sediment 

Large scale 75.4 973 2.23 x 10 

processors 

3 1.3 (freshwater fish foodchain) 

1.38 (marine fish foodchain) 

10.5 (earthworm foodchain) 

Small/medi 

um scale 

processors 

4.96 63.6 145 - 

Formulation 3.24 41.2 94.4 - 

Draft 

Formulation 17.2 222 508 2.39 (earthworm foodchain) 

Formulation - - 1.47 - 

Formulation - - 1.69 - 

Some of the risk characterisation ratios identified are only just greater than 1; because of 

the number of conservative assumptions made for these scenarios, they are not taken 

further in this evaluation. Some of the risks are reliant on assumptions made for other 

scenarios (for example secondary poisoning), therefore additional information used to 

refine the assessment of freshwater and sediment risks will affect the risk 

characterisation ratios for other scenarios. 

Several pieces of information would be useful to refine this risk evaluation. As highlighted 

above, the major area of uncertainty in this evaluation is in predicting environmental 


concentrations. More information on actual releases would greatly improve predicted 

environmental concentrations (PECs), in relation to: 

• Tonnage supplied in the EU 

• Confirmation of the particular uses (that currently fall under the headings “coatings” 

and “adhesives”) 

• Quantities used for the different types of processing (polymerization) 

o information on the number and type of processors 

o information on the location of processors (especially any in coastal regions) 

o information on the technical processes and releases 

o further information on levels of residual substance in polymers 

o information on releases to the atmosphere from processing 

• Quantities formulated into paints and adhesives 

o information on the number and type of formulators 

o information on the location of formulators (especially any in coastal regions) 

o information on the technical processes and releases during formulation 

o if use in cement composites does exist, quantities formulated and any 

information on releases 

In addition, further test data to help with environmental fate and behaviour modeling, 

especially of the substance in waste water treatment plants (Henry’s Law constant and 

simulation adsorption/desorption testing to derive Koc) is considered very necessary. 

This information will allow the refinement of the compartments reliant on the substance’s 

behaviour in a waste water treatment plant (surface water and sediment, soil, secondary 

poisoning scenarios and to some extent air). 

In relation to the PBT assessment, more information on the potential persistence of the 

substance should be considered, although in this context is not necessary as the B 

criterion is not met. A test more appropriate or modified for the substance would give a 

better indication of whether the P criterion is likely to be met. 

A chronic study in Acartia tonsa similar to the OECD 211 would allow direct comparison 

with EU PBT criteria (and may be necessary for the refinement of the marine risk 

assessment, see below). 

8 

Draft 

In the event that risks remain after further information on exposure levels has been used 

to refine the assessment, more information on the substance’s toxicity profile would allow 

refinement of the evaluation’s predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs). Any testing 

should follow a logical progression based around the EU TGD, as refinements for one 

compartment will also affect other compartments which rely on data for the former (for 

example the equilibrium partitioning approach has been used to extrapolate PNECs for 

freshwater sediment, soil and marine sediment compartments from aquatic data). 

• To refine the freshwater and sediment PNECs, a long term study in aquatic 

invertebrates according to OECD 211 would be useful. 

• Should risks still be indicated after this, an early life stage fish test (OECD 210) could 

be considered 

• The PNEC for the marine environment is derived from the acute Acartia tonsa toxicity 

data. After any freshwater aquatic testing has been conducted these data should be used 


to refine the PNEC for the marine environment (i.e. a lower assessment factor can be 

used once freshwater NOEC(s) are available). In case risks are still identified after this, a 

long term study in Acartia tonsa would add greater certainty to the derivation of the 

marine water PNEC (and allow a lower assessment factor to be used). Although not an 

OECD test species, a study similar in nature to the OECD 211 test guideline (Daphnia 

magna reproduction test) could be considered. A second long term test in a marine 

invertebrate could be considered in the case that risks are still identified. 

• There are currently no studies in sediment-dwelling organisms. After any aquatic 

testing has been conducted and the PNEC for sediment refined accordingly, the validity 

of the PNEC generated for this compartment could be checked with a test (in the case 

that a risk remains for sediment). Several OECD test guidelines exist for freshwater 

species (OECD TG 218, Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using Spiked Sediment; 

OECD TG 225, Sediment-water Lumbriculus toxicity test using spiked sediment). 

• No information on toxicity to terrestrial species exists. After any aquatic testing has 

been conducted and the PNEC for soil refined accordingly, the validity of the PNEC 

generated for this compartment could be checked with a test. Information on toxicity to 

an invertebrate species would be useful in case risks are still indicated for soil. A test 

according to OECD TG 222 (earthworm reproduction test) could be considered 

(preferred over an acute study given the substance’s indicated persistence and moderate 

bioaccumulation potential). 

• No information on toxicity to marine sediment-dwelling species exists. The effect of 

refinement of the marine water PNEC on the derived PNEC for marine sediment should 

be investigated. No tests are available for marine sediment organisms. If conducted, the 

test in a freshwater sediment organism may be used to compare against the marine 

sediment PNEC derived from equilibrium partitioning. 

The table below summarises the potential toxicity testing in order of its conductance that 

may be required should refinement of the evaluation with further data on releases not 

remove the indicated risks. 

Draft 

Compartment with potential 

risk 

Strategy to refine PNEC 

Freshwater i. long term study in invertebrate (OECD 211) 

If risks still indicated: 

ii. fish early life stage (OECD 210) 

Freshwater sediment If risks still indicated after PNEC refined using chronic aquatic data: 

i. OECD TG 218, Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using 

Spiked Sediment; or OECD TG 225, Sediment-water 

Lumbriculus toxicity test using spiked sediment 

Soil If risks still indicated after PNEC refined using chronic aquatic data: 

i. OECD TG 222 (earthworm reproduction test) 

Marine water Refine PNEC based on any freshwater aquatic chronic data. 


i. Long term study in Acartia tonsa, according to OECD 211 test 

guideline (Daphnia magna reproduction test) method 


ii. long term study in a second invertebrate species 

Marine sediment Refine PNEC according to chronic aquatic data. No internationally 

agreed marine sediment test available. If conducted, freshwater 

sediment test result can be compared to marine sediment PNEC from 

equilibrium partitioning approach. 


No risks for sewage treatment plant organisms or for secondary poisoning were identified 

in the evaluation. 

The Chemical Safety Report submitted as part of the REACH registration does not 

include any additional ecotoxicological information relevant for identified potential risks to 

that presented here; data waivers were submitted as a result of the Chemical Safety 

Assessment (no risks identified). The assessment considered the production and 

polymerisation of the substance by industrial users. Taking the available release 

information in the Chemical Safety Report and using the information here does not 

change the outcome of this evaluation. 

10 

Draft 


Contents 

Author: Daniel Merckel 2 

Evidence at the Environment Agency 3 

Acknowledgments 4 

Executive Summary 5 

Contents 11 

1 General Substance Information 14 

1.1 Identification of the Substance 14 

1.2 Purity/Impurities/Additives 15 

1.2.1 Purity/Impurities 15 

1.2.2 Additives 15 

1.3 Physico-chemical Properties 15 

2 General Information on Exposure 18 

2.1 Production 18 

2.2 Processing: Polymerisation 18 

2.2.1 Emulsion Polymerisation 19 

2.2.2 Suspension Polymerisation 21 

2.2.3 Solution Polymerisation 22 

2.2.4 Bulk Polymerisation 22 

2.3 Processing: Compounding 22 

2.4 Uses 22 

2.4.1 Use in Coatings – interior emulsion low VOC paints 22 

2.4.2 Use in Coatings – exterior wood coatings 23 

2.4.3 Use in Coatings – Cement Composite and Metal Coatings 23 

2.4.4 Use in Coatings – Automotive and industrial coatings 23 

2.4.5 Use in Adhesives 24 

2.4.6 Use in Cement Composites and Decorative plasters and fillers 25 

2.4.7 Specialist Applications – fuel additives, other industrial applications 26 

2.4.8 Use in Personal Care Products 26 

2.5 Legislative Controls 26 

Draft 

3 Environmental Exposure 28 

3.1 Environmental Releases 28 

3.1.1 Releases from Production 28 

3.1.2 Transportation losses 29 

3.1.3 Release from Processing (Emulsion Polymerisation) 29 

3.1.4 Release from Use in Coatings 31 

3.1.5 Release from Use in Adhesives 33 

3.1.6 Release from articles over their service life 39 

3.1.7 Summary of release estimates 41 

3.2 Environmental Fate and Distribution 42 

3.2.1 Atmospheric degradation 42 

3.2.2 Aquatic degradation 43 

3.2.3 Degradation in soil 44 

3.2.4 Evaluation of environmental degradation data 44 

3.2.5 Environmental partitioning 44 

3.2.6 Adsorption 44 

3.2.7 Volatilisation 45 


3.2.8 Precipitation 45 

3.2.9 Bioaccumulation and metabolism 45 

3.3 Environmental Concentrations 49 

3.3.1 Aquatic Compartment (surface water, sediment and waste water treatment 

plant) 49 

3.3.2 Terrestrial Compartment 54 

3.3.3 Atmospheric Compartment 55 

3.3.4 Food chain exposure 55 

3.3.5 The Marine Environment 57 

4 Effects Assessment: Hazard Identification and Dose (Concentration) – 

Response (Effect) Assessment 60 

4.1 Aquatic Compartment (Including Sediment) 60 

4.1.1 Toxicity to fish 60 

4.1.2 Toxicity to Invertebrates 61 

4.1.3 Toxicity to Algae and Plants 62 

4.1.4 Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) 63 

4.1.5 Overall Summary of standard endpoint toxicity data 65 

4.1.6 Endocrine disruption 65 

4.1.7 Toxicity to Microorganisms 65 

4.1.8 Toxicity to sediment organisms 65 

4.1.9 Derivation of PNEC for the Aquatic Compartment 66 

4.2 Terrestrial Compartment 67 

4.2.1 Terrestrial toxicity data 67 

4.2.2 PNEC for the Soil Compartment 67 

4.3 Atmosphere 67 

4.3.1 Toxicity data relevant to the atmospheric compartment 67 

4.3.2 PNEC for the atmospheric compartment 67 

4.4 Non-compartment specific effects relevant for the food chain (secondary 

poisoning) 68 

4.4.1 Environmentally relevant studies 68 

4.4.2 Mammalian Effects 68 

4.5 Classification 69 

12 

Draft 

4.5.1 Current Classification 69 

4.5.2 Proposal for the Environment 69 

5 Risk Characterisation 70 

5.1 Aquatic Compartment 70 

5.1.1 PEC/PNEC ratios for surface water 70 

5.1.2 PEC/PNEC ratios for waste water treatment plant (WWTP) microorganisms 70 

5.1.3 PEC/PNEC ratios for freshwater sediment 70 

5.1.4 Uncertainties and Possible Refinements 71 

5.1.5 Conclusions for the Aquatic compartment 71 

5.2 Terrestrial Compartment 72 

5.2.1 PEC/PNEC ratios 72 

5.2.2 Uncertainties and refinements 72 

5.2.3 Conclusions for the terrestrial compartment 72 

5.3 Atmospheric Compartment 73 

5.3.1 Conclusions for the atmospheric compartment 73 

5.4 Non-compartment specific effects relevant for the food chain (secondary 

poisoning) 73 



5.4.3 Conclusions for predators 74 

5.5 Marine compartment 74 




5.5.3 Conclusions for the Marine Environment 75 

5.6 Assessment against PBT criteria 75 

6 Summary of Indicated Risks and Further Work 76 

6.1 Indicated Risks 76 

6.2 Further work 76 

References & Bibliography 78 

Glossary of terms 80 

List of abbreviations 81 

7 Annexes 84 

7.1 Annex I: Results of Public Domain searches for Vinyl Neodecanoate 84 

7.1.1 Examples of Vinyl Neodecanoate Polymer suppliers, Polymer types and 

Applications 84 

7.1.2 Information found relating to use in fuel additives 90 

7.1.3 Use of vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers in personal care products (PCP) 91 

7.2 Annex II 95 

7.2.1 FISH 96-h LC50 (Mortality) 95 

7.2.2 GREEN ALGAE 96-h EC50 (Growth) 95 

7.2.3 GREEN ALGAE Chronic Value (Growth) 96 

7.3 Annex III: Consideration of EU tonnage level on PEC/PNEC ratios 97 

7.4 Annex IV: Considerations for PEC/PNEC ratios for the terrestrial, freshwater 

sediment and marine sediment compartments 98 

7.5 Annex V: Estimation of Bioconcentration Factor from Dietary study Data and 

Consequences for Secondary Poisoning Assessment 100 

7.6 Annex 6: EUSES Output 107 

Draft 


1 General Substance Information 

1.1 Identification of the Substance 

This is a risk assessment of vinyl neodecanoate. The substance has been assessed in the OECD High 

Production Volume Chemicals programme, and the dataset agreed in that forum has been used in this 

assessment without further validation. Recently the substance has been registered in the REACH 

regulation. The submission has been reviewed and is referred to as appropriate here; however many 

elements of the submission are claimed as confidential, so these are not discussed here. 

The substance is a vinyl ester, the vinyl group in the beta position relative to the carbonyl group and with a 

branched saturated alkyl chain consisting of a C9H19 unit bonded to the carbonyl group. The alpha carbon 

relative to the carbonyl of this alkyl chain is always tertiary, one of the substituents usually being a methyl 

group while the other two alkyl substituents contain the remaining seven aliphatic carbon units, with 

varying degrees of branching, between them. Given this variable degree of branching in the alkyl 

substituents, the substance might be described as a UVCB substance 1 . It is likely that the exact nature of 

the branching pattern will affect some of the substance’s properties, most importantly its environmental fate 

and behaviour; this is discussed below. 

Originally the structure of the substance was registered under CAS number 51000-52-3 as having a 

saturated straight chain bonded to the carbonyl with a terminal tertiary butyl group. However this structure 

is not representative of the supplied substance. Both an example structure of the substance and the 

erroneous, CAS registered, structure are given in Table 1.1 below, in addition to identity details of the 

substance. (Note that the example structure does not include further branching patterns in the R1 and R2 

groups, although it seems that such patterns are possible). 

Table 1.1 Identity of Vinyl Neodecanoate 

CAS Number: 51000-52-3 

EC Number 256-905-8 

IUPAC Name: ethenyl 6-tert-butylhexanoate (registered structure) 

Molecular Formula: C12H22O2 

Structural Formula: CH2=CH-O-CO-C(CH3)(R 1 )(R 2 ) 

where R 1 and R 2 = sat. C7H16 in a variety of branching patterns (VeoVa 10 Data 

Sheet, 1988) 

Molecular Weight: 198.31 

Synonyms: Vinyl neodecanoate, vinyl versatate, neodecanoic acid vinyl ester, neodecanoic 

acid ethenyl ester, trialkyl acetoxy ethane, vinyl ester of Versatic 10, VeoVa10. 

SMILES Code O=C(OC=C)CCCCCC(C)(C)C 

CAS Registered 

Structure 

Representative SMILES 

Code of supplied product 

14 

Draft 

C=COC(=O)C(C)(CCC)CCCC 

1 Unknown, variable composition or biological origin substance 


Example structural 

formula 

H2C 

O 

H3C 

1.2 Purity/Impurities/Additives 

1.2.1 Purity/Impurities 

O 

CH3 

CH3 

Draft 

where R 1 = n-butyl and R 2 = n-propyl in 

this example 

Vinyl neodecanoate is marketed as a purified, monomeric material, with a typical purity of 98% (OECD 

2007). It is a commercial mixture of isomers defined by the general structural formula in section 1.1 above. 

The remaining 2% chiefly constitutes impurities, which consist of residual products (unconverted starting 

olefins, light and heavy byproducts, impurities present in the starting materials, reagents used in the 

manufacturing process) not removed by distillation in purification after synthesis of the substance (VeoVa 

10 Data Sheet, 1988). 

1.2.2 Additives 

The monomethyl ether of hydroquinone (CAS No. 150-76-5) is used as an additive at a concentration, 

weight for weight, of 0.005 to 0.008 g/Kg (OECD, 2007). This equates to very low concentrations in the 

commercial material - between approximately 3.1 and 5 x 10 -4 %.This additive acts as an inhibitor of selfpolymerization 

(VeoVa 10 Data Sheet, 1988; Resolution Performance Products, 2002a). 

1.3 Physico-chemical Properties 

Vinyl neodecanoate is a light viscous liquid, moderately volatile, of low water solubility and with a moderate 

adsorption affinity towards organic matter. Based on its structure, surface active properties cannot be 

excluded. Table 1.2 shows the substance’s properties. 

Table 1.2 Physico-chemical Properties of Vinyl Neodecanoate 

Property Value Comments / Reference Reliability 

Physical state Viscous liquid - 

Melting point a 7.2 ºC calculated value; US EPA 

MPBPWIN ver. 1.41 (US EPA 

2000) b 

2 

Boiling point 212 ºC Audier, 2007 1 

Density 0.879 g/cm 3 at 

20ºC 

Vapour pressure 38.6 Pa at 25 ºC 

26 Pa at 25 ºC 

de Vette, 2007 1 

Smith, 2007 (OECD TG 104) 

calculated value; US EPA 

MPBPWIN ver. 1.42 (US EPA 

2000) b 

Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate 15 

2 

2

Water solubility 5.9 ± 1.3 mg/L at 

20ºC 

de Vette, 2007 

4.6 mg/L 

calculated value; US EPA WSKOW 

ver. 1.41 (US EPA 2000) b 

1 

2 

Partition coefficient noctanol/water 

(log value) 

4.9 measured value (Webb, 2001) 1 

Henry’s law constant 1210 Pa.m 3 /mol 

(1.2 x 10 -2 

atm.m 3 Manually estimated from water 

/mol) 

sol./vapour pressure (using 

experimental results) c 

1 

1.12 x 10 –2 

atm.m 3 /mol 

Modelled value; Bond method, US 

EPA HENRYWIN ver. 3.10 (US 

EPA 2000) b 

2 

Adsorption to organic 669 

calculated value; US EPA 

matter (Koc) 

KOCWIN ver. 1.66 (US EPA 

2000) 

2820 

3700 

b 

2 

2 

EU TGD method (2003); esters 

and default QSAR 

Notes: where multiple values exist for a single endpoint, the value selected for use in the risk evaluation is written in 

bold. 

a 

note that a measured value is available from the REACH registration. This value indicates that the substance is still a 

liquid at standard temperature and pressure, and so does not affect the environmental modelling of the substance. 

b 

In the EPISUITE modelling the representative structure presented in section 1.1 was used as the SMILES input. 

c 3 

this value is estimated according to the method of the EU TGD, and the value of 1210 Pa.m /mol is used in the 

assessment. This value differs slightly from that agreed in OECD, 2007; the calculation was revised in that the 

solubility value was adjusted to 25 °C to match the vapour pressure input. 

The values listed above were selected for use in the OECD HPV programme assessment (OECD, 2007) 

and the REACH Chemical Safety Report (CSR), except for the melting point and adsorption/desorption 

coefficient. A data waiver was submitted for surface tension in the CSR. 

The variability in branching pattern of the alkyl chain of the substance’s structure, as mentioned in section 

1.1, is important to consider especially in relation to the vapour pressure and Henry’s Law Constant (HLC 

is estimated here using vapour pressure). As an illustration, the registered structure of the substance (see 

section 1.1) when modelled using EPISUITE gives an estimated vapour pressure of 4.3 Pa at 25 °C. This 

is about a factor of ten lower than that measured and the vapour pressure estimated for the representative 

structure. On the face of it, the similarity between the representative structure estimated value and the 

measured value may add credence to the use of the value for environmental behaviour modelling. 

However, the presence of impurities and additives (see sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2) is also important for 

vapour pressure (impurities with a higher volatility than the assessed substance can raise the measured 

vapour pressure). Unfortunately no details on the purity of the test substance used in the vapour pressure 

test were available. HLC is very important for the modelling of the substance’s behaviour in waste water 

16 

Draft 

treatment plants (WWTP), as small changes in HLC may causes relatively large changes in the fraction of 

substance estimated to be directed to WWTP effluent. The value of Koc that is used will have a similar 

effect; presently only predicted values for Koc are available. 

Additional properties published for vinyl neodecanoate are given in Table 1.3 below (Resolution 

Performance Products, 2002a). 


Table 1.3 Additional Properties of Vinyl Neodecanoate 

Property Value Comments Reliability 

Kinetic viscosity at 20 ˚C 2.2 mm 2 /s ASTM D445 test method - 

Specific heat at 20 ˚C 1.97 kJ/kg - 

Flash Point 75 ºC ASTM D93 test method - 

Miscibility with vinyl 

acetate 

Specific heat of 

polymerisation 

Glass transition 

temperature of 

homopolymer (Tg) 

Completely miscible - 

96 kJ/mol - 

-3 ºC Measured by differential scanning 

calorimetry 

Draft 


-

2 General Information on Exposure 

2.1 Production 

Vinyl neodecanoate is the ester derived from the reaction of versatic acid (neodecanoic acid) and 

acetylene, using a zinc salt catalyst (usually a zinc carboxylate i.e. a versatic salt in this case) at elevated 

temperature. Versatic acid is a mixture of highly branched C10 monocarboxylic acids obtained by the Koch 

process, which involves the addition of carbon monoxide in the presence of water to a branched terminal 

alkene. The reaction is catalysed by a mineral acid and usually requires high temperature and pressure. 

Industry have described the process as being dry, and occurring continuously over 365 days per year 

(OECD SIDS, 2007). 

Vinyl neodecanoate is a mixture of structural isomers as a result of the alkyl chain branching of the versatic 

acid component, but always contains a tertiary carbon atom alpha (α) to the carbonyl (see section 1.1) 

(VeoVa 10 Data Sheet, 1988). 

The annual global production volume of vinyl neodecanoate in 2006 was between 46 and 230 kilotonnes. 

According to the major industry supplier of vinyl neodecanoate, it is produced at one site in the EU in the 

Netherlands that supplies the global market. The production of vinyl neodecanoate falls under the industry 

category “03 Chemical Industry: chemicals used in synthesis” and the use category “33 Intermediates”. 

Industry information suggests that in 2003, 29,000 tonnes of vinyl neodecanoate was sold in the EU and all 

of this polymerised into latex. More recent information (OECD SIDS, 2007) suggests this figure may be 

significantly higher now (57% of total production tonnage). In the UK in 2001, 5,400 tonnes (18.6% of the 

EU market) of vinyl neodecanoate was imported for processing, with 99% of this volume being processed 

at five different sites (Resolution Performance Products, 2002). 

2.2 Processing: Polymerisation 

Vinyl neodecanoate is not processed where it is produced. To the best of the Industry’s knowledge, it is 

used entirely as a synthetic intermediate in the production of polymeric binding agents for use in latex 

(water-dispersed polymer) coatings, commercially called “Veocryls” (OECD SIDS, 2007). Solvent-borne 

vinyl neodecanoate-based polymers and powders can also be produced, however. An exhaustive search 

of the publicly available literature (Science Information Services, Environment Agency, 2008a-e) found no 

examples of the substance being used as such (unreacted). Generally vinyl neodecanoate is employed as 

a co-, ter- or higher monomer, in that it is polymerised with at least one other monomer to give a polymeric 

material consisting of mixed monomer units (generally referred to here as “co-monomer” for simplicity). 

The process is addition (chain-growth) polymerisation; the carbon-carbon double bond of vinyl 

neodecanoate is opened through reaction with another monomer unit leaving the ester group intact. Comonomers 

with similar reactivities are usually used, as this encourages good conversion rates and allows 

18 

Draft 

full exploitation of the properties conferred on the polymer by vinyl neodecanoate. Common monomers that 

vinyl neodecanoate is reacted with are vinyl acetate, ethylene and various (meth)acrylates. Usually the 

polymers produced using vinyl neodecanoate as co-monomer are random and amorphous (low degree of 

crystallinity) and, depending on use, are often lightly cross-linked (for example by the use of a small 

amount of cross-linkable silane monomer) to prevent irreversible deformation. With respect to the EU TGD 

(European Commission, 2003) defined industry and use patterns (part III, chapter 5), the polymerisation of 

vinyl neodecanoate falls under the industry category “11 Polymers Industry” and the use category “33 

Intermediates”. Subsequent formulation steps of the polymer are described by the industry category “11 

Polymers Industry” and the use category “02 Adhesives/binding agents” given the desired effect of the 

polymer in the formulation, be it paint or adhesive. 

Vinyl neodecanoate is used as a monomer for polymer synthesis because it imparts properties of 

hydrophobicity, resistance to UV degradation and resistance to ester hydrolysis (saponification) to the 

polymer by virtue of its sterically hindered alkyl ester group. This sterically hindered alkyl group shields the 

ester groups derived from the co-monomer (e.g. vinyl acetate) as well as those derived from vinyl 

neodecanoate itself from hydrolysis. This last property is of particular importance for polymers used in 

concretes, which are alkaline, creating an environment that promotes hydrolysis. In addition vinyl 

neodecanoate is frequently used as a “flexibilising monomer”; varying the relative concentrations of the 

monomers modifies the hardness/flexibility of the resultant polymer. A representative example of the 

structure of a co-polymer produced from vinyl neodecanoate and vinyl acetate is shown in figure 1, 


assuming a regular pattern of repeating monomer units and no grafting (Resolution Performance Products, 

2002b). 

Figure 1 Representative Vinyl Acetate – Vinyl Neodecanoate Polymer Structure 

Co-polymers containing the polymeric material made from vinyl neodecanoate have a range of uses which 

can generally be described as coatings and adhesives. The major use falls under the coatings category 

(65%). Specific uses for VeoVa-based polymers (i.e. other chain lengths as well as in vinyl neodecanoate) 

include emulsion paints (indoor and outdoor), solvent-borne metal topcoats, architectural coatings (for 

wood, metal, roof tiles and concrete), decorative plasters, cement mortar additives and cement composites 

(including spray-dried powders), solution polymers for various applications (including automotive and 

industrial coatings and cosmetics), fuel additives, and various powder coatings (Resolution Performance 

Products, 2002d). There is a trend towards (organic) solvent-free and low volatile organic content (VOC) 

paints for environmental and human health reasons, and so latex coatings made from vinyl neodecanoate 

polymers are increasingly used for such applications. For each application the form of the polymer, and 

therefore synthetic procedure, is dependent on the downstream formulations or uses. For example, 

polymers can be formulated for use in a product as an aqueous dispersion, generally involving the use of a 

latex formed from emulsion polymerisation; re-dispersible and spray-dried polymeric powders may be 

derived from polymers produced by bulk or suspension polymerisation; or products containing an organic 

solvent-borne polymer may be formulated using a polymer dispersed in a suitable organic solvent 

produced by solution polymerisation. Polymerisation techniques, including emulsion, solution, suspension 

and bulk polymerization methods, are discussed below as are specific uses including the form of polymer 

employed, if known (see sections 2.2.1 – 2.4.8). 

Draft 

Important physical considerations when producing the polymer lattice include the glass transition 

temperature (Tg) of a polymer (Resolution Performance Products, 2002b; Hexion Specialty Chemicals, 

2006b). This is the temperature below which a polymer is “frozen out” and behaves like a glass; hard, rigid 

and often brittle. Above the Tg the polymer becomes rubbery and, if not cross-linked, it can flow. Tg 

depends on the monomer(s)’s chemical structure, the molecular weight of the polymer, and the molecular 

structure of the polymer chains (so-called a-, syndio- and isotactic forms). In the case of co-polymers, the 

Tgs for the homopolymers that would be produced from polymerisation of each individual monomer are 

considered to gauge the likely Tg of the co-polymer, depending on the relative composition of monomers 

used. The co-polymer’s Tg in theory will be within the range of the homopolymers’ Tgs (depending also on 

the degree of crystallinity in the co-polymer). The Tg for the homopolymer produced from vinyl 

neodecanoate is about -3 ˚C. For comparison, the Tg for vinyl acetate is 32 ºC. Hence vinyl 

neodecanoate’s use as a flexibilising co-monomer. 

2.2.1 Emulsion Polymerisation 

The main type of polymerisation technique employed when copolymerising vinyl neodecanoate is Emulsion 

Polymerisation. This process is commonly employed to produce latexes for emulsion paints, adhesives, 

primers and sealers in which the polymer particles are small (100 – 250 nm diameter) (Resolution 

Performance Products, 2002c). The process eliminates the need for odorous and toxic organic solvents, so 

providing a low VOC system, and equipment can be cleaned with water. 

In emulsion polymerisation, a mixture of monomers, often including a cross-linking component, is 

emulsified with surfactants in an aqueous continuous phase. A water-soluble free-radical initiator is 

necessary to promote monomer chain transfer reaction. Commonly-used initiators include potassium or 

ammonium persulfate and various redox systems. The ratios of chemicals and the conditions of 

polymerisation (pH, temperature, agitation) are critical. A thorough description of the process can be found 

elsewhere (“Polymer Colloids”, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology, J Wiley and Sons) 


Three separate stages can be identified in emulsion polymerisation: stage 1, initial formation of polymer 

particles; stage 2, continued polymerisation fed by a supply of new monomer resulting in polymer particle 

growth; stage 3, monomer supply is stopped and polymerisation rate slows. 

In the polymerisation process, a reactor under nitrogen is charged with a buffered aqueous solution, the 

surfactants and a proportion of the initiator, then heated to reaction temperature (80 – 85 ˚C). A pH of 4 – 5 

is maintained and the dispersion is stirred throughout the reaction. 5 – 10% of the mixed monomer is then 

added to produce an “in-situ seed latex”. At this point particles of monomer (generally 1 - 10 micrometres 

in diameter) are dispersed by the surfactants. Their small size, coupled with the anticoagulant effect of the 

surfactants, produces a stable dispersion. Most of the surfactant exists as micelles (ca. 10 nm diameter) in 

the solution, which are very much smaller than the droplets of monomer. Thermal decomposition of the 

initiator results in free radical generation, these free radicals react with the monomer present (the droplets 

of monomer act as a bulk supply of discreet monomer molecules), and oligomer chains are produced. 

Oligomers can either continue to grow, adsorbing surfactant molecules, or can be encased by micelles. In 

both instances new polymer particles are formed until no micelles are left, thus this process represents 

stage 1. Polymer particles start to absorb additional monomer from the monomer droplets by migration of 

discreet monomer into the water phase from the droplets. Polymerisation continues with chain growth 

without the formation of new polymer particles – stage 2. In stage 2 the remaining monomer (90 – 95%) is 

slowly added to the reaction vessel as is fresh initiator via a separate stream, and growing polymer 

particles are stabilised by the surfactants. The effects of addition rate and composition of added monomer 

on the process have been investigated in the literature (Wu et al, 2002). When addition of the monomer is 

complete, the rate of polymerisation slows as all the remaining monomer is consumed until none is left. 

This corresponds to stage 3. At the end of stage 3, the “post-cook” period, additional initiator can be 

added to ensure high monomer conversion or the emulsion can be “steam stripped” to remove residual 

monomer. Finally the pH is adjusted to neutral/alkaline by addition of a base, e.g. ammonia. 

The whole process proceeds at low viscosity, which allows adequate removal of heat of reaction, 

production of high molecular mass polymers and high monomer conversion rates. 

At the end of the process, a white aqueous emulsion of polymer particles stabilised by surfactants, and low 

residual amounts of unreacted initiator and discreet monomer results. Industrially polymerisation proceeds 

to over 99% conversion, and most emulsions contain less than 0.5% unreacted monomer. 

Specific information according to Industry on vinyl neodecanoate is that emulsion polymerisation is carried 

out in two batchwise stages, with the emulsion containing less than 0.05% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate 

after the first stage and between 0.01 – 0.02% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate after the second stage. A 

review on techniques for reducing residual monomer content in polymers in the literature (Araujo et al, 

2002) cites a paper in which the authors showed that the residual monomer content of the polymer was 

more dependent on the post-cook period (stage 3 above) than on the reaction period (stage 2 above). 

20 

Draft 

Solids content is typically in the range 44 – 56% and polymer molecular weight between 100,000 and 

1,000,000 Daltons. Average polymer particle diameter is around 100 – 170 nm for colloid-free lattices and 

200 – 500 nm for colloid-stabilised lattices. 

In emulsion polymerisation stable dispersions are achieved by two general kinds of interaction: 

electrostatic repulsion and steric stabilisation. In the former anionic surfactants resulting in negatively 

charged functional groups at polymer/water interfaces are employed; in the latter non-ionic surfactants 

(and so-called protective colloids) with hydrophilic groups that form a solvation shell around polymer 

particles are used. This kind of latex is often referred to as a “colloid-stabilised latex” if both non-ionic 

surfactants and protective colloids are used, and “colloid-free latex” if only non-anionic surfactant and no 

protective colloid is used. 

The two stabilisation methods, electrostatic repulsion and steric stabilisation, are used in conjunction. 

Hence an anionic surfactant as well as non-ionic surfactant and/or protective colloid are often used in the 

reaction (between 1 and 10% by monomer weight). Anionic surfactants provide shear stability to the latex 

during the reaction, allowing the formation of small particles without coagulation. Non-ionic surfactants add 

electrolyte stability and help with mechanical and freeze-thaw stability. The surfactants not only enable 

polymerisation in the first place but also stabilise the latex during storage and transport. A commonly-used 

anionic surfactant is dodecyl benzene sulfonate, and for non-ionic surfactants nonyl phenol ethoxylates 

were used but are being replaced with non-aromatic surfactants due to environmental concerns. Protective 

colloids (used at between 0.5 and 2% by monomer weight) include polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and 

hydroxyethyl cellulose. 


Table 2.1 below gives a typical “recipe” for emulsion polymerisation (taken from several sources including 

Resolution Performance Products, 2003 and Howarth and Hayward, 1996). 

Table 2.1 Typical Quantities of Ingredients Used in Emulsion Polymerisation 

Chemical Function Approx. relative quantity (%) 

Water Continuous phase 55 

Methyl methacrylate Monomer 17 

Vinyl neodecanoate Monomer 27 

Butyl acrylate Monomer 0.3 

Anionic surfactant Stabilizer 0.3 

Hydroxyethyl cellulose Protective colloid 0.3 

Potassium persulfate Free Radical initiator 0.3 

In a communication to the Chemical Stakeholder Forum (Resolution Performance Products, 2002), 

industry stated that the range of vinyl neodecanoate in a copolymer was 5 – 40%, with 20% being typical. 

An important parameter to consider in emulsion polymerisation is the minimum film formation temperature 

(MFFT) of the co-polymer (Hexion Specialty Chemicals, 2006b). The glass transition temperature (Tg), 

discussed above, in turn influences the co-polymer’s MFFT. Taking the example of emulsion paints, soft 

acrylates are usually included in order to lower the temperature of MFFT sufficiently so that a solvent is not 

required in the paint. However a low MFFT can also impart undesirable properties in the finished paint, 

such as poor scrub resistance compared to conventional paints. This problem is solved by the inclusion of 

a small amount of a cross-linkable silane or N-methylolacrylamide (NMA) monomer in the paint. 

A variation on emulsion polymerization often used for vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers is “Core/Shell” 

Emulsion Polymerisation (Hexion Specialty Chemicals, 2006a). In the core/shell technique, instead of 

mixing monomers for reaction a two-stage process is followed. First, all of the vinyl neodecanoate is selfreacted 

by the emulsion polymerisation method to form a polymer particle “core”, with the addition of a 

small quantity of dimethacrylate to immobilize the core. Second, the remaining co-monomer(s) is reacted 

following the same polymerisation method, such that a hard “shell” is formed around the vinyl 

neodecanoate-derived polymer core. This process gives the polymer particles a distinct cross-sectional 

morphology, consisting of a soft core and a hard shell. The hard shell results in reduced tackiness and 

increased surface hardness. Overall the polymer particles display a Tg similar to that of the analogous 

polymer with an homogeneous morphology (prepared by the conventional emulsion technique) but a 

higher MFFT because of the harder outer shell. 

This technique is used for coatings that require good dirt pick-up resistance, and can be used for wood, 

metal and concrete coatings including wood stains, gloss paints, masonry paints, roof tile paints and anticorrosion 

coatings. 

Other variations include the use of continuous polymerisation systems in which two (or more) reaction 

vessels are used. Raw materials are added continuously first to one vessel where they are partially 

Draft 

polymerised. Then cycled to a second vessel where reaction is completed in the presence of more free- 

radical initiator. In multi-vessel variations partially-reacted polymer suspensions may be cycled between 

vessels in a stepwise fashion. 

From the information on the process that has been found, it seems likely that different final applications will 

require different latex emulsions, not just in terms of the monomers used but also additives and relative 

quantities used. This is borne out by the information available in the public domain (see Annex I; Science 

Information Services, 2008a-e). 

2.2.2 Suspension Polymerisation 

Again carried out in aqueous solution with the use of free-radical forming initiators, suspension 

polymerisation uses lower levels of stabilizer so that formed polymer does not remain in dispersion but 

instead settles out of the aqueous medium. This results in the easy removal of polymeric material by 

filtration. The process is generally used to produce polymer particles with a far greater size than emulsion 

polymerisation. Unlike the initiator used in emulsion polymerisation the initiator is organic soluble. 

Monomer droplets are suspended in water, stabilized with protective colloid and/or suspension agent to 

prevent droplets aggregating. Organic-soluble (hydrophobic) initiator penetrates these droplets, initiating 

polymerisation inside the monomer droplets. In effect each droplet in which polymerisation is occurring is 

the equivalent of a small scale bulk polymerisation. This high-yielding process results in polymer in bead 

form with narrow particle-size distribution, which find uses in coatings and adhesive applications (a 


description of the method can be found in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, J Wiley and 

Sons). 

2.2.3 Solution Polymerisation 

Solution polymerisation is carried out in a suitable organic solvent, such as a lower chain length alkane or 

alcohol, generally under pressurised conditions. Again the process is driven by a free-radical initiator, and 

factors such as temperature, agitation, rate and order of addition of reactants are critical. The solvent also 

acts as a chain-transfer agent itself and affects the molecular weight of the polymer produced. Reactions 

are carried out between 45 and 75 ˚C, depending on the solvent and monomer system. In the case of vinyl 

neodecanoate, vinyl acetate or (meth)acrylate are usually employed as co-monomer (a description of the 

method can be found in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, J Wiley and Sons). 

2.2.4 Bulk Polymerisation 

Vinyl neodecanoate is polymerised with a co-monomer (usually (meth)acrylate or styrene) in the absence 

of solvents in this process, which is unlikely to be used widely and only for specialist applications. As 

polymer forms the viscosity increases markedly, making dissipation of heat of reaction difficult. However as 

the viscosity increases the rate of termination of chain growth slows below the rate of chain growth 

propagation; molecular weight is then limited by diffusion of monomer to the chain ends. Three common 

types of bulk polymerization are used: batch cell casting, continuous casting and continuous bulk. 

Once formed and depending on the use, the bulk polymer can optionally be diluted with solvents or in 

some cases dispersed in water, prior to processing to yield a powder coating. 

2.3 Processing: Compounding 

The copolymer latex produced from polymerization is handled in a formulation step, referred to here as 

compounding, to produce ready-to-use products such as paints and adhesives. Depending on the type of 

facility carrying out the compounding and the envisaged use of the final product, the actual formulation 

process and possible emission patterns from it are likely to vary. As different compounding operations are 

use-dependent, they are each discussed in the following Uses section to provide a more coherent picture 

of this part of the lifecycle of the copolymer. It is not clear from the available information if compounding 

occurs at the same sites as polymerization. 

22 

Draft 

2.4 Uses 

The following sections describe the known uses of polymers made from vinyl neodecanoate. Uses are 

grouped into applications described as coatings (sections 2.4.1 – 2.4.4), adhesives (2.4.5) and other uses 

that are difficult (cement composites, plasters and fillers) or not possible (e.g. personal care products) to 

categorise as either coatings or adhesives. 

2.4.1 Use in Coatings – interior emulsion low VOC paints 

Vinyl neodecanoate is co-polymerised with vinyl acetate and often an additional “soft” acrylate (for example 

2-ethyl hexyl acrylate or butyl acrylate) according to the emulsion polymerisation technique described 

above to produce lattices for solvent-free paints. This latex is then formulated in one or more further steps 

to produce the final blended emulsion paint. These paints are complex mixtures containing the emulsion 

polymeric materials, pigments, plasticizers, and various additives: additional dispersants, wetting agents, 

defoamers, thickeners and biocides. They are generally used for interior applications, for example as matt 

interior paints and silk paints (Hexion Specialty Chemicals, 2006b). In the UK co-polymers of vinyl 

acetate/vinyl neodecanoate are said to have the largest usage for this application, although co-polymers 

made from vinyl acetate and acrylic monomers also feature strongly (Howarth and Hayward, 1996). 

An Emission Scenario document on the coatings industry (paints, lacquers and varnishes) is available 

(OECD, 2009b). Section four of the document describes background information and the possible releases 

from the manufacture and use of decorative paints, a market which seems to be dominated by interior 

emulsions used for walls and ceilings. This document is used in the next section to develop the model for 

emissions from this use pattern arising from formulation and (private) use. 


Manufacture of the paint is conducted in three main steps, premix, dispersion and “let down”, which in 

many cases can be combined depending on the properties of the latex and final product. Premix involves 

mixing of the main constituents of the paint’s vehicle (its dispersing medium) before pigments are added – 

the polymeric emulsion (latex), dispersants, wetting agents, thickeners, biocides, etc. Dispersion refers to 

the preparation and shearing of the pigment to rid it of aggregates, and let down to the addition of all 

remaining paint components. Large stainless steel vessels are generally used for the formulation of 

emulsion paints, as they do not react with paint components and can be cleaned easily with aqueous 

solutions. Often a further step in the production of commercially available paint is in-store/downstream user 

tinting - suppliers of the paints often stock a few bases paints that are fully formulated. In order to produce 

the correct colour, the base paint is tinted in-house by the addition of pigment followed by agitation. 

The emulsion is applied to a surface and the water slowly evaporates or absorbs if the surface is porous. 

Polymer particles aggregate as water is lost, and finally coalesce to give a hard paint/coating film. The 

emulsion is said to “invert”; as the paint film is formed the system goes from a dispersion of discreet 

polymer particles in an aqueous medium to a continuous polymeric film incorporating tiny particles of 

water. 

VOC content of such paints is low, and since the monomers used to produce the polymeric materials used 

in these paints are classed as VOCs low residual levels of monomer can generally be expected in the 

finished paint. Most polymer emulsions contain less than 0.5% unreacted monomer, and according to 

Industry the emulsion produced from copolymerisation contains less than 0.01 – 0.02% unreacted vinyl 

neodecanoate. According to industry, this percentage reduces to 0.006% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate 

once the polymer emulsion is formulated into the final paint product (OECD SIDS, 2007). 

Annex I contains a list of polymer suppliers, their latexes by trade name and the general uses associated 

with them. This information is available in the public domain and was collected by the Environment Agency 

(Science Information Services, 2008c). 

2.4.2 Use in Coatings – exterior wood coatings 

Three categories exist for exterior wood coatings: paint, stain and varnish. Paints are sub-divided in three, 

primer, undercoat and topcoat, although one-coat systems are now available. Primers seal the wood and 

provide a smooth surface the undercoat can adhere to. Film formation is not important for the primer, 

whereas it is more so for undercoat and topcoat. Polymeric materials or latexes are used in undercoats 

and topcoats. Stains are penetrating semi-transparent coatings which preserve wood. They can contain 

variable degrees of solids, including polymeric materials. Finally, varnishes are traditionally solvent-borne 

liquids that dry to a hard transparent coating, although due to VOC restrictions water-borne wood finishes 

are becoming important. 

Vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers may be used in water-borne undercoats and topcoats for exterior wood 

application. Primarily this usage is driven by the move away from high-VOC solvent-borne paints. However 

exact figures for this use are not available as manufacturers often only specify “VeoVa” as one of the 

Draft 

polymer components, but not specifically which type of “VeoVa” (“VeoVa 10” refers to vinyl neodecanoate, 

whereas “VeoVa 9” and “VeoVa 11” refer to the homologous monomeric materials with nine and 11 carbon 

atoms, respectively). 

2.4.3 Use in Coatings – Cement Composite and Metal Coatings 

Primers used to prepare concrete masonry for further coating are usually alkali-resistant to inhibit the 

degradation of coatings by hydrolysis catalysed by the alkalinity of the concrete. A topcoat is generally 

applied straight onto the primer without the need for an undercoat. The primers are usually latex-based, 

and as such may incorporate an emulsion polymer derived from vinyl neodecanoate as co-monomer. 

Information in the public domain describing products containing vinyl neodecanoate co-polymeric materials 

include a variety of masonry paints and anti-corrosives coatings (Science Information Services, 2008c). It 

appears that the majority of these are, as for the other coatings applications, aqueous dispersions. Annex I 

lists a selection of suppliers and trade names, and descriptions where available. 

2.4.4 Use in Coatings – Automotive and industrial coatings 

The water repellent properties that vinyl neodecanoate imparts to the polymer make it suitable for use in 

anti-corrosion paints (Resolution Performance Products, 2002d). As listed in Annex I use as a top coat for 


metal surfaces is known for vinyl neodecanoate co-polymer coatings. A search of the open literature did 

not reveal any applications of vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers in powder coating applications (Science 

Information Services, 2008c). However, the substance is included in small amounts as a co-monomer in a 

solvent-borne polymer coating material used as a commercial vehicle topcoat (“Glasurit High Solid 2K 

Commercial Vehicle Topcoat”), notified in Australia under domestic legislation (NICNAS, 2000). This 

polymer consists of seven monomers, of which vinyl neodecanoate constitutes 5.8% by weight. The 

polymer is presumably produced by the solution or emulsion technique (see section 2.2) and is supplied as 

a solution in xylene or butyl acetate. The polymer accounts for 30 – 60% of the final paint formulation. As 

this was the only example of this kind found (no examples in the EU were located), it is presumed that the 

level of use of vinyl neodecanoate polymers in solvent-borne automotive coating applications is low. As a 

result this use is not considered further in this report. 

2.4.5 Use in Adhesives 

Adhesives are glues that are used for bonding non-porous surfaces such as metals and plastics and 

porous surfaces such as textiles and wood through a non-mechanical joint. This section briefly describes 

several types of adhesive most likely to involve monomeric and polymeric materials. 

The main component in an adhesive is generally a binder material. Binders are usually high molecular 

weight polymers; commonly used binders include natural and synthetic rubber, polyvinyl polymers, 

polyurethanes, esters, epoxy resins, and acrylate polymers. In the context of this assessment, a copolymer 

formed from the reaction of vinyl neodecanoate and another monomer may be used for this purpose. The 

minor components present in an adhesive product include plasticizers, thickeners, non-reactive resins, 

fillers, solvents, hardeners, and setting retardants (Ullmann, 1985). 

There are many different types of adhesive available, usually grouped by their end use, mode of bonding 

or the chemical changes that take place during bonding. Adhesives are generally very complex mixtures of 

chemicals, each of which carries out a specific function or an additive function along with other ingredients. 

Most adhesives include a catalyst or curing agent which causes an increase in molecular weight and 

associated formation of a polymeric network. Additives and modifiers commonly found in adhesives include 

solvents, plasticizers, tackifiers, fillers, pigments, toughening agents and coupling agents. The chief types 

of adhesive by mode of action are pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSA) and related contact adhesives, hotmelt 

adhesives, solution adhesives (including solvent-based and water-based solution adhesives) and 

structural or reactive adhesives (including epoxy, acrylic, urethane and phenolic adhesives). (see also Kirk- 

Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, J Wiley and Sons; Ohm, R., Ed, 1990; Skeist, I., Ed 1977). 

The recent OECD Emission Scenario document on Adhesive Formulation (OECD, 2009a) usefully lists 

examples of binder against adhesive type. 

24 

Draft 

PSAs and contact adhesives are tacky, soft and sticky adhesives, and do not change during their lifetime; 

they are the only type of adhesive not to undergo a chemical change as part of their function. They are 

commonly used to stick price stickers, in tamper-proof packaging and on sticking tapes. Polymeric binders 

constitute the greatest part of the adhesive. Elastomers used in PSAs include polybutadiene, styrene- 

butadiene rubbers, poly(alkyl acrylate) homo- and copolymers, and polyvinyl ethers. Co-monomers used 

for acrylate PSAs include acrylic acid and methacrylic acid. In PSAs that are water-based, aqueous 

emulsions of these same polymers can be used (from emulsion polymerisation). One example in the public 

literature exists in which a vinyl acetate, ethylene and VeoVa (chain length not stated) polymer is used as a 

contact adhesive (Mowilith LDM 1355, manufactured by Celanese; see Annex I). It seems likely that vinyl 

neodecanoate polymers are not widely used in this area. 

Hot-melt adhesives are solids that require heating before application, and cure upon cooling. Hot-melts are 

used for bonding packaging, paper products, wood and textiles. They are generally based on a 

thermoplastic resin, most commonly an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. The polymeric binder can 

typically make up between 30 and 60% of the adhesive. (Given the adhesive’s form, such polymers are 

likely to have been made by suspension, solution or bulk polymerisation). It is possible that some resins 

used for this purpose may be based on a copolymer system including polymerised vinyl neodecanoate. In 

the public domain at least two companies manufacture a copolymer dispersion used as a heat-seal/melt 

adhesive (Celanese, vinyl acetate-ethylene-vinyl neodecanoate polymeric material “Mowilith LDM 1025”; 

Vinavil, poly vinyl acetate-vinyl versatate polymerics “Vinavil 1515” and “Ravemul 023”; see Annex I). 

Solution adhesives are applied as a wet film and dry by loss of solvent or water to leave an adhesive film. 

They are solutions of high molecular weight polymers that are allowed to partially dry, then the surfaces 


are pressed together for a while to promote adhesion. Solution adhesives can be organic solvent or waterbased. 

Solvent-based solution adhesives are commonly used for gluing veneers to wood and for paper 

products. The most widely-used polymer system is polychloroprene in mixtures of aromatic solvents, with 

lesser representation from polyurethanes, styrene-butadiene polymers and various acrylic or vinyl 

polymers in appropriate solvents. No specific information on the use of vinyl neodecanoate copolymers in 

solvent-based solution adhesives has been identified. 

Water-based solution adhesives are used for bonding plastic sheets, cloth, shoe parts, foams, PVC 

veneers and carpets. They can be based on polyurethane dispersions or natural product resins, but also 

poly(vinyl acetate) (PVAC) emulsions. The last are commonly used as household “white” glues. The 

polymer binder typically makes up 60% of the adhesive. The use of different PVAC copolymers to modify 

the characteristics of the glue is common practice, indicating the possibility that vinyl neodecanoate 

copolymers may be used. In the public domain several examples of such uses of vinyl neodecanoate 

polymers are available: vinyl acetate, ethylene and VeoVa co polymeric materials (as for hot-melt 

adhesives), acrylate-vinyl acetate-VeoVa polymers from manufacturer Collano and styrene-vinyl acetatevinyl 

versatate polymeric materials produced by Neste Chemicals (see Annex I). 

Reactive adhesives contain monomers that react during curing to form the solid adhesive film. They are 

also called Structural adhesives, as they are designed to bond structural materials due to their very high 

shear strengths. Various kinds of reactive adhesives exist; these are briefly described here. 

Epoxy resins, based on resins of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (from reaction of bisphenol A with 

epichlorohydrin), are one type of reactive adhesive. These can be one- or two-part adhesives. Two-part 

epoxy resins include the resin itself and a separate curing agent (or hardener); the two are mixed prior to 

use. Acrylics are another type of reactive adhesive. These adhesives contain acrylic monomers that react 

via free radical polymerisation in the absence of oxygen. In the main part monomers are chosen for their 

reactivity, volatility and cost. Acrylic resins can be anaerobic or nonaerobic; the former are 1-part adhesive 

systems, the latter 2-part. Various combinations of free radical initiators and accelerators are used. 

Examples of acrylic monomers used in these adhesives include lauryl acrylate, methyl- and cyclohexyl 

methacrylate. A particularly important subclass of acrylic adhesive is the cyanoacrylates. These are 

commonly used to make “super glue”, and are polymerised anionically, often by hydroxyl ions that exist on 

the surfaces being bonded. Other classes of reactive adhesives are the Urethanes (reactive isocyanate 

monomer reacts with alcohols, amines or thiols), Phenolics (reaction of phenol and formaldehyde) and 

Amino resins (also called aminopolymers; bonding through reaction of urea and formaldehyde). 

The possibility exists that vinyl neodecanoate itself is used in certain kinds of reactive adhesive. However 

the information from industry states that this is currently unlikely to be the case (see section 2.2), and so is 

not considered further in this assessment. 

Draft 

In summary, copolymers made using vinyl neodecanoate as one monomer may be used as binders in hotmelt 

and water-based solution adhesives primarily, with limited use in PSAs. 

2.4.6 Use in Cement Composites and Decorative plasters and fillers 

Polymers can be added to cement to strengthen and/or modify the concrete matrix. Addition of emulsion 

polymers also helps the adhesive properties of the cement (Arcozzi et al, 1997). There are three kinds of 

polymer-based admixtures (also known as cement modifiers). These are polymer-modified mortar, polymer 

mortar and polymer-impregnated mortar/concrete. The first of these includes copolymers based on vinyl 

neodecanoate-vinyl acetate. Other co-polymer systems used are based on vinyl acetate-ethylene-vinyl 

neodecanoate, vinyl acetate-VeoVa-acrylate, vinyl acetate-vinyl versatate-maleic ester and vinyl acetatevinyl 

versatate-acrylate-ethylene monomer mixes. The proportion of polymers which incorporate vinyl 

neodecanoate for this purpose is unknown, but many commercially available examples exist (see Annex I). 

In decorative plasters and fillers, emulsions of vinyl neodecanoate copolymers are used as the vehicle 

and/or binding agent. Plasters and fillers differ from cement in that they are soft and can be manipulated 

after drying. Information in the public domain describing plaster products containing vinyl neodecanoate 

co-polymeric materials include a variety of renders and plasters for use in architecture (e.g. Polyfilla Fine 

Surface). Bulking agents such as calcium carbonate and other ingredients including biocides and 

thickeners are added, as are organic solvents such as higher alcohols and glycol ethers. Unlike acrylic 

fillers, vinyl emulsion fillers can be dissolved in water after drying (Craft and Solz, 1998). Annex I lists a 

selection of suppliers and trade names, and descriptions where available. From the available information, it 

seems that plasters and fillers that incorporate a polymer made from vinyl neodecanoate are more likely to 


e used by professionals than the general public; hence this use pattern is included under the Industry 

category “public domain” according to the EU TGD. 

In both cases the polymer can be added as a latex, redispersible polymer powder or water-soluble 

polymer. In the redispersible polymer powder form, the copolymeric vinyl neodecanoate/co-monomer is 

commonly stabilised with polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH). PVOH facilitates spray-drying and redispersion of the 

polymeric powder (Resolution Performance Products, 2002d). For this application the emulsion 

polymerisation method is often used, as described above, and a common process can be summarised as 

follows. Vinyl acetate-vinyl neodecanoate copolymers are first produced by emulsion polymerisation. The 

emulsion polymer, after formulation to add biocides and anti-foamers, is then spray-dried to give the 

polymeric powder. This is then dry-mixed with the cement followed by addition of water to give the 

polymer-modified mortar. Several commercial products that use copolymers based on vinyl neodecanoate 

are available (e.g. Neolith P, Resinbonder, and DAL 260). Uses of these include cement-based tile 

adhesives, self-levelling mortars, repair mortars and cement renders. The adhesives are typically mixtures 

of cement, sand, cellulose, water and a spray-dried emulsion polymer 

(www.gruppofar.it/far/eng/pages/polveri.html). Some trade examples are given in the table in Annex I. 

The polymer content of the cement varies, and can range between 10 and 40% (Gomes, C. and Ferreira 

O., 2005). However other information shows that the polymer content does not exceed 3% (European 

standard EN 13813 for cement production allows 0.1% up to 3% for floor levelling compounds). 

Examples of the polymer content in decorative plasters and fillers are also not available, but given the 

properties of plaster and its uses may well be higher than in cement. This is borne out by the European 

standard EN 12004 (dealing with cementitious modified adhesives for tiles) which states concentrations up 

to 4.5% are allowed. 

A further confounding factor in this use is that it is not always certain that vinyl neodecanoate is used – the 

name “VeoVa” without the numeric chain length identifier is often used to describe the polymer mix. This 

may refer to other homologues (e.g. VeoVa 9). 

2.4.7 Specialist Applications – fuel additives, other industrial applications 

A search of the public literature did not find any examples of the use of the substance or polymers made 

from the substance being used as fuel additives. However, a number of patents mention vinyl 

neodecanoate in the context of fuel additives. A list of these can be found in Annex I. As no commercial 

applications were found, this use pattern is not considered further currently. 

2.4.8 Use in Personal Care Products 

26 

Draft 

Polymers made from vinyl neodecanoate have been used in several types of personal care product 

including hair sprays, styling products, shampoos and body washes. These are emulsion copolymers 

based on vinyl acetate-crotonate-vinyl neodecanoate and acrylate-vinyl neodecanoate monomer mixes. 

The former copolymer is used in hair sprays (at 2% by weight in the one hair spray to give relative 

constituent proportions), and the latter copolymer at 4.2 – 7% by weight in shampoos and body washes. 

2.5 Legislative Controls 

In countries around the world there are limits imposed on products containing volatile organic compounds, 

in order to limit exposure to workers, consumers and the environment. These limits are usually triggered by 

the supply tonnage of the VOC and in certain cases the hazard phrases associated with the VOC, and take 

the form of an allowed vapour pressure limit or concentration of VOC in the commercially-available 

product. In the EU the amount of VOC allowed in commercially-available paints and varnishes is regulated 

under the Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 

2005 (Directive 2004/42/EC), which covers uses of VOC not covered adequately by other pieces of EU 

legislation. This states the maximum allowable concentrations of VOC solvents in the finished product in 

decorative paints, varnishes and vehicle refinishing products, as from 1st January 2007 (Phase I). From 1 st 

January 2010, more stringent limits for the maximum concentration of solvents in decorative paints and 

varnishes will come into force (Phase II). For example, under Phase I interior matt paints are allowed to 

have no more than 75g/l of VOC content; the figure for gloss interior paints is 150 g/l. But as from 2010 (in 

Phase II), the same paints will only be allowed to contain no more than 30g/l and 100 g/l of VOC, 

respectively. Products covered by the Directive must comply and be labelled in the EU. These regulations 


were brought into force after the original EU legislation on solvent production and use in general 

(1999/13/EC, "The Solvent Emissions Directive" (SED)). 

It is obvious that these limits are far in excess of the quantity of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate monomer 

likely to remain in a product containing a vinyl neodecanoate copolymer. Nevertheless, the legislation is a 

driver for industry to minimise the total content of VOC in their products. So this may have the knock-on 

effect of prompting more emphasis on improving the conversion efficiency in the polymerisation process 

and so lowering the concentration of residual monomers in such products. 

Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) covers some coating-related 

processes. Paragraph 6.7 of Annex I states “installations for the surface treatment of substances, objects 

or products using organic solvents, in particular for dressing, printing, coating, degreasing, waterproofing, 

sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or 

more than 200 tonnes per year”. (NB the solvents referred to are for surface treatment, not as present in 

coatings). The IPPC Directive does not apply to coatings manufacture, although large industrial coatings 

users will fall within the scope of IPPC by virtue of their size and potential emissions. In a communication 

to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (Resolution Performance Products, 2002), Industry states that the 

Environment Agency of England and Wales authorises processing (polymerisation) sites as IPC 

processes; this seems to refer to the five large sites listed as being in the UK (which accounted for 99% of 

vinyl neodecanoate processing in 2002 in the UK) and an additional four smaller processing sites. 

In the EU, vinyl neodecanoate is subject to REACH registration by the 1 st December 2010. Registration 

must include information on the endpoints listed in Annex VII of the regulation and the additional endpoints 

listed in annexes VII – X, exposure information necessary to develop environmental release estimation and 

the chemical safety assessment (documented in the chemical safety report). The chemical safety 

assessment must demonstrate safe use for human health and the environment for all registered uses. The 

Chemical Safety Report submitted with the REACH registration has been reviewed. No further 

ecotoxicological information is available that relates to potential risks identified in this report, and adjusting 

the exposure assessment with the tonnage used in the environmental exposure assessment does not 

affect the outcome of this evaluation (note that the production tonnage of the substance is claimed as 

confidential and that the fraction of this tonnage used at the largest site is estimated). 

Draft 


3 Environmental Exposure 

3.1 Environmental Releases 

The scenarios considered below are described in the EU Technical Guidance Document (TGD 2003), and 

further information on these can be found in that document. Releases at a local, regional and continental 

scale are considered. The TGD defines these environments. The local environment is the immediate area 

near a site from which the substance is released; the regional area is a hypothetical 40,000 hectare, highly 

industrialised, area inhabited by 20 million people. The continental area is the size of the EU and is used to 

generate background concentrations for the regional scale. The regional scale concentrations are added to 

local concentrations to generate the predicted environmental concentrations (PECs). In addition, generic 

information has been taken and used from the EU risk assessment of vinyl acetate (ECB, 2008). As vinyl 

neodecanoic acid is commonly copolymerised with vinyl acetate, the generic processing scenario 

described in the EU risk assessment of vinyl acetate seems an appropriate one to use in this assessment 

for emissions arising from polymerisation. 

As this risk evaluation has been conducted in the context of the OSPAR convention, the evaluation has 

been made at the scale of the EU. 

Continental, regional and local releases have been estimated using the TGD default values found in 

Appendix 1 to that document. Values from the vinyl acetate EU risk assessment have been used for the 

processing step. Predicted Environment Concentrations (PECs) have then been calculated using EUSES 

2.0, a computer programme that implements the principles and values of the TGD into a logical workflow. 

One EUSES run has been conducted. Estimations of releases from production and processing 

(polymerisation) are based on the total EU tonnage of vinyl neodecanoate. Tonnages for uses of the 

polymer, which is modelled as containing residual vinyl neodecanoate, have been overwritten so that it is 

the remaining unreacted monomer itself that is assessed and not the copolymer made from it. Using the 

potential amount of residual (unreacted) vinyl neodecanoate as tonnage input, releases from compounding 

(formulation of the copolymer emulsion) and from use of finished products (paints and adhesives) have 

been estimated. 

EUSES outputs are listed in Annex 6. 

28 

Draft 

The REACH CSR submission states that the production tonnage of the substance is CBI. In the CSR 

exposure assessment, the sectors of use (SU) given are 3 (industrial end-users), 8,9 (manufacturers of the 

substance, 11 (manufacturers of rubber products) and 12 (manufacturers of plastic products. Process 

categories (PROC) are 1 (use in closed systems, no likelihood of exposure), 2 (use in closed, continuous 

process with occasional controlled exposure (e.g. Sampling)) and 3 (use in closed batch process 

(synthesis or formulation)). The environmental release categories (ERC) are HERC 1.1 (environmental 

releases related to manufacture and use of the substance by the registrant) and HERC 1.2 (environmental 

releases related to use of the substance as a reactant, monomer or blending in a mixture by a downstream 

user). No product categories (PC) are given. The environmental exposure assessment included is rather 

generic and does not include additional information to that considered here. Using the tonnages and 

fraction of tonnage for polymerisation stated in the CSR exposure assessment does not change the 

outcome of this evaluation. However, the exposure assessment does state that the release to the marine 

environment for use (polymerisation) is “not relevant as there is no local marine environment; waste water 

emitted to local freshwater river”. In the absence of detailed information to corroborate this, a default 

release to the marine environment is assumed. 

3.1.1 Releases from Production 

There is no production of vinyl neodecanoate in the United Kingdom. The one known global production site 

is in the Netherlands, situated in a coastal region. 

Default release estimates for production are given in Appendix 1 of the TGD. These are used in addition to 

information submitted by industry to estimate the release of the substance to the environment as a result of 

its production. The estimated production quantity was reported to be between 46 – 230 kilotonnes in 2006. 

The higher end of this range will be used in the assessment given the increasing use of low VOC emulsion 

paints, and as a worst case. (Annex III looks at the outcome of the evaluation if the lower end of the range 


is used). The single production site is situated in a coastal region and so emissions to the marine 

environment as well as to surface waters may be expected in the first instance. Industry report that 

synthesis of vinyl neodecanoate from versatic acid and acetylene is conducted as a continuous dry 

process in a closed system, and so it may be expected that emissions to the environment are minimal. In 

EUSES the Industry/Use Category has been set to “3 Chemical industry, chemicals used in synthesis” and 

“33 Intermediates” respectively (the TGD states that for monomer production this IC should be used and 

not IC 11 “polymers industry”). Given the industry information the substance has been described in EUSES 

as being produced in a dry, continuous process and processed elsewhere from the production site. The 

default emission factors for this scenario and for the substance’s physico-chemical properties result in an 

emission to air of 0.00001 (0.001%) and to waste water of 0. Release to industrial soil is given as a factor 

of 0.00001 (0.001%). 

Applying these factors to the total production volume of 230 kilotonnes gives the following local releases: 

2300 kg/year (7.7 kg/day) released to air 

0 kg/day released to waste water 

over 300 days. 

As there is only the one site, across the region the same releases are estimated. 

3.1.2 Transportation losses 

In the current exposure assessment methodology used in the EU, losses during loading and transport of 

chemicals are not considered separately from other lifecycle steps. Losses to air and waste water could 

occur from containers in which the substance is transported and transferred. Losses to waste water are 

considered as part of the general losses from production sites and use sites. As the substance has a 

moderately high vapour pressure, losses to air may occur when the substance is piped from the production 

site into containers and when these containers are subsequently piped to sites where the substance is 

used in polymerisation. However best practice indicates that such volatile losses are kept to a minimum 

through the use of sealed equipment in such operations. Therefore volatile losses associated with 

transportation are not considered further in the assessment. 

3.1.3 Release from Processing (Emulsion Polymerisation) 

Draft 

Industry have stated that approx. 57% of the global production of vinyl neodecanoate is sold in the EU. 

Taking the upper limit of production of 230,000 tonnes, this equates to 131,100 tonnes (the lower limit 

would give 26,220 tonnes). Industry have also stated that all of this is polymerised into latex to the best of 

their knowledge. In this assessment the assumption is made that almost all vinyl neodecanoate will be 

reacted according to the emulsion polymerisation process, given the final products that contain copolymers 

made from vinyl neodecanoate. 

In the literature emulsion polymerisation is accepted to proceed to over 99% conversion, with most 

emulsions containing less than 0.5% unreacted monomer. 

Specific information according to Industry on vinyl neodecanoate is that emulsion polymerisation is carried 

out in two batchwise stages, with the emulsion containing less than 0.05% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate 

after the first stage and between 0.01 – 0.02% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate after the second stage (BCF, 

2002; OECD SIDS, 2007). The fraction of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate in the final emulsion is taken to be 

at the higher end of this range, 0.02%, in this assessment. 

A fraction of 20% vinyl neodecanoate has been used as a typical concentration (w/w of total emulsion 

ingredients) used in the emulsion polymerisation process relative to all starting materials including water. 

This fraction has been selected as it appears to be at the upper end of the proportion of vinyl 

neodecanoate compared to the other monomers used to make such emulsions (available information 

suggests that vinyl neodecanoate comprises 30 – 60% of the total monomer concentrations, so 20% of the 

total polymerisation ingredients is at the upper end of this amount; see table 2.1 in section 2.2). This also 

tallies with the Industry information submitted to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (Resolution 

Performance Products, 2002). Taking this fraction together with the tonnage supplied in the EU – 131,100 

tonnes – gives a total of 655,500 tonnes of copolymer emulsion. If, as industry suggest, residual vinyl 

neodecanoate remains at a concentration of 0.02% in this finished emulsion, then this means that the total 

quantity of residual vinyl neodecanoate remaining in all the processed emulsion in the EU is 131.1 tonnes. 


Release estimates are taken from the TGD (Industry/Use Category “11 Polymers Industry” and “33 

Intermediates”, as specified for the polymerisation of monomers), from specific Industry information relating 

to vinyl neodecanoate and from the EU risk assessment of vinyl acetate. As vinyl neodecanoic acid is 

commonly copolymerised with vinyl acetate, the generic processing scenarios described in the EU risk 

assessment of vinyl acetate seem appropriate to use in this assessment for emissions arising from 

copolymerisation. The EU risk assessment of vinyl acetate models polymerisation as being conducted at 

two types of facility: a few large scale processors who manufacture copolymer for resale to companies who 

conduct their own formulation into paints, coatings etc.; and some small/medium scale processors who 

manufacture copolymer for their own use (e.g. manufacturers of paints, coatings and adhesives). For 

simplicity, and because no information is available on the processes followed for formulation at the same 

site (isolation of latex or continuous process, etc.) for vinyl acetate, formulation is considered separately for 

both large and small/medium sized latex producers by specific use (see below). 

In their 2002 communication to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, Industry stated that there were five 

latex manufacturers in the UK accounting for 99% of the UK supplied tonnage (Resolution Performance 

Products, 2002) with at least a further four accounting for the remaining tonnage. If these five UK 

manufacturers of polymer are taken as being “large”, then the tonnage supplied should be skewed such 

that the majority of vinyl neodecanoate is used at large sites in this assessment, making the assumption 

that the situation in the UK is indicative of that in the EU. Therefore in this evaluation processing is 

modelled such that 80% of total tonnage is at large sites (104,880 tonnes), and 20% at smaller sites 

(26,220 tonnes) according to the descriptions used in the vinyl acetate assessment 2 . A search of 

information in the public domain found about 15 “first-hand” suppliers (i.e. those conducting polymerisation) 

advertising copolymer latexes made using vinyl neodecanoate for formulation into products by downstream 

users (Science Information Services, 2008a-e). The paucity of companies offering the polymers for sale 

supports the considerations of the vinyl acetate risk assessment. 

Three sets of release estimates are presented below: i) using Industry release information specific for vinyl 

neodecanoate for large sites, ii) using release fractions taken from the vinyl acetate risk assessment for 

large sites and, iii) for smaller sites, using release fractions taken from the vinyl acetate risk assessment 

and EU TGD. Values are TGD defaults unless stated otherwise. For the first set of release estimations, the 

fraction of main local source is set at 0.2 – as opposed to the TGD default of 0.05 – due to the fact that 

Industry indicated that there are only 5 large processors in the UK and the information in the public domain 

points to few processors/suppliers of the polymers (perhaps in the region of 15 in the EU). The release to 

waste water fraction has been worked out by taking the typical releases for a large site as detailed by 

Industry for vinyl neodecanoate (releases to waste water from drum washings and from stage 1 of 

polymerisation) and assuming as a worst case that a similar release may occur in stage 2 of 

polymerisation, and comparing this with the tonnage used at a large site (nominally a fifth of the UK 

tonnage). The outcome is very close to the fraction suggested in the vinyl acetate risk assessment (1.92 x 

10 -4 compared with 2 x 10 -4 ). The release fraction to air has been worked out taking into account the 

information in the vinyl acetate risk assessment, which states that a CEFIC questionnaire found that 

30 

Draft 

releases to air ranged between 0.4 x 10 -3 % to 0.2%. Higher volume processors were at the lower end (in 

the region of 5 x 10 -3 kg/tonne vinyl acetate) and small/medium sized processors were generally higher, up 

to about 1kg/tonne. From these data, the release fraction to air for large processors is taken as 0.000005 

and the release fraction to air for small/medium sized processors is taken as 0.001. 

Large Scale Processors (vinyl acetate risk assessment release fractions; 80% of total tonnage): 

Fraction released to air 0.000005 

Fraction released to waste water 2 x 10 -4 (taken from vinyl acetate risk assessment) 

Fraction of main local source 0.15 

Number of emission days per year 300 

Local release: 78.6 kg/year (0.262 kg/day) to air 

3150 kg/year (10.5 kg/day) to waste water 

Regional release: 524 kg/year to air 

20100 kg/year to waste water 

Large Scale Processors (vinyl neodecanoate specific information; 80% of total tonnage): 


2 Annex xx explores the effect that varying this tonnage split has on outputs of the risk evaluation. 


Fraction released to waste water 1.92 x 10 -4 (derived using Industry information) 

Fraction of main local source 0.2 (based on Industry information) 


Local release: 0.35 kg/day to air 

13.4 kg/day to waste water 



Small/medium scale processors (20% of total tonnage): 


Fraction released to waste water 0.0002 (taken from vinyl acetate risk assessment) 







For the purposes of this assessment, the release fractions and emissions as modelled using the Industry 

information specific for vinyl neodecanoate for large processing sites will be used rather than the fractions 

taken from the vinyl acetate assessment. For smaller scale processors, the information above will be used 

as a “worst case”. 

3.1.4 Release from Use in Coatings 

Copolymerisation is modelled as being conducted at two types of facility (see above), with large scale 

processors manufacturing copolymer for resale and small/medium scale processors who manufacture 

copolymer for their own use. No distinction is made in the assessment between the possible releases of 

residual vinyl neodecanoate from use of the products made from these two situations; the two are 

considered as being the same once supplied to downstream users. 

A worst case assumption would be that all of the residual monomer from emulsion polymerisation – 131.1 

tonnes – remains in the emulsion during and after downstream user formulation into the final paint. This 

assumption may be justified as the emulsion will not be exposed to extremes of temperature or other 

physical conditions that might invoke substantial decomposition of the residual monomer, as such changes 

would affect the stability of the emulsion. Industry has indicated that the proportion of unreacted vinyl 

neodecanoate in finished emulsion paints is typically in the region of 0.006%. If a 3 – 4 fold dilution was 

employed as part of the formulation process this would result in roughly the residual vinyl neodecanoate 

concentration reported by industry (from a “stock” emulsion containing 0.01 – 0.02% unreacted vinyl 

Draft 

neodecanoate). Industry information for the UK (BCF, 2002) states that coatings contain 5 – 40% emulsion 

depending on the particular use, with 20% being typical, so this assumed dilution seems reasonable 

(equating to a concentration of 25 – 33%). 

Industry have indicated that the relative quantity of polymer emulsion used for this application is 65% of the 

total production (OECD SIDS, 2007). In a communication to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (Resolution 

Performance Products, 2002), Industry stated that the main application of vinyl neodecanoate-based 

polymers was in decorative paints in the UK (with use in industrial adhesives less than 5%). As this 

evaluation is considering the EU, the former data have been used - a fraction of 0.65 of the 655,500 tonnes 

of polymer emulsion (i.e. 426,075 tonnes) is formulated into paint. Given the assumed 3 – 4 fold dilution of 

the emulsion based on the residual vinyl neodecanoate concentration reported by industry and industry 

information on concentrations, when it is formulated into paint this quantity of emulsion gives in the region 

of 1,420,000 tonnes of finished paint (assuming a concentration of ca. 30%) 3 . The Emission Scenario 

Document on the Coatings Industry (Paints, Lacquers and Varnishes) (OECD, 2009b) states that the total 

annual sales in the EU of decorative paints were in the region of 3,500,000 tonnes in 2001, so the figure 

for vinyl neodecanoate copolymer-derived paint may seem a little high, but as it is derived from the industry 

3 Although different types of coating contain different concentrations of latex emulsion, one concentration 

of 30% is used in this evaluation in the absence of specific data. 


information relating to production tonnage, fraction for use, residual quantities (albeit with a number of 

assumptions) it is used here in the absence of any other data. The quantity of emulsion - and the 

formulated paint it makes - will contain 0.65 x 131.1 tonnes of residual vinyl neodecanoate (i.e. 85.2 

tonnes), as a worst case. These figures have been used in EUSES to model the possible emissions from 

industrial formulation of the emulsion into paint, and subsequent use of the formulated paint. To 

supplement these estimates, information from the OECD Emission Scenario Documents on the Coatings 

Industry (Paints, Lacquers and Varnishes) is presented below (OECD, 2009b). 

No specific information on the relative tonnages of copolymer used for the various types of coating 

application (as described in sections 2.4.1 – 2.4.4) are available. As a basis for assessment of the coatings 

use, all of the 426,075 tonnes of copolymer emulsion has been modelled as being used for interior 

emulsion paints here. Therefore the following uses are not considered further: exterior wood coatings; 

cement composite and metal coatings; automotive and industrial coatings. 

3.1.4.1 Interior emulsion low VOC paints 

Formulation 

A UK-specific Industry communication to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (Resolution Performance 

Products, 2002) stated that formulation of latex emulsion into paint involves a typical loss of 0.5% of 

residual vinyl neodecanoate to solid or liquid waste. As a worst case it is assumed here that all of this loss 

is released to waste water, as products are water-borne so vessels are likely to be cleaned with aqueous 

solutions. The release fraction for waste water is therefore set at 0.005. The ESD on the coatings industry 

states that there are an estimated 1,300 “significant” manufacturers of decorative paint in the EU, but that 

50% of production is accounted for by only about 10 major manufacturers. The ESD goes on to say that 

the market in the north and west of the EU tends to be dominated by a small number of large firms. This 

information supports the use of the high TGD default value (0.4) for the fraction of main local source. The 

ESD on the coatings industry recommends release fractions and emission days per year for formulation 

that are very similar to those used here, except for an increased release to air (0.01 rather than 0.005; this 

difference is not critical as release to air is not considered further in this assessment). No other specific 

information is available for possible releases from formulation of emulsion latex into paints. TGD defaults 

have been used below unless stated otherwise. The EU TGD in Appendix 1, describing the Industry 

category IC5 Personal/domestic, states “The application of substances for some specific purposes is 

covered in the following ICs at the stage of private use…IC 14. “Paints, lacquers and varnishes industry”: 

paint products.” Therefore IC 14 is used to model releases from private use and not IC5. Extra details 

entered are that the emulsion is water bound and the application is “do it yourself”. 

Formulation 


Fraction released to waste water 0.005 (Industry data) 

Fraction released to industrial soil 0.0001 







8.52 kg/year to industrial soil 

32 

Draft 

Use 

Some (UK-specific) industry information is available relating to releases from normal use of coating 

products containing copolymeric binder (BCF, 2002). Industry estimate that washing of painting equipment 

typically results in a loss of 0.5 – 1% of the paint to waste water. Across the EU this means 852 kg of vinyl 

neodecanoate may be released to waste water from use (852 kg = fraction lost on washing x concentration 

of residual vinyl neodecanoate in paint x total quantity of paint). This release fraction for waste water has 

been used for use (0.01), and estimated local and regional releases are presented below. As a worst case, 

use of the paint containing residual vinyl neodecanoate is modelled as being used privately, i.e. “do it 

yourself”. EU TGD defaults are used unless stated otherwise. The fraction of main local source should 

reflect the number of municipal sewage treatment plants (STP) in a region receiving domestic waste water 

that may contain the paint washings. The TGD default value of 0.002 is used. The TGD assumes that each 

STP takes waste water from 10,000 inhabitants, that each inhabitant discharges 200 litres per day, and 


that each STP discharges effluent at a rate of 2,000,000 l/d. Unused paint is assumed to be sent to landfill 

in used paint containers, and this is not considered further here. 

Fraction released to air 0 

Fraction released to waste water 0.01 (Industry data) 

Fraction released to industrial soil 5 x 10 -3 

Fraction of main local source 2 x 10 -3 


Local release: 0 kg/day to air 

5.7 x 10 -4 kg/day to waste water 


84.3 kg/year to waste water 

42.2 kg/year to urban/industrial soil 

No emission tables are available for “service life”. 

For application, the ESD on the coatings industry recommends the same fraction of main local source and 

emission days, but recommends a much higher release to air fraction to account for volatilisation of 

volatiles from both the drying paint and from the estimated 25% ( for private use) of unused paint that 

remains in disposed of paint tins. As releases to air are not considered further in this assessment, this 

input is not critical. 

Given the substance’s reasonably high vapour pressure, it may be unreasonable to assume zero release 

to air from paints during use. However, the coatings will surface harden and cure fairly rapidly which would 

presumably have the effect of lowering any volatile losses (this is discussed further below). Also, as the 

substance is predicted to degrade rapidly in the atmosphere (see section 3.2.1) it is unlikely that release to 

air will lead to significant residence times in this compartment, or partitioning to other compartments. 

3.1.5 Release from Use in Adhesives 

Copolymerisation is modelled as being conducted at two types of facility (see above), with large scale 

processors manufacturing copolymer for resale and small/medium scale processors who manufacture 

copolymer for their own use. No distinction is made in the assessment between the possible releases of 

residual vinyl neodecanoate from downstream use (compounding) of the latex products made from these 

two situations; the two are considered as being the same once supplied to downstream users. 

3.1.5.1 Release from water-based Adhesives 

Draft 

The possibility exists that vinyl neodecanoate is used itself in reactive adhesives (see section 2.2.6). 

However Industry have indicated that vinyl neodecanoate is entirely polymerised for use in the coatings 

and adhesive industries, with 65% of the polymer being used in coatings (OECD SIDS, 2007). In an older 

communication to the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, Industry suggest that less than 5% by volume of 

latex produced in the UK is used in the formulation of industrial-use adhesives (Resolution Performance 

Products, 2002). As this information is UK-specific (and this assessment is considering the EU) and not as 

recent as the former described information, all of the remaining 35% is assumed to be used in adhesives 

here. The intentional use of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate in adhesives is not considered further here. 

The OECD recently published an Emission Scenario Document covering Adhesive Formulation (OECD, 

2009a). This, together with EU TGD default releases and some related Industry information are used here 

to model releases of residual vinyl neodecanoate from formulation and use of copolymer in adhesives in 

the absence of specific information on releases from this use pattern. 

Formulation 

It is assumed that a fraction of 0.35 of the 655,500 tonnes of polymer emulsion (i.e. 229,425 tonnes) is 

formulated by industrial downstream users into adhesives. This quantity of emulsion will contain 0.35 x 

131.1 tonnes of residual vinyl neodecanoate (45.9 tonnes) as a worst case. Information on the composition 

of adhesives containing emulsion polymers suggests that between 30 and 60% of the adhesive is 

polymeric binder (see section 2.4.5; in addition the OECD (2009a) states that water-based solution 

adhesives typically contain 0.55 – 0.61 binder as a fraction, and 0.3 as a fraction in hot-melt adhesives). If 

the lower end of the possible concentrations (30%) of binder is assumed, when it is formulated into 


adhesive this quantity of emulsion gives 765,000 tonnes of finished adhesive. These figures have been 

used in EUSES to model the possible emissions from industrial downstream formulation of the emulsion 

into adhesive, and subsequent private use of the formulated adhesive ((Industry/Use Category “14 Paints, 

Lacquers and varnishes”; “55 Other” have been used, as this IC seems to most closely resemble the 

formulation (industrial) and use (private) of water-based adhesives). No specific information on releases 

resulting from use of adhesive products containing the copolymer are available. Industry suggested that 

0.5% of residual vinyl neodecanoate is lost to waste water and/or solid waste in the formulation of emulsion 

paints (see above; Resolution Performance Products, 2002). Although no information on the comparative 

processes used to formulate paints and adhesives is available, this figure may be used here assuming that 

broadly similar processes occur resulting in losses to waste water for coatings and adhesive formulation. 

The fraction is a factor of four lower than the TGD default release estimate. Two release estimates for 

formulation are given below: one using the EU TGD default release fractions (including the derived fraction 

for release to waste water) and the other using release fractions derived from the OECD ESD on adhesive 

formulations. 

Formulation (EU TGD default releases) 


Fraction released to waste water 0.005 (derived from IND information) 




Local release: 45.9 kg/year (0.153 kg/day) to air 

45.9 kg/year (0.153 kg/day) to waste water 

Regional release: 188.7 kg/year to air 


4.59 kg/year to industrial soil 

The OECD ESD on Adhesive Formulation gives more detailed information on the kinds of processes, and 

so possible releases, that may occur for formulation processes in the US (OECD, 2009a). Of the release 

scenarios covered, those of interest in this evaluation are: 

34 

i) releases from transfer from containers into the process; 

ii) releases of volatile chemical vented during formulation; and 

iii) releases from equipment cleaning. 

Draft 

These are discussed in more detail below. Releases to air from formulation operations involving 

manufactured adhesive (i.e. post formulation) are not considered further here, nor are losses from product 

sampling and “off-batch” disposal. This is because it is unlikely that the kinds of adhesive that the latex 

polymer will be used in will be subject to conditions allowing release to air once they have been made, and 

product sampling and “off-batch” disposal are beyond the scope of this assessment. 

For two of the three types of adhesive in which vinyl neodecanoate-based copolymer may be used (waterbased 

solution and water-based pressure sensitive adhesives) it seems likely that unsealed mixing/transfer 

processes are used according to the ESD. For the remaining type (Hot-melt adhesives), heated 

mixing/transfer can be assumed (again unsealed), although this adhesive application is perhaps less likely 

in this case as it involves the use of a solid binder component. 

The ESD does not list impurities in the process (such as unreacted monomer). From an analysis of the 

components listed in the ESD as going into formulation, the example solvent (n-heptane) used in 

adhesives has physico-chemical properties most similar to vinyl neodecanoate, and so the model 

presented for estimated releases to air seems valid for vinyl neodecanoate. 

The ESD describes the quantity of “chemical of interest” in the adhesive component [Fchem_comp] (for vinyl 

neodecanoate this is 0.02%) and the mass fraction of the component in the adhesive product [Fcomp_adhes] 

(for latex emulsions this is assumed to be 30%). For each of the three release scenarios listed above the 

ESD presents the following: 

i) releases from transfer from containers into the process at a site (assuming that the number of 

200L containers used per year is greater than the number of days of operation per year (300) 


at a site, which seems a sound assumption given the estimated total tonnages of latex 

emulsion and formulated adhesive produced per year in the EU) 

Elocalcontainer_residue_disp = Qchem_site_day x Fcontainer_residue eqn 3.1.5-A 

where: Elocalcontainer_residue_disp = daily release of chemical of interest from container residue (kg/site-day) 

Qchem_site_day = quantity of chemical of interest used per day to formulate the adhesive product (kg 

chemical/site-day) 

Fcontainer_residue = fraction of adhesive component remaining in the container as residue 

(default is 0.03 kg component/kg shipped, i.e. 3%) 

Qchem_site_day is calculated by: 

Qchem_site_day = Qadhes_bt x Nbt_site_day x Fchem_comp x Fcomp_adhes eqn 3.1.5-B 

Where: Qadhes_bt = Mass of adhesive formulated per batch (kg adhesive/batch) 

Nbt_site_day = Daily number of adhesive batches formulated at each site 

(batches/site-day) 

Fchem_comp = Mass fraction of the chemical of interest in the adhesive 

component (kg chemical/kg component) 

Fcomp_adhes = Mass fraction of the component used in the formulated 

adhesive product (kg component/kg adhesive) 

and Nbt_site_day by: 

Nbt_site_yr = Qadhes_site_yr/Qadhes_bt eqn 3.1.5-C 

assuming 300 days of operation per year. 

In this case we can assume a default value for Qadhes_site_yr (the mass of adhesive produced per year ) 

of 17,000 tonnes, as given in the ESD. In the case of vinyl neodecanoate-containing latex emulsions, 

this would mean one large site would deal with 2% of the total latex emulsion used for adhesives in the 

EU (handling ca. 5100 tonnes of latex emulsion each year). If we also assume that all of the latex 

emulsion of interest is used for just one type of adhesive at a site and so can discount any other types 

of adhesive that may also be formulated at the site, then 17,000 tonnes is also the total production rate 

for this site. Qadhes_bt (the mass of adhesive per batch) has a default value of 4 tonnes in the ESD. This 

is used here. 

Draft 

So Nbt_site_day = 4250/300 = 14 batches per day. 

Using eqn 3.1.5-B, it follows that Qchem_site_day = 3.36kg per day 

And finally, using eqn 3.1.5-A, Elocalcontainer_residue_disp, that 0.1 kg per day of residual vinyl 

neodecanoate is released from container washing at a large formulation site. 

ii) releases of volatile chemical vented during formulation. The EPA/OPPT Penetration Model 

is used to estimate releases. The ESD states that for aqueous-based adhesives (i.e. non-volatile) or those 

incorporating stable, non-reactive components operations may be conducted in either open or vented 

vessels, but that this is unlikely to be the case for solvent-based adhesives. All adhesives formulated using 

latex emulsion are assumed to be carried out in vented vessels here, and the default ESD values are used 

(formulation is a non-heated process carried out over eight hours per batch, and the vent diameter is ca. 

10cm). 

-8 0.835 0.25 0.5 

Qvapour_generation = (8.24 x 10 ) x MWchem x Fcorrection_factor x VPchem x (1/29 + 1/MWchem) x RATEair_speed x AREAopening 

TEMPambient 0.05 x Dopening 0.5 x Pambient 0.5 

Eqn 3.1.5-D 

Using default values from the ESD for RATEair speed (100 ft/min), AREAopening (79 cm 2 ), Dopening (10cm, as 

described above) and standard atmospheric pressure and room temperature, and the quantity of residual 

vinyl neodecanoate in the latex emulsion (0.0002) as the Fcorrection factor, Qvpour generation (the rate at which 

residual vinyl neodecanoate is emitted during processing) = 3.3 x 10 -5 g/sec. 


Using this value and the ESD default for operation time (8 hrs), the local release to air per large site per 

day is: 

Elocalair_process_vent = Qvpour generation x TIMEactivity_hours x 3600 sec/hour/1000g/kg eqn 3.1.5-E 

Elocalair_process_vent = 9.5 x 10 -4 kg per large site per day. 

36 

iii) releases from equipment cleaning. The ESD uses the EPA/OPPT Multiple process vessel residual 

model to estimate releases from this scenario. The model assumes that about 2% of the batch remains 

in the equipment that may be released upon equipment cleaning. Because of the nature of the 

adhesive, equipment cleaning after each batch can be assumed. For fewer batches than there are 

days of operation: 

Elocalequipment_cleaning = Qadhes_bt x Fchem_comp x Fchem_adhes x Nbt_site_day x Fequipment_cleaning 

Draft 

Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Vinyl Neodecanoate 

eqn 3.1.5-F 

Where: Elocalequipment_cleaning =daily release of chemical of interest from equipment cleaning (kg chem./siteday) 

Qadhes_bt = mass of adhesive formulated per batch (kg adhesive/batch) 

Fchem_comp = mass fraction of the chemicals of interest in the adhesive (kg chemical/kg component) 

Fchem_adhes = mass fraction of the component in the formulated adhesive (kg component/kg 

adhesive) 

Nbt_site_day = number of batches per day per site 

Fequipment_cleaning = fraction of adhesive product released as residual in process equipment (default = 

0.02kg adhesive released/kg batch, i.e. 2%) 

Using the values calculated above, Elocalequipment_cleaning = 0.0672 kg per day of residual vinyl 

neodecanoate is released from equipment washing at a large formulation site. 

Estimated total local releases to waste water from formulation for a large site can be gained by summing 

the outputs of part i) and iii) above (i.e. a total release of 5%). Assuming a tonnage of 17,000 tonnes of 

adhesive product (from 5100 tonnes of latex emulsion containing residual vinyl neodecanoate) is produced 

per year over 300 days’ operation at this large site, release fractions to air and waste water can be 

estimated for large sites. These are shown below. 

Formulation at a large site (releases taken from OECD ESD on Adhesive Formulation) 

Fraction released to air 2.8 x 10 -4 

Fraction released to waste water 0.05 

Fraction of main local source 0.4 (larger sites) 






In this evaluation the release fractions estimated by the ESD method for adhesive formulation are used for 

air and waste water (TGD defaults are used for releases to industrial soil (1 x 10 -4 ) and surface water (0)). 

However, these factors may not account for smaller sites that may formulate the latex emulsion and have 

fewer release abatement processes in place. Given the likely adhesive types that any vinyl neodecanoatecontaining 

latex would be used in, it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of latex would be used 

at large sites. As a result, formulation at small sites is not considered further. 

Use 

Releases of residual vinyl neodecanoate may occur through use of the adhesive products containing the 

latex emulsion binder. Direct releases from use of adhesive are likely to be low in that the majority of 

unused product (in almost exhausted tubes or containers) and waste product (i.e. articles which have been 

glued that reach the end of their life) are likely to be disposed of to landfill. The possibility remains that 

small quantities of glue may be washed down the drain in clean up. EU TGD default release fractions are 

used to model this lifecycle stage.


Fraction released to waste water 5 x 10 -3 

Fraction released to industrial soil 5 x 10 -3 

Fraction of main local source 2 x 10 -3 


Local release: 0 kg/day to air 





No emission tables are available for “service life”. 

3.1.5.2 Release from Use in Cement Composites 

The proportion of vinyl neodecanoate copolymers incorporated into polymer-modified mortars is unknown. 

This use is considered to fit under the industry description of “adhesive” use (as opposed to coatings), and 

so is included here as a sub-section of adhesive use. Several commercial products are available, showing 

that some use of vinyl neodecanoate copolymers does exist for this application (see Annex I). Generally an 

emulsion copolymer is processed to give a redispersible polymer powder, which is then dry-mixed with the 

cement. The polymer content of the cement varies; one example gives a range between 10 and 40% but 

other information shows that the polymer content does not exceed 3% in cement (and 4.5% in decorative 

plasters) (see section 2.2.6). 

. 

This use pattern is modelled using EUSES 2.0. As no information is available, the tonnage of emulsion 

polymer for this use is set at 1000 tonnes, a fraction of 0.00153 (0.15%) of the total production of vinyl 

neodecanoate emulsion copolymer. This 1000 tonnes would contain 0.2 tonnes of unreacted vinyl 

neodecanoate as a worst case, taking the quantity of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate in the emulsion as 

0.02%. The quantity of emulsion polymer used in cement formulation is assumed to be 3%; this equates to 

a percentage of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate in the cement of 0.0006%. The total quantity of formulated 

cement produced is 33,333 tonnes. In EUSES the Industry Category and Use category have been set to 

“06 Public domain” and “13 construction materials and additives”, respectively, in accordance with the 

TGD. The following release estimates are used. Release quantities are very low as a result of the low 

allocated tonnage for this use. Although this would seem to be a specialist use, the fraction of main local 

source is set at the TGD default value of 0.6, which may be overly conservative. It must be emphasised 

that this scenario is the subject of a large number of assumptions, and so the estimates below are very 

uncertain. 

Formulation 






Local release: 2 x 10 -3 kg/day to air 

8 x 10 -3 kg/day to waste water 



Industrial Use 









Draft 


38 



Release from service life is not considered (there are no available emission tables). The potential for 

leaching of the substance from set cement is not considered. 

3.1.5.3 Release from Use in Decorative plasters and fillers 

Following a product search, vinyl neodecanoate emulsion copolymers are used as a component in vinyl 

emulsion fillers as the vehicle and/or binding agent. This use is thought to fall under the industry 

description as “adhesive” use, and so is included here as a sub-section of adhesive use. Again, no details 

of relative tonnages of emulsion copolymer for this application are known. Taking the same approach as 

for the use in cement composites (assuming 1000 tonnes of emulsion polymer is used for this application, 

and this contains 0.2 tonnes of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate), this use has been modelled in EUSES 2.0. 

It appears that the polymer constitutes a larger proportion of a filler or decorative plaster than in cement 

(see section 2.2.6), so this scenario has been modelled using 4.5% of the filler as being polymer. This 

equates to a percentage of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate in the filler/plaster of 0.0006%, and a total 

quantity of formulated plaster/filler produced of 22,222 tonnes. In EUSES the Industry Category and Use 

category have been set to “06 Public domain” and “13 construction materials and additives”, respectively, 

in accordance with the TGD. The following release estimates are used. Release quantities are very low (in 

accordance with the low allocated tonnage for this use). As for the scenario with cements this would seem 

to be a specialist use, the fraction of main local source is set at the TGD default value of 0.7, which may be 

overly conservative. It must be emphasised that this scenario is the subject of a large number of 

assumptions, and so the estimates below are very uncertain. 

Formulation: 






Local release: 2.3 x 10 -3 kg/day to air 




Industrial use: 











Draft 

Private use is not considered (see section 2.4.6), nor are releases from service life (there are no available 

emission tables). 

3.1.5.4 Release from Use in Personal Care Products 

Emulsion polymers based on vinyl acetate-crotonate-vinyl neodecanoate and acrylate-vinyl neodecanoate 

monomer mixes are used in some hair sprays (at 2% by weight in the one hair spray to give relative 

constituent proportions) and at 4.2 – 7% by weight in some shampoos and body washes. Assuming the 

same quantity of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate is present from emulsion polymerisation (0.02%), then 

0.0004% unreacted vinyl neodecanoate remains in hair spray by weight and 0.00084 – 0.0014% remains 

in these shampoos and body washes. No information is available on the proportion or total tonnages of 


commercially available products that contain vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers. In this assessment it is 

assumed to be low compared to the other polymer systems commonly used (including acrylates, low VOC 

acrylates, polyurethanes and vinyl acetates). For example, the total tonnage of vinyl neodecanoate copolymer 

emulsion in hair sprays and shampoos/body washes might be set to 10 tonnes per annum each; 

this would correspond to 500 tonnes of hairspray and 143 – 238 tonnes of shampoo/body wash produced 

in the EU each year, each containing 2kg of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate. More information on the actual 

quantity would be needed to take this part of the assessment further. 

In EUSES the two products have been modelled together using the upper percentage for shampoos/body 

washes (7%), equivalent to a residual concentration of vinyl neodecanoate of 0.0014% and a tonnage of 

formulated product of 286 tonnes per annum (containing a total of 4 kg of monomer). The Industry 

Category and Use category have been set to “5 Personal/domestic use” and “9 Cleaning/washing agents 

and additives”, respectively. Formulation is expected to occur 300 days a year, while use is modelled as 

occurring over 365 days a year. 

Local and regional releases to air from formulation and private use are negligible for this scenario with the 

allocated tonnage. Local and regional releases to waste water are shown below. Release from waste 

treatment is not considered (emission tables not available). Again, it must be emphasised that this scenario 

is the subject of a large number of assumptions, and so the estimates below are very uncertain. 

Formulation: 




Fraction of main local source 1 


Local release to waste water 4.8 x 10 -6 kg/day 

Local release to air 1.1 x 10 -6 kg/day 

Regional release to waste water 3.6 x 10 -3 kg/year 

Regional release to industrial soil 0.0324 kg/year 

Regional release to air 8 x 10 -4 kg/year 

Private Use: 






Local release to waste water 2.2 x 10 -6 kg/day 

Regional release to waste water 0.4 kg/year 

Draft 

3.1.6 Release from articles over their service life 

The relative concentrations of residual vinyl neodecanoate in products (coatings and paints, adhesives, 

cement and plasters, personal care products) are likely to be very low, but the possibility remains that the 

substance may be released from products during their lifetime. No measured data exist to estimate the 

possible levels of service life and disposal releases. In most scenarios above, default values are not 

available to estimate service life releases. 

3.1.6.1 Volatilisation 

Vinyl neodecanoate has a moderately high vapour pressure, so it may be envisaged that over a product’s 

lifetime residual vinyl neodecanoate may volatilise from it. No specific information is available to qualify or 

quantify this process, however. Several approaches can be used to estimate volatilisation losses of 

residual monomer from products over their lifetimes. These methods include adaptations of those put 

forward in the OECD’s Emission Scenario Documents on the Coatings Industry (OECD, 2009b) and on 

plastics additives (OECD, 2004). 

The OECD Emission Scenario Document on plastics additives (2004) describes releases of plasticiser 

leaching and volatilising from products during their lifetime. This information may be applied to products 


containing residual vinyl neodecanoate to give an idea of whether service life losses may be important for 

exposure. The OECD ESD gives estimations for volatilisation of common plasticisers (e.g. di-(2ethylhexyl) 

phthalate (DEHP)) from thin film applications such as PVC films. These may be used for the 

use scenarios described above to give an idea of volatilisation rates in the case that the use is for a thin 

film. The following equation is presented in the OECD ESD: 

40 

Rate of volatilisation (% per year) = 1.1 x 10 6 x vapour pressure (mmHg) 

For vinyl neodecanoate, this gives ca. 3.2 x 10 5 % (1.1 x 10 6 x 0.2895) - clearly an unrealistic figure, 

equating to 100% of the residual monomer volatilising in about an hour and a half. 

The ESD also recommends for general articles a loss rate of 0.05% of the annual consumption of 

plasticiser over the lifetime of the article. Applying this percentage to the tonnages used in the various uses 

of copolymer containing vinyl neodecanoate gives the values presented in table 3.1. 

Table 3.1 Predicted Volatilisation losses of residual Vinyl Neodecanoate from 

articles over their service life 

Use Release to air (kg/year) 

Coatings: Interior emulsion low VOC paints 4.26 

Adhesives 2.30 

Cement Composites 0.01 

Decorative Plasters and Fillers 0.01 

Losses from volatilisation during the service life of articles are considered to be low, especially considering 

the relatively low concentrations of residual monomer likely to be present in finished articles. In addition, 

the major uses of the copolymer made from vinyl neodecanoate (as a binder in emulsion paints and hotmelt 

and water-based solution adhesives) involves surface hardening and subsequent curing of the 

product, processes likely to greatly hinder volatilisation of residual monomer from the used product. 

Hence volatile losses are not considered in the derivation of predicted environmental concentrations from 

the service lives of coatings and adhesives in this assessment. 

3.1.6.2 Leaching 

Draft 

As stated above in sections 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.5.1 – 3.1.5.3, the EU TGD does not include emission tables for 

service life. However the possibility that residual vinyl neodecanoate might leach out of paints, adhesives, 

cement mortars and plasters/fillers during their lifetime does exist. The OECD ESD on plastics additives 

(OECD 2004) gives several situations and estimates for the leaching of plastics additives from final 

products in use. Release rates for plasticizers in PVC flooring, as a worst case, are 0.05% by mass for 

interior product washing and 0.7% for outdoor product washing. These factors relate to the total annual use 

of plasticiser rather than the quantity present in the PVC; however the outdoor figure was derived for an 

outdoor application over four years, so the annual release factor should be 0.15% for plasticiser in PVC. 

It is unlikely in normal use that indoor emulsion wall paints are washed (unless the product is a water 

resistant kitchen/bathroom water-based emulsion subject to soiling), so leaching from interior paints is not 

considered further. However outdoor applications for adhesives, cements and plasters/fillers may result in 

leaching. Given the nature of the products in use (hard cured resins and mortars) it is likely that any 

leaching that occurs would be lower than for a plasticiser in PVC. So a reasonable starting point may be to 

use the indoor release fraction for these applications (0.05%) over their lifetime. If a lifetime of 10 years is 

assumed for all three uses (adhesives, mortars and plasters/fillers) and it is assumed that half the adhesive 

and plasters/fillers produced and all mortars produced in the EU are used in outdoor applications, then the 

following total releases can be estimated (assumed to be entirely to waste water): 

Adhesives: 114.75 kg over ten years 

Plasters/Fillers: 0.5 kg over ten years 

Mortars: 1 kg over ten years 

Clearly these figures are quite low, primarily because the quantity of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate 

modelled as being present in final products is low. As a result these figures are not used further in the 

evaluation. 


3.1.6.3 Waste in the Environment and Ultimate Disposal 

Waste in the Environment 

Residual vinyl neodecanoate present in products may enter the environment when the products are 

disposed of (for example erosion /particulate losses of paints, adhesives and plasters/fillers owing to 

weathering after improper disposal). No EU TGD method is available for estimating such losses, or for 

dealing with their potential contribution to predicted environmental contributions. As a result such releases 

are not considered further. 

Ultimate Disposal 

When products that might contain residual vinyl neodecanoate reach the end of their useful life they will 

disposed of to landfill or destroyed by incineration. No EU TGD method is available for estimating such 

losses, or for dealing with their potential contribution to predicted environmental contributions. As a result 

such releases are not considered further. 

3.1.7 Summary of release estimates 

Figure 2 below summarises the various steps in the life cycle of vinyl neodecanoate that may result in 

releases to the environment, described in the previous sections (3.1.1 – 3.1.5.4). 

Figure 2 Summary of vinyl neodecanoate and its resulting polymers’ use patterns 

Production One site supplies global market 

Processing: 

Polymerisation 

Compounding: 

Formulation 

Use 

Large sites, 

emulsion 

latexes 

Downstream 

formulators 

Interior 

emulsion 

paints 

Small/med 

sites, emulsion 

latexes 

Draft 

Adhesive 

products 

cement 

products 

Formulation at 

the same site 

(no details on 

isolation of 

latex etc 

Plaster & 

filler 

products 

Coatings Adhesives-type applications 

65% of EU tonnage 35% of EU tonnage 

general 

public 

(Wide 

dispersive 

release) 

80% of EU tonnage 20% of EU tonnage 

industrial 

settings; 

general 

public 

industrial 

settings; 

general 

public 

industrial 

settings; 

general 

public 

Personal 

care 

products 

general 

public 

(Wide 

dispersive 

release) 


Releases of vinyl neodecanoate to the environment are summarised numerically in table 3.2 below. 

Releases are based on specific industry information, default emission factors from the EU TGD and in 

some cases release fraction estimates from OECD ESDs, as described above. 

Table 3.2: Estimated releases of vinyl neodecanoate to the environment by 

lifecycle step 

Lifecycle step Tonnage 

(tonne/ 

year) 

42 

No. of days Comment Estimated 

local release 

(kg/day) 

Draft 


Estimated 

regional 

release 

(kg/year) 

Air Waste 

Estimated 

continental 

release 

(kg/year) 1 

Air Waste 

Air Waste 

water 

water 2 

Production 23000 300 Continuous 7.7 0 2300 0 n/a n/a 

0 

dry process 

Processing 104,88 300 Large Scale 0.35 13.4 524 20137 n/a n/a 

(emulsion 0 

processor 

polymerisation) 

(80% input 

tonnage) 

Processing 26220 300 Small/Mediu 4.37 0.83 26220 5244 n/a n/a 

(emulsion 

m processor 

polymerisation) 

(20% input 

tonnage) 

Use in coatings 85.2 300 Compounding 0.57 0.57 426 426 n/a n/a 

- Interior 

(formulation) 

emulsion low 84.3 300 Private Use 0 5.7 x 

VOC paints 

(65% input 

tonnage) 

10 -4 

0 84 0 759 

Use in 

45.9 300 Compounding 0.01 3.1 13 2295 n/a n/a 

Adhesives (ca. 

(formulation) 7 

34% input 

tonnage) 

43.6 300 Private Use 0 1.5 x 

10 -4 

0 21.8 0 196 

Use in cements 0.2 300 Compounding 2 x 

(ca. 0.15% input 

(formulation) 10 

tonnage) 

-3 

8 x 10 - 

1 4 n/a n/a 

3 

0.195 50 Industrial Use 4 x 3.5 x 9.75 87.8 n/a n/a 

Use in 

plasters/fillers 


tonnage) 

Use in personal 

care products 


tonnage) 

10 -4 

0.2 300 Compounding 

(formulation) 

2.3 x 

10 -3 

0.195 50 Industrial Use 4 x 

10 -4 

0.004 300 formulation 1.1 x 

10 -6 

10 -3 

9.3 x 

10 -3 

3.5 x 

10 -3 

4.8 x 

10 -6 

0.004 365 Private Use 0 2.2 x 

10 -6 

1 4 n/a n/a 

9.75 87.8 n/a n/a 

8 x 

10 -4 

3.6 x 

10 -3 

n/a n/a 

0 0.4 0 3.6 

1 

calculated here only for cases where local emissions are not point source but are wide, dispersive in their 

nature; values are total year-averaged releases across the EU. 

2 

In accordance with the EU TGD, 80% of sewers in the EU are assumed to be connected to waste water 

treatment plants 

3.2 Environmental Fate and Distribution 

3.2.1 Atmospheric degradation 

This chemical has not been tested for direct or indirect photodegradation. The EPA model (AOPWIN) 

predicts a short half-life for reaction with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere (3.912 hr = 0.326 days; based 

on an OH radical concentration of 1.5 x 10 6 OH/cm 3 and a 12-hour day). In REACH, a hydroxyl radical 

water 2

concentration of 5 x 10 5 molecules/cm 3 is used as a daily average value. Using this value gives an 

atmospheric half-life of 11.7 hours (0.49 days). 

Owing to the tertiary (neo) carbon bonding and branched alkyl chain structure, vinyl neodecanoate may be 

more strongly resistant to degradation than this prediction indicates. The principal commercial application 

of vinyl neodecanoate is as a stabilizing monomer for incorporation into polymers intended to resist 

ultraviolet exposure by sunlight. This commercial use depends on the monomer imparting UV resistance. 

Since this resistance is meant to be due to the tertiary carbon, it may have a similar effect in the monomer 

(although radical reaction will probably be occurring with the double bond which is no longer present in the 

polymer). 

3.2.2 Aquatic degradation 

3.2.2.1 Abiotic degradation 

Vinyl neodecanoate has not been tested in a hydrolysis study. 

The HYDROWIN (v1.67) program (part of the EPISUITE software) contains a prediction for esters, but 

does not contain the exact substitution pattern representative of vinyl neodecanoate. Based on an 

analogue ester with a tertiary carbon and vinyl group (R1-C(=O)-O-R2, where R1 is –C(Et)Me2 and R2 is – 

CH=CH2), the predicted half-life for hydrolysis is 22 years at pH 8 and 25 °C and 220 years at pH 7. 

The OECD HPV assessment (OECD SIDS, 2007) states: 

“Although the chemical has not been tested, the vinyl ester functionality is expected to be resistant to 

hydrolysis due to the tertiary carbon bonding by a similar rationale as in section…and because of the 

chemical’s low water solubility.” 

Ester groups are known to be susceptible to hydrolysis, both acid- and base-catalysed. However, in the 

case of vinyl neodecanoate steric hindrance of the carbonyl group provided by the tertiary alkyl α-carbon 

appears to prevent hydrolysis, as is borne out by the various polymerization techniques used to convert 

vinyl neodecanoate into co-polymers (aqueous solution at high temperature). In these polymerisations, 

reaction at the vinyl group appears to proceed much more readily that hydrolysis of the ester group. 

Low water solubility may limit the rate at which hydrolysis occurs, but in itself does not preclude hydrolysis 

occurring over long timespans. 

Overall, considering the prediction above, the conclusion in the OECD SIDS assessment and the expert 

judgment above, the chemical is likely to be not susceptible to hydrolysis. 

3.2.2.2 Biodegradation 

Draft 

Several biodegradation tests conducted according to OECD guidelines indicate that vinyl neodecanoate is 

neither readily nor inherently biodegradable. Reliable results after incubating the test substance with 

activated sludge ranged from 3-5 (OECD 302C (modified MITI test); Battersby, 1992) to 14-17% (OECD 

301D; Stone and Atkinson, 1982) of the material being degraded over a 28-d period. However, given the 

substance’s volatile and adsorptive properties, results need to be interpreted with some caution. This is 

highlighted by the fact that the EPIWIN software predicts rapid biodegradation of the representative 

substance (see below). 

In the ready test, the substance was added at a concentration of 3 mg/l to inoculum taken from a sewage 

treatment plant that treated predominantly domestic waste water. Since the concentration used was below 

the substance’s limit of solubility in water, it can be assumed that the substance was bioavailable to a high 

degree in the test (although adsorption to glassware may reduce the actual concentrations available). 

In the inherent test, the substance was added at a nominal concentration of 21.8 mg/l to inoculum from a 

sewage treatment works treating primarily domestic sewage. Inoculum from only this one source was 

used. 

Both of the tests are difficult to interpret because of the substance’s properties. The ready test is not 

sensitive to volatilization, but adsorption to glassware may have lowered the bioavailable concentration in 

the test. Interpretation of the inherent test is more difficult, as the concentration tested was far in excess of 

the substance’s water solubility and the test set up is sensitive to volatile losses. Some DOC analysis was 

carried out in the 302C test. It appeared that DOC was very low from early on in the test, indicating that 


solubility limitations, adsorption to glassware and/or volatilization could be contributing to lower than 

expected bioavailable concentrations. 

The REACH technical guidance indicates that BIOWIN 2, 3 and 6 can be used to screen for potentially 

persistent substances. Results from these QSARs (BIOWIN v4.10) are as follows for the representative 

structure (SMILES code C=COC(=O)C(C)(CCC)CCCC): 

• Biowin2 (Non-Linear Model Prediction): Biodegrades Fast (result 0.9878) 

• Biowin3 (Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe): Weeks (result 2.9874) 

• Biowin6 (MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction): Biodegrades Fast (result 0.8740) 

Given the available test results, and their potential shortcomings, together with the contrasting BIOWIN 

predictions for the representative structure, it is difficult to conclude on the persistence of the substance. A 

further complication is the variable nature of the branching pattern of the alkyl chain, which will 

undoubtedly affect biodegradation. This is particularly important in terms of the PBT “P” assessment. 

3.2.2.3 Degradation Products 

Although unlikely to occur (see section 3.2.2.1), the hypothetical hydrolysis products of vinyl neodecanoate 

are the corresponding tertiary carboxylic acid and vinyl alcohol (ethenol), the latter rapidly tautomerising to 

acetaldehyde. It is not possible (or helpful given the results discussed above in section 3.2.2.2) to predict 

potential degradation products from (aerobic) biodegradation. 

3.2.3 Degradation in soil 

No information is available on the substance’s degradation in soil. 

3.2.4 Evaluation of environmental degradation data 

According to the available information, vinyl neodecanoate is resistant to environmental degradation, and 

so is currently classified as being potentially persistent. 

3.2.5 Environmental partitioning 

Distribution of vinyl neodecanoate using the Mackay Level III Fugacity Model (EPIWIN ver 3.12) indicates 

that the bulk transport should be to soil and sediment compartments (77.8 and 14%, respectively), with 

very little to water and air (Table 3.3). Estimation from the EQC fugacity level III model is provided using 

three separate emission scenarios: 1) equal emissions with continuous 1000 kg/hr releases to each 

compartment (air, water and soil), 2) 1000 kg/hr release to air compartment only and, 3) 1000 kg/hr release 

to water compartment only. Input values for the model were: 5.9 mg/l water solubility; 0.29 mmHg vapour 

pressure; 0.0128 atm-m 3 /mol (1210 Pa.m 3 /mol) Henry’s Law constant; log Kow 4.9; 212 °C boiling point. 

These three scenarios would help to estimate in which environmental compartments the substance 

partitions when the substance is released into the environment. 

44 

Draft 

Table 3.3 Summary of transport between environmental compartments of vinyl 

neodecanoate using Level III Fugacity Modeling. 

Scenario Relative 

Amount 

(%) 

Halflife 

(hr) 

Emission 

(kg/hr) 

Relative 

Amount 

(%) 

Halflife 

(hr) 

Emission 

(kg/hr) 


Relative 

Amount 

(%) 

Halflife 

(hr) 

Emission 

(kg/hr) 

Air 0.505 7.45 1000 94.5 7.45 1000 0.772 7.45 0 

Water 7.63 900 1000 0.457 900 0 34.9 900 1000 

Soil 77.8 1800 1000 4.2 1800 0 0.0344 1800 0 

Sediment 14 8100 0 0.841 8100 0 64.3 8100 0 

Persistence 

time: 

1030 hr 10.3 hr 675 hr 

3.2.6 Adsorption 

No measured data are available for the substance’s adsorption/desorption behaviour in soils or sediments. 

An estimation of the vinyl neodecanoate’s organic carbon adsorption coefficient has been made using the 

Syracuse EPISUITE software PCKOCWIN (v 1.66). Using the CAS registered SMILES code

O=C(OC=C)CCCCCC(C)(C)C and log Kow of 4.9, an estimated KOC of 558 (log KOC 2.75) is given. Using 

the “representative” SMILES code C=COC(=O)C(C)(CCC)CCCC gives an estimated KOC of 669 (log KOC 

2.83). Both values are very similar and imply that the substance has moderate mobility in soil. 

The EU TGD also estimates KOC. The equations used are for “esters” and the default QSAR (“nonhydrophobics”) 

in the TGD. These give Koc values of 2820 and 3700 l/kg respectively based on the 

measured log KOW of 4.9. 

The SIMPLETREAT model within the EU TGD predicts the relative quantities of the substance that would 

partition to sludge, remain in the water phase, volatilise to air or degrade in a sewage treatment plant (see 

section 3.3.1.1). The majority of the substance is predicted to partition to sludge or volatilise. 

The Syracuse EPISUITE software also allows the estimation of a water – air partitioning coefficient (KOA) 

using KOAWIN (v1.10). Using the measured Log KOW 4.9 gives a log KOA of 5.24. 

3.2.6.1 Summary of adsorption data 

The substance is predicted to have moderate mobility in soils and sediments, and may leach to a moderate 

extent into groundwater. 

The predictions given by the EU TGD method and the PCKOCWIN model (part of EPISUITE) for Koc are 

quite dissimilar (2820 and 3700 l/kg vs 669 l/kg). This difference may be down to the way in which the 

models work – the PCKOCWIN is a fragment based model whereas the EU TGD method uses Kow as the 

input. In this assessment the EU TGD prediction for esters is used to model water – organic carbon 

partitioning behaviour. It should be noted that the value chosen can have a marked effect on the amount of 

substance directed to air, water and sludge in a waste water treatment plant. 

3.2.7 Volatilisation 

Vinyl neodecanoate has a reasonably high vapour pressure and a fairly high predicted Henry’s Law 

constant, which means that it is likely to volatilise to an appreciable extent from surface waters. However in 

reality this will occur in competition with other processes such as adsorption to suspended organic matter, 

which may lower the overall rate of volatilisation. 

3.2.8 Precipitation 

Draft 

Vinyl neodecanoate has a low water solubility, and so is unlikely to be removed from the atmosphere to 

any great extent by dissolution in precipitation. 

The Syracuse EPISUITE software allows the estimation of the proportion of substance that may adsorb to 

aerosol particles (AEROWIN v1.00), using the estimated KOA and an estimated particle – gas partition 

coefficient. Based on estimated results and measured log KOW of 4.9, the fraction adsorbed to airborne 

particles is 4.47 x 10 -6 (Junge-Pankow model), 9.9 x 10 -6 (Mackay model), 3.4 x 10 -6 (octanol/air model). 

Particles to which the substance has adsorbed may be subject to dry and wet deposition processes. 

3.2.9 Bioaccumulation and metabolism 

One bioaccumulation study – in which fish were fed a diet spiked with vinyl neodecanoate – is available. A 

bioconcentration study is not available. No metabolism studies relevant for the environment are available. 

3.2.9.1 Bioconcentration from water 

Based on the measured log Kow of the substance, a moderately high bioaccumulation potential in fish can 

be predicted for vinyl neodecanoate. According to the TGD QSAR, a BCF of 2900 l.kg -1 is predicted. The 

BCF Program (v2.17) in the EPISUITE software, using the representative example structure shown in 

Table 1.1 (SMILES code C=COC(=O)C(C)(CC)C(C)CCC) and the measured log Kow of 4.9 predicts a 

BCF of 1183 l.kg -1 (equation Log BCF = 0.77 log Kow - 0.70). The more recent BCFBAF (v 3.0) in EPIWEB 

v4.0 uses a modified equation to estimate BCF: 

Log BCF = 0.06598 x log Kow – 0.333 

Using a log Kow of 4.9 gives a BCF of 794. 

The program also predicts that the substance will not biomagnify (BAF 150 for the upper trophic level). 


A study according to OECD 305 was attempted to clarify the bioaccumulation potential of the substance in 

fish. However such a study was not successfully conducted due to confounding factors encountered with 

analysis of the substance in test media. It was postulated that adsorption to glassware and interactions 

with test media amongst other confounding factors prevented reliable analytical recoveries for this poorly 

soluble, adsorbing substance. As a result, the bioaccumulation of the substance in fish was investigated 

via a dietary exposure study (see section 3.2.9.3). 

3.2.9.2 Accumulation from sediment and soil 

No measured data are available. 

The EU TGD gives a method to predict the accumulation of a substance in earthworms, in which uptake is 

modelled as taking place from the dissolved fraction in the soil pore water. The method gives a BCFearthworm 

of 954 l.kg wwt -1 . The model holds for log Kow values up to around 8. The value seems to compare 

reasonably well with the predicted fish BCF (section 3.2.9.1) and that estimated from the dietary fish study 

(see section 3.2.9.3). This predicted value is used in PEC calculations for secondary poisoning. 

3.2.9.3 Dietary/oral accumulation 

A dietary uptake study in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) has been conducted by Hicks 

(2007). This study followed a test protocol (Anon, 2004) developed to address bioaccumulation testing of 

poorly water-soluble test substances and accepted by the EU PBT working group of the Technical 

Committee for New and Existing Substances (TCNES). The test method may be considered an alternative 

to those methods described in OECD Guideline 305 (Bioconcentration: Flow-through fish test, June 1996) 

and U.S. EPA Environmental Effects Testing Guideline OPPTS 850.1730 (Ecological Effects Test 

Guidelines: Fish BCF, EPA 712-C-96-129, 23 p). The test is accomplished through dietary exposure, 

rather than exposure via the test medium, where rainbow trout are offered food spiked with the test 

substance. The method is recommended for poorly water soluble substances for which an OECD 305 test 

is not practical in the REACH technical guidance (see REACH TGD “Guidance on Information 

Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment” 4 ). 

“Bioaccumulation” refers to the additive uptake of a chemical into an organism through any route, be it 

ingestion, respiration or contact with treated water or sediment. The process of accumulation of the 

substance in the organism from the spiked food is one of food chain magnification rather than 

accumulation via uptake through the gills from the organism’s surroundings (bioconcentration). So this 

study is not a bioconcentration study, and leads to the derivation of a biomagnification factor rather than a 

bioconcentration factor. 

The objective of this study was to determine the half-life (t½, from the elimination rate constant, kdepuration), 

the assimilation efficiency (α), the biomagnification factor (BMF; where biomagnification refers to the 

movement of a chemical from prey to predator, or food to organism), the lipid-corrected kinetic 

biomagnification factor (BMFL) 5 , “steady-state” biomagnification factor6 , and estimate a bioconcentration 

factor (BCF) using certain assumptions. 

46 

Draft 

Vinyl neodecanoate was incorporated into fish food using acetone as a carrier solvent (evaporated from 

the food after addition) and fed to a treatment group. In a range-finding test two concentrations of test 

substance, 300 µg/g and 3000µg/g, were used in the feed. For the definitive study a nominal concentration 

of 1500 µg/g was selected, as this fulfilled the criteria of exhibiting no toxicity, palatability of feed, and gave 

analytical reproducibility for measured concentrations in the feed. Mean measured concentrations during 

the study showed that the concentration was 1150 ug/g (and 6760 ug/g on a lipid basis). 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) was also added to the treated feed to evaluate the performance of the spiking 

technique through measurement of its assimilation efficiency (α). HCB is suitable for this purpose as it is 

known to readily bioaccumulate and not depurate significantly. The control fish were fed untreated food 

(treated only with the same amount of acetone, and evaporated, used in the treatment group). The test 

consisted of two phases: uptake (10 days) and depuration (28 days, out of a maximum of 42 d). There was 

4 See http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_r7c_en.pdf?vers=20_08_08 

5 The phrase “lipid-corrected” is used rather than “lipid-normalised” as the BMF is reported relative to the ratio of the 

lipid in the fish to the lipid in the food. 

6 It is not certain that an apparent steady state was reached in the study, as concentrations of test substance in fish 

were only measured once at the end of the uptake phase and during the depuration phase. However the measured K2 

(0.303 d -1 ) can be used, and shows that the uptake duration was probably sufficient to attain apparent steady state. 


no statistically significant difference between the control fish and treated fish growth rates. The 

determination of the concentration of test substance, the length of each phase, as well as sampling 

schedules, were based on the preliminary tests. The limit of detection for the substance in whole fish was 

0.163 µg/g and for the fish food was 8.16 µg/g. 

The overall depuration rate constant was calculated by fitting a line to a plot of the natural logarithm of 

concentration versus time and minimising the residuals. Using the calculated koverall, measured feeding 

rate, concentration in the food, concentration in the fish at the start of the depuration phase and duration of 

the uptake phase, the chemical assimilation efficiency (α) was calculated using the equation: 

C 

α = 

O, 

depuration 

I× 

C 

× k 

food 

overall 

⎡ 

× ⎢ 

⎣ 

1 

( ( ) ) ⎥ 1− 

exp − k overall × t ⎦ 

⎤ 

eqn 3.2.9.3a 

Where: CO, depuration is the concentration in fish at time zero of the depuration phase (28.8 ug/g); 

-1 -1 

I is the feeding rate (gfood⋅gfish ⋅d ) = 0.03; 

Cfood is the chemical concentration in the food = 1150 ug/g 

t is the duration of the uptake phase (10 d), and 

koverall is overall elimination rate constant = 0.303 d -1 

The growth-corrected depuration rate constant was calculated by subtracting the growth rate constant 

from the overall elimination rate constant (kdepuration = koverall - kgrowth). The dietary kinetic biomagnification 

factor (BMF) (growth-corrected) was calculated as BMF = I⋅α⋅ (kdepuration) -1 and the growth-corrected half-life 

was calculated as t1/2 = 0.693⋅(kdepuration) -1 . The lipid-normalised, growth corrected kinetic BMF was 0.137. 

The mean lipid fraction ratio fish: food, where the lipid fraction in fish is divided by the lipid fraction in the 

diet to obtain the lipid normalization factor, was used to calculate the lipid-normalized kinetic (growthcorrected) 

and steady-state biomagnification factors (BMFL); both calculated as BMFL = BMF/L, where L 

equals the mean lipid fraction ratio fish/food (i.e., lipid normalization factor). 

The “steady-state” BMFL was estimated by dividing the “steady-state” concentration [day 10 uptake whole 

fish mean measured concentration normalized for fish lipid fraction (0.037)] by the mean concentration in 

the feed normalized for the lipid fraction in treated feed (0.17). The “steady-state” BMFL derived from the 

above calculation was 0.115 (778 µg/g divided by 6,760 µg/g). 

Draft 

In the test the first analytical measurement in fish was taken 21 hours after the fish had been fed spiked 

feed (i.e. effectively 21 hours into the depuration phase). Given the rapid clearance of the substance in 

fish, this may have implications for the concentration in fish used in eqn 3.2.9.3a above. Linear regression 

of the depuration curve gives the following equation: 

Ln [Cfish] = -0.3027 x depuration day + 3.0689 

If depuration day -0.875 (i.e. 21 hours before the first fish analysis) is inputted, then a concentration of 

27.9 ug/g is given. This does not differ greatly from the concentration measured (28.8 ug/g). The fact the 

earlier value is lower indicates that any uncertainties introduced by the time period between last feeding 

and analysis are small compared with experimental variability in the measured concentrations (and the fish 

may still have been absorbing test substance in those intervening 21 hours). As a result the value of 28.8 

ug/g is used here for C0,depuration, and the BMF value of 0.137 remains the experiment’s definitive result. 

For the purpose of predicting concentrations of the substance in prey organisms a bioconcentration factor 

(BCF) is necessary. The study described above does not give this result, but there approaches available 

that can be used to estimate a BCF from the data. To do this a number of assumptions have to be made, 

and with each assumption the uncertainty connected to the estimation increases. A report has recently 

been written that concerns this estimation (Crookes and Brooke, 2010, in preparation), and this should be 

referred to for a thorough exploration of this approach. 

The simplest method relies upon estimating an uptake rate constant (k1) which can be compared against 

the depuration rate constant measured in the study to give an estimated BCF. In doing this several 

assumptions are made: 

− Depuration following dietary uptake is the same as depuration following aqueous exposure 

for a given substance 


48 

− The database (“training set”) used to develop the uptake estimation method is 

representative of the substance/fish under consideration 

− Uptake from water would follow first order kinetics 

− factors that can affect uptake in an aqueous exposure study in practice (such as substance 

bioavailability, adsorption to apparatus, molecular size etc.) would have little effect 

Most of the methods in the literature that can be used to estimate an uptake rate constant rely on fish 

weight (uptake decreases as fish weight increases owing, presumably, to a decreasing gill:body mass 

ration and decreasing fish respiration rate), the substance’s octanol-water partition coefficient, or in some 

cases both. Uptake at the gills is thought to be a process governed primarily by passive diffusion. 

However, the basis of the methods should highlight some of the constraints inherent in the approach; 

those that consider physiological aspects alone (i.e. fish weight) will not take into consideration reduced 

uptake owing to large molecular size etc.; methods that consider substance-specific aspects alone (i.e. log 

Kow) will not allow for differences in fish size or species. As a result careful scrutiny of a model’s “training 

set” is likely to be beneficial, wherever possible, in ascertaining the applicability of a given estimate for a 

particular substance. 

Several estimations according to various methods are presented in annex V for K1 along with the 

respective estimated growth-corrected BCF and growth-corrected, lipid-normalised (to 5%) BCF. The 

calculations carried out in these methods are also given, along with a sensitivity analysis of the effect that 

different BCF estimates have on the risk characterisation ratios for secondary poisoning (annex V). For the 

sake of brevity, the estimation according to the Sijm et al (1995) method is presented here (it is gone into 

in more detail in annex V). It should be noted, however, that there is a 2 – 3 fold difference in the 

estimated K1s (and BCFs) depending on the method used (again see annex V) 

From the study report it is not clear what the average mass of the fish in the treatment group was at the 

start of the study. Therefore the average mass at the end of the uptake phase is used (4.14 g). 

Sijm et al (1995) presented the following allometric equation based on data from 29 data points (from 13 

chemicals, mostly chlorinated aromatics). The equation had a correlation coefficient of 0.85. 

Ku = (520±40) x W -0.32 ± 0.03 eqn 3.2.9.3b 

Taking the average fish mass of 4.14 g gives an uptake rate constant of 330 d -1 . Dividing this by the 

growth-corrected depuration rate constant from the dietary study, 0.267 d -1 , gives an estimated kinetic 

BCF (growth corrected) of 1236. The average lipid content of the treated fish in the study was 3.7 %. 

Therefore “normalising” the estimated BCF to a lipid content of 5% gives a (growth corrected) BCF of 

1670. 

Draft 

The results of the dietary study are shown below (table 3.4). Relevant values are quoted on a whole fish 

wet weight basis. 

Table 3.4: results of the dietary accumulation study in fish 

Elimination rate constant (koverall) 0.303 (days) -1 

Growth-corrected elimination rate constant (kdepuration ) 0.267 (days) -1 

Growth-corrected half-life (t1/2 ) 2.60 days 

Assimilation efficiency (α) 0.266 

kinetic Biomagnification factor (BMF), growth corrected 0.0299 

Lipid- and growth-corrected kinetic biomagnification factor BMFL 0.137 

Lipid-corrected steady-state BMFL 

Estimated uptake rate constant, based on average fish mass 

0.115 

330 d -1 

(4.14g) a 

Estimated Bioconcentration factor, BCF, growth corrected a 1236 

Estimated Bioconcentration factor, BCF, growth corrected and 

lipid normalised to 5% a 

1670 

a 

These values were not measured in the study. They are presented here as part of an analysis of the 

studies results and how the data can be used. 


In a deviation from the protocol as originally put forward (Anon, 2004), concentrations of 

hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in fish tissue were not measured at the same time as the test substance in the 

depuration phase. Instead the concentration of hexachlorobenzene was measured only at the end of the 

uptake phase. Comparing this value with the total mass of hexachlorobenzene to which each fish would 

have been exposed gave an idea of the assimilation efficiency – a net assimilation efficiency of 47% 

(0.47). This value is similar to the ≥ 50% assimilation efficiency noted for this chemical mixed with liquid 

hydrocarbon test chemicals by the laboratories involved in the development of this biomagnification test. 

The estimated “steady state” lipid-normalized BMF for HCB was calculated by dividing the mean 

concentration in whole fish at day 10 of uptake normalized for fish lipid fraction (i.e., 0.037) by the mean 

HCB concentration in the feed normalized for the lipid fraction in treated feed (i.e., 0.17). This gave a 

value of 0.54 (i.e., 289 µg/g divided by 539 µg/g = 0.54). This estimated BMF value falls within the 

historical range of 0.5 – 2. It should be noted that HCB would not have been at steady state in this study, 

as its depuration rate is significantly longer than the test substance (for which the uptake phase of 10 days 

appears to have been sufficient to attain an apparent steady state, see footnote on page 44). 

The depuration data from this fish study indicate that vinyl neodecanoate is rapidly eliminated (95% 

clearance in 14 days depuration, and a growth corrected half-life of 2.6 days). The assimilation efficiency 

of the HCB control was 47%, and 26.6% for vinyl neodecanoate. 

3.2.9.4 Summary of accumulation 

Estimated bioconcentration factors for fish were calculated according to the EU TGD (2900 l.kg-1) and 

using the EPISUITE BCF program (1183). The EU TGD method gives a BCF in earthworms of 954 l.kg 

wwt -1 . 

A dietary accumulation study in fish gave a kinetic, growth-corrected, lipid corrected BMF of 0.137. Data 

from the same study were used to estimate a BCF of 1670 (although with a great deal of uncertainty). 

Other methods for estimating BCF give values higher and lower than this (some >2000). Other estimates 

and a sensitivity analysis in the risk evaluation are presented in annex V. On balance, considering the 

assimilation efficiency, depuration rate and half-life observed in the feeding study, it seems likely that the B 

screening criteria (BCF ≥2000) would not be met for this substance. 

The lipid-normalized (growth corrected) kinetic BMF for whole fish is used in this evaluation for vinyl 

neodecanoate’s potential to biomagnify in the environment. The estimated, tentative BCF of 1670 (growth 

corrected and lipid normalised) is used in the secondary poisoning assessment. Again the large 

uncertainty in this value given the way in which it is estimated must be noted. 

Draft 

3.3 Environmental Concentrations 

3.3.1 Aquatic Compartment (surface water, sediment and waste water 

treatment plant) 

3.3.1.1 Calculation of PEClocal 

The emissions data described in section 3.1, together with the substance’s environmental fate and 

behaviour make it possible to derive a predicted environmental concentration for surface water from the 

various lifecycle stages of the substance. In doing so the assumption is made that releases from each site 

are directed to waste water and enter a waste water treatment plant (WWTP), where partitioning and any 

removal mechanisms influence the relative concentrations of the substance in different environmental 

compartments. EU TGD defaults are used to model the WWTP (deals with 2000 m 3 /day waste water 

produced by 10,000 inhabitants; effluent from the plant diluted by a factor of 10 in receiving waters). For 

this substance, no biodegradation (or hydrolysis) is assumed during waste water treatment. 

Table 3.5 shows the predicted behaviour of vinyl neodecanoate in a WWTP. This behaviour is modelled 

using SimpleTreat (part of the EUSES program) based on the physico-chemical properties of the 

substance and its lack of biodegradation in ready or inherent tests. 


Table 3.5 Predicted Behaviour in a WWTP 

% to air 71.3 

% to water 9.46 

% to sludge 19.3 

% degraded 0 

Upon release from the WWTP to receiving waters, the substance will partition to a certain extent to 

sediment. The default equation from the EU TGD has been used in EUSES to model this. 

50 

Clocalwater = Clocaleff . eqn 3.3.1.1a 

(1+ Kpsus x SUSwater x 10 -6 ) x dilution 

Where Clocalwater = local concentration in surface water during an emission episode 

Clocaleff = local concentration from WWTP 

SUSwater = concentration of suspended matter in surface water (15 mg/l) 

Dilution = dilution factor for effluent in receiving water (10) 

Kpsus = solids-water partition coefficient for suspended matter (282 l/kg) 

The PEClocal(water) is derived as follows. 

PEClocal(water) = Clocalwater + PECregional(water) 

Where PECregional(water) = 4.49 x 10 -5 mg/l 

The PEC for sediment is estimated from: 

PEClocal(sed) = Ksusp water x PEClocal(water) x 1000 . eqn 3.3.1.1b 

RHOsusp 

Where RHOsusp = bulk density of suspended matter (1150 kg/m 3 ) 

Ksusp water = suspended matter-water partition coefficient (71.5 m 3 /m 3 ) 

Production Site 

Draft 

Losses from the one production site in Europe have been modelled using default values, as described in 

section 3.1.1. Effectively no releases to waste water are envisaged from production, so the local PEC in 

this case reflects the regional PEC. For completeness the data are summarised below in table 3.6. 

Table3.6: PECs estimated for the European production site 

Local release to waste water (kg/day) 0 


Amount of WW to the WWTP (m 3 /day) 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 0 

% to water in WWTP 9.46 

Clocaleff (mg/l) 0 

Dilution factor 10 

Clocalwater (mg/l) 4.49 x 10 -5 

PEClocal(water) (mg/l) 4.49 x 10 -5 

PEClocal(sed) (mg/kg wwt.) 4.65 x 10 -3 

Processing (Emulsion Polymerisation) 

Section 3.1.3 estimates releases from the typical processing of vinyl neodecanoate into co-polymers. Two 

processes are covered, polymerisation carried out by large scale processors (modelled as taking 80% of 

the production tonnage) and polymerisation carried out by small/medium scale processors (modelled as 

taking 20% of the production tonnage). Local concentrations are dominated by local releases, with only a 

very small contribution from the regional concentration. 


Table 3.7 below summarises the PECs calculated for large scale and small/medium scale processors 

based on the information in section 3.1.3. 

Table 3.7: PECs estimated for large scale and small/medium processing 

(polymerisation) 

Large Scale Processors Small/medium scale processors 

Local release to waste water 

(kg/day) 

13.4 0.874 

Number of emission days per 

year 

300 300 

Amount of WW to the WWTP 

(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 6.71 a 0.437 

% to water in WWTP 9.46 9.46 

Clocaleff (mg/l) b 0.635 0.0414 

Dilution factor 10 10 

PEClocal(water) (mg/l) 0.0633 4.16 x 10 -3 

PEClocal(sed) (mg/kg wwt.) 3.94 0.259 

a 

note that this value exceeds the water solubility of the substance; in practice the substance might be 

adsorbed to suspended matter etc. 

b 

this value is also the PEC for WWTP microorganisms 

Use in Coatings: Interior emulsion low VOC paints 

The copolymer produced from processing, which contains a proportion of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate, is 

used to formulate low VOC interior use emulsion paints. PECs are presented below for this formulation 

step as well as for use of the paints themselves (table 3.8). The local concentrations from use are very low, 

with the major contribution coming from the regional contribution. 

Table 3.8: PECS for Use in Coatings: Interior emulsion low VOC paints 

Formulation Private Use 


(kg/day) 

0.568 5.6 x 10 -4 


year 

300 300 


(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 0.284 2.81 x 10 -4 


Clocaleff (mg/l) 0.0269 2.66 x 10 -5 


PEClocal(water) (mg/l) 2.72 x 10 -3 4.73 x 10 -5 

Draft 

PEClocal(sed) (mg/kg wwt.) 0.169 2.94 x 10 -3 

Use in Adhesives: water-based Adhesives 

The table below (3.9) shows the PECs estimated for releases from the residual vinyl neodecanoate 

contained in adhesives, during their formulation and use. As for the use in coatings scenario, the local 

concentrations resulting from use are very low with the major contribution coming from the regional 

contribution. 


Table 3.9: PECs for use in Adhesives: water-based adhesives (large site) 



(kg/day) 

3.06 1.45 x 10 -4 


year 

300 300 


(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 1.53 7.26 x 10 -5 


Clocaleff (mg/l) 0.145 6.88 x 10 -6 


PEClocal(water) (mg/l) 0.0145 4.53 x 10 -5 

PEClocal(sed) (mg/kg wwt.) 0.9 2.82 x 10 -3 

Use in Cement Composites 

The table below (3.10) shows the PECs estimated for releases from the residual vinyl neodecanoate 

contained in cement composites, during their formulation and use. The table is really presented for 

completeness, as in both stages the local concentrations reflect regional concentrations in the large part 

owing to the low releases from this scenario (and partly because a small tonnage is modelled as being 

used for this application). 

Table 3.10: PECs for Use in Cement Composites 

Formulation Industrial Use 


(kg/day) 

0.008 0.0035 


year 

300 50 


(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 4 x 10 -3 1.75 x 10 -3 


Clocaleff (mg/l) 3.79 x 10 -4 1.66 x 10 -4 



PEClocal(sed) (mg/kg wwt.) 5.12 x 10 -3 3.8 x 10 -3 

Use in Decorative plasters and fillers 

52 

Draft 

The PECs for the formulation, industrial and private use of decorative fillers and plasters that may contain 

unreacted vinyl neodecanoate are presented below. Table 3.11 is really presented for completeness only, 

as in the three stages the local concentrations reflect regional concentrations in the large part owing to the 

low releases from this scenario (and partly because a small tonnage is modelled as being used for this 

application). 


Table 3.11: PECs for use in decorative plasters and fillers 

Formulation Industrial Use 


(kg/day) 

0.00933 0.0035 

Number of emission days 

per year 

300 50 


(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 4.67 x 10 -3 1.75 x 10 -3 


Clocaleff (mg/l) 4.42 x 10 -4 1.66 x 10 -4 




Use in Personal Care Products 

The PECs for the formulation and private use of personal care products that may contain unreacted vinyl 

neodecanoate are presented below (table 3.12). Once again the table is really presented for completeness 

only, as in the two stages the local concentrations reflect regional concentrations in the large part owing to 

the low releases from this scenario (because a small tonnage is modelled as being used for this 

application). 

Table 3.12: PECs for use in personal care products 



(kg/day) 

1.2 x 10 -5 2.15 x 10 -5 


year 

300 365 


(m 3 /day) 

2000 2000 

Influent concentration (mg/l) 6 x 10 -6 1.07 x 10 -6 


Clocaleff (mg/l) 5.68 x 10 -7 1 x 10 -7 



Draft 


3.3.1.2 Calculation of Aquatic PECregional and PECcontinental 

Using the release data summarised in table 3.2 (section 3.1.7), the regional and continental PECs have 

been estimated. Concentrations predicted at the regional scale represent the likely concentrations of the 

substance in environmental compartments at equilibrium as a result of releases in that region over time. 

Continental concentrations represent the likely background concentrations at the continental scale and 

provide a flux to and from regional concentrations. Table 3.13 below shows these. The regional sediment 

concentration is higher than for some of the local scenarios above because the regional concentration is 

taken at steady state over a prolonged period of time, whereas the local concentrations describe an 

emission period (assuming instantaneous partitioning from the water phase to sediment). 


Table 3.13: summary of regional and continental PECs for the Aquatic 

Environment 

Compartment Type PEC 

Surface Water Regional 4.49 x 10 -5 

Continental 4.68 x 10 -7 

Sediment Regional 4.65 x 10 -3 

Continental 4.84 x 10 -5 

3.3.1.3 Measured levels in water and sediment 

No measured data for the substance in environmental media has been found. The predicted environmental 

concentrations set out in the sections above are used in the assessment. 

3.3.2 Terrestrial Compartment 

3.3.2.1 Predicted levels 

The methodology in the EU TGD was used to estimate concentrations in soil from the production, 

processing and use of vinyl neodecanoate. Table 3.14 below shows the results. Most of the substance in 

agricultural soil is predicted to enter that compartment through the spreading of sewage sludge. Dry or wet 

atmospheric deposition processes may also contribute to terrestrial concentrations. The substance is 

modelled as being not biodegradable; this includes soils. The TGD model works by assuming sewage 

sludge is spread once annually with an application of 5000 kg/hectare to agricultural land for ten years, and 

an application rate of 1000 kg/hectare/year to grassland for ten years. Results for agricultural soil are given 

averaged over 30 and 180 days; in the table the 180 day averages are given. The only removal 

mechanisms considered are volatilisation and leaching (with a very low “baseline” rate for degradation) 

from soils. 

Table 3.14: Predicted concentrations in soil from the lifecycle steps of vinyl 

neodecanoate 

Lifecycle stage Step/type Local PEC - Predicted soil concentration (mg/kg 

wwt.) 

Agricultural soil (180 Grassland (180 days 

days average) 

average) 

Production 1 site only 0.0173 0.0291 

Processing Large scale processors 40.5 13.9 

Small/med scale 

processors 

2.65 0.919 

Use in coatings – Formulation 1.72 0.589 

emulsion paints 

Private use 1.74 x 10 -3 6.19 x 10 -4 

Use in adhesives Formulation 9.24 3.16 

Private use 4.77 x 10 -4 1.89 x 10 -4 

Use in cements Formulation 0.0242 8.31 x 10 -3 

Industrial use 0.0106 3.65 x 10 -3 

Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 0.0282 9.68 x 10 -3 

Industrial use 0.0106 3.65 x 10 -3 

Use in personal care Formulation 7.49 x 10 

products 

-5 5.1 x 10 -5 

Private use 4.51 x 10 -5 4.08 x 10 -5 

54 

Draft 

Regional and continental soil concentrations are shown below in table 3.15. As was the case for some of 

the sediment concentrations described above, in many cases the regional soil concentrations in 

agricultural and industrial soil are higher than the local scenarios. This is due to the same reason – the 

regional concentration assumes that a steady state has been reached over a long period of time, whereas 

the local concentration assumes the ten year spreading period only. The steady state mass fraction in 

regional agricultural soil is given as 0.61%, 1.16 x 10 -4 % for natural soil and 0.265% for industrial soil. 


Table 3.15: regional and continental concentrations in soil 

scale Soil compartment PEC (mg/kg wwt.) 

regional Agricultural 0.0113 

Natural 3.86 x 10 -5 

Industrial 0.0394 

continental Agricultural 4.19 x 10 -5 

Natural 3.76 x 10 -5 

Industrial 1.39 x 10 -4 

3.3.2.2 Measured levels 

No data were available in the open literature on measured levels of vinyl neodecanoate in soils. 

3.3.3 Atmospheric Compartment 


Table 3.16 shows the atmospheric concentrations predicted according to the EU TGD. Some of the 

processes are modelled as resulting in a direct release of the substance to air; given the substance’s 

physico-chemical properties, volatilisation in a waste water treatment plant and from surface waters is 

possible. Two values for each lifecycle step are given; concentrations during an emission episode and the 

annual average concentrations (predicted 100m from the point source of release). 

Table 3.16: predicted concentrations in air 

Lifecycle stage Step/type concentration in air, 

local emission episode 

(mg/m 3 ) 

Draft 

concentration in air, 

local annual average 

(mg/m 3 ) a 

Production 1 site only 2.13 x 10 -3 1.86 x 10 -3 

Processing Large scale processors 2.66 x 10 -3 2.29 x 10 -3 


processors 

1.21 x 10 -3 1.11 x 10 -3 

Use in coatings – Formulation 1.58 x 10 


-4 2.37 x 10 -4 

Private use 1.11 x 10 -7 1.07 x 10 

Use in adhesives Formulation 6.06 x 10 -4 6.06 x 10 

Private use 2.88 x 10 -8 1.07 x 10 

Use in cements Formulation 1.59 x 10 -6 1.08 x 10 -4 

Industrial use 6.95 x 10 -7 1.07 x 10 

Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 1.85 x 10 -6 1.09 x 10 -4 

Industrial use 6.95 x 10 -7 1.07 x 10 

Use in personal care Formulation 2.38 x 10 -9 1.07 x 10 

products 

Private use 4.26 x 10 -10 1.07 x 10 

a 100 m from point source 

b emissions are negligible, therefore local concentrations reflect the regional concentration. 

Regional and continental PECs for air are 1.07 x 10 -4 mg/m 3 and 1.04 x 10 -4 mg/m 3 , respectively. 

3.3.3.2 Measured levels 

No data were found in the open literature relating to measured levels of vinyl neodecanoate in the 

atmosphere. 

3.3.4 Food chain exposure 


An assessment of secondary poisoning for predatory species can be made by considering the amounts of 

vinyl neodecanoate that may accumulate in prey organisms (fish and earthworms) from exposure in the 


-4 b 

-4 b 

-4 b 

-4 b 

-4 b 

-4 b 

-4 b

environment. EUSES has been used to predict concentrations in fish and earthworms using the inputted 

BCFs (see section 3.2.9.4). A default BMF of 1 is used here. 

For fish the following equation is used to calculate the PEC for prey fish: 

PECoral = PECwater x BCF x BMF eqn 3.3.4.1a 

However, it may not be appropriate to use this equation with a BMF measured in a laboratory feeding 

study where exposure was limited to the oral route alone (see Crookes et al, 2009). The publication by 

Crookes discusses this more thoroughly. The TGD equation is meant to include contributions from 

exposure from both food and water. Crookes used the term food accumulation factor (FAF) to distinguish 

accumulation from food alone from the BMF given in the equation from the TGD. 

Crookes derived the following equation for the predatory fish PEC: 

PECoral, predator = (PECwater×BCFaquatic organism×FAFfish)+(PECwater×BCFfish) eqn 3.3.4.1b 

Crookes assumed that the “aquatic organism” in the food chain was a prey fish (as is assumed in 

the TGD), and simplified the equation to: 

PECoral, predator = (PECwater×BCFfish×(1+FAFfish)) eqn 3.3.4.1c 

In the case of vinyl neodecanoate, taking the FAF as the measured BMF of 0.137 the resulting PECs in 

predatory fish using this method are shown in Table 3.17 (marked as “Crookes method”) alongside the 

TGD predictions using the measured BMF in the TGD equation. Using the amended equation results in 

PECs for secondary poisoning that are around 1.137 times higher for predators and 1.129 times higher for 

top predators than those predicted using the TGD method. 

Table 3.17: predicted concentrations for vinyl neodecanoate in fish 

Lifecycle stage Step/type Predicted concentration 

in fish (mg/kg wwt.) – 

TGD method 

56 

Draft 

Production 1 site only 0.0745 0.0847 



processors 

2.9 3.30 



Private use 0.0763 0.0868 


Private use 0.075 0.0853 

Use in cements Formulation 0.1 0.114 

Industrial use 0.0764 0.0869 

Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 0.105 0.119 

Industrial use 0.0764 0.0869 

Use in personal care Formulation 0.0746 0.0848 

products 

Private use 0.0745 0.0847 


Predicted concentration 

in fish (mg/kg wwt.) – 

Crookes method 

The estimated BCF value for uptake from soil pore water according to the TGD is used for earthworms. 

Predicted concentrations are shown in table 3.18.

Table 3.18: predicted concentrations for vinyl neodecanoate in earthworms 

Lifecycle stage Step/type Predicted concentration 

in earthworms (mg/kg 

wwt.) 

Production 1 site only 0.246 

Processing Large scale processors 350 


processors 

22.9 

Use in coatings – Formulation 14.9 


Private use 0.112 

Use in adhesives Formulation 79.8 


Use in cements Formulation 0.306 

Industrial use 0.189 

Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 0.105 


Use in personal care Formulation 0.0977 

products 


An assessment of the exposure of humans to vinyl neodecanoate via the environment (i.e. food 

consumed) has not been made in this assessment, as the risk assessment has been carried out in the 

context of the OSPAR framework. 

3.3.4.2 Measured data 

No measured data were found in the open literature relating to the concentration of vinyl neodecanoate in 

organisms in the environment. 

3.3.5 The Marine Environment 

3.3.5.1 Predicted environmental concentrations 

Draft 

This section of the risk evaluation is very important in terms of the OSPAR work on this substance. Of 

paramount importance here is the industry information that the production of the substance occurs in a 

continuous, dry process with no releases of the substance to waste water. This is important because the 

only European production site is situated in a coastal region, and so the potential for releases into the 

marine environment would otherwise be high. The exposure assessment states that the release to the 

marine environment for use (in polymerisation) is “not relevant as there is no local marine environment; 

waste water emitted to local freshwater river”. In the absence of detailed information to corroborate this, a 

default release in line with the EU TGD to the marine environment is assumed. 

The EU TGD methodology has been followed to present marine PECs; this essentially extrapolates the 

freshwater methodology to produce results for the marine environment, but using different default 

characteristics more appropriate for the marine compartment (e.g. concentrations of suspended solids, 

residence times, sedimentation rates all differ). Fate and behaviour properties such as adsorption, 

degradation, volatilisation, bioaccumulation are taken as being appropriate for use in the marine 

compartment. The major difference is that the marine assessment assumes that industrial emissions to 

waste water from production, processing and use are released directly to the marine environment without 

(or with minimal) waste water treatment (however releases from private use, i.e. “down the drain”, are still 

assumed to be via a waste water treatment plant as for the freshwater scenario. This covers all of the 

“private use” scenarios described previously). 

Predicted concentrations for the marine environment are shown in table 3.19. 


Table 3.19: Predicted marine concentrations in water and sediment for vinyl 

neodecanoate 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEClocal, seawater (mg/l) PEClocal, sediment (mg/kg wwt.) 

Production - 4.2 x 10 -6 a -4 a 

2.61 x 10 

Processing Large scale 0.0668 4.16 

58 

processors 

Small/med 

scale 

processors 

4.36 x 10 -3 0.271 



-3 0.176 

Private use 7 x 10 -6 4.35 x 10 -4 


Private use 4.93 x 10 -6 3.06 x 10 -4 


Industrial use 2.17 x 10 -5 1.35 x 10 -3 

Use in 

Formulation 5.07 x 10 


-5 3.15 x 10 -3 


Use in personal Formulation 4.26 x 10 

care products 

-6 a 2.65 x 10 

Private use 4.21 x 10 -6 a 2.62 x 10 

a 

exposures for these scenarios are essentially zero. 

The following equations are used to predict concentrations in predators and top marine predators for 

secondary poisoning according to the TGD, where BMF1 is set to a default value of 1: 

PECoral, predator = 0.5 × (PEClocal, seawater, ann + PECregional, seawater, ann) × BCFfish × BMF1 

PECoral, top predator = (0.1 × PEClocal,seawater, ann + 0.9 × PECregional, seawater ann ) × BCFfish × BMF1 × BMF2 

eqn 3.3.5.1b 

Draft 


-4 a 

-4 a 

eqn 3.3.5.1a 

Similar to the situation for secondary poisoning in the freshwater environment (see Section 3.3.4.1), these 

equations may not be appropriate when considering laboratory BMF data from feeding studies. This is 

again discussed in more detail in Crookes et al (2009). In the case of the marine secondary poisoning 

scenario, Crookes developed the following equations to allow for the laboratory data: 

PECoral, predator = PECwater× BCFfish × (1+FAFfish) eqn 3.3.5.1c 

PECoral, top predator = PECwater × BCFfish × (1+FAFfish) 2 eqn 3.3.5.1d 

Using a FAF of 0.137 (the measured BMF in the dietary study) the resulting PECs for predators using the 

above equations would be 1.137 higher using the Crookes method than using the TGD method, and 

around 1.129 times higher for top predators (see table 3.20).

Table 3.20: PECs for marine predators and top predators 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEClocal, pred 

(mg/kg wwt.) 

a - TGD 

method 

PEClocal, top 

pred (mg/kg 

wwt.) b - 

TGD method 

PEClocal, pred 

(mg/kg wwt.) 

a – Crookes 

method 

Draft 

PEClocal, top 

pred (mg/kg 

wwt.) b – 

Crookes 

method 

Production - 7.02 x 10 -3 c 7.02 x 10 -3 c 7.98 x 10 -3 7.93 x 10 -3 

Processing Large scale 

processors 

45.9 9.18 

52.2 10.364 

Small/med 

scale 

2.99 0.604 

processors 

3.40 0.682 

Use in coatings – Formulation 1.95 0.395 2.22 0.446 

emulsion paints Private use 8.94 x 10 -3 7.4 x 10 -3 1.02 x 10 -2 0.0084 

Use in adhesives Formulation 10.5 2.1 11.9 2.37 

Private use 7.51 x 10 -3 7.12 x 10 -3 8.54 x 10 -3 0.00804 

Use in cements Formulation 0.0344 0.0125 3.91 x 10 -2 0.0141 

Industrial use 9.02 x 10 -3 7.42 x 10 -3 1.03 x 10 -2 0.0084 

Use in 

Formulation 0.0389 0.0134 4.42 x 10 


-2 0.01513 

Industrial use 9.02 x 10 -3 7.42 x 10 -3 1.03 x 10 -2 Use in personal Formulation 7.06 x 10 

0.00838 

care products 

-3 c 7.03 x 10 -3 c 8.03 x 10 -3 0.00794 

Private use 7.03 x 10 -3 c 7.02 x 10 -3 c 7.99 x 10 -3 0.00793 

a predicted environmental concentrations for marine predators 

b predicted environmental concentrations for marine fish-eating top predators 

c The process makes no significant contribution to the levels in the organism 

3.3.5.2 Measured data 

No measured data for vinyl neodecanoate concentrations in the marine environment, or in marine 

organisms, have been found in the open literature. 


4 Effects Assessment: Hazard 

Identification and Dose 

(Concentration) – Response (Effect) 

Assessment 

4.1 Aquatic Compartment (Including Sediment) 

Vinyl neodecanoate is a reasonably volatile substance, and so adequate precautions to prevent loss of the 

test substance from aqueous test systems would seem appropriate. Ideally flow-through conditions should 

be used. In any case, exposure concentrations should be measured throughout tests for the results to be 

considered valid. 

4.1.1 Toxicity to fish 

Two acute toxicity studies in fish have been identified for vinyl neodecanoate. No long term studies in fish 

have been identified. 

In a semi-static test in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), conducted over 96 hours but not according to 

a guideline, an LC50 of 14 mg/l was determined based on nominal concentrations (Stephenson, 1983). No 

analysis to verify test concentrations was conducted. Nominal concentrations of 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 

100 mg/l were prepared by the direct addition of the test substance to test media. Test media were 

renewed daily, and ten fish per test concentration were exposed. Observations for mortality and sub-lethal 

effects were made every 24 hours in all test vessels, and physical measurements of dissolved oxygen and 

pH were made every 24 hours in the control and highest test concentration vessel only. Temperature was 

measured at four hour intervals in one test vessel only (test vessel was not stated). The temperature was 

15 ˚C ± 2 ˚C, pH 7.4 – 8.3, dissolved oxygen 10.2 – 10.6 mg/l and water hardness 260 – 270 mg/l as 

calcium carbonate. Prior to testing fish were acclimatised for ten days, as opposed to 12 as stated in the 

OECD 203 guideline. At 96 hours one fish was dead in the 1 mg/l concentration group, and all fish were 

dead in the two highest concentrations. The study was not conducted according to GLP. The result from 

the study, whilst showing a clear does – response relationship, cannot be used because four of the test 

concentrations were in excess of the substance’s water solubility (5.9 mg/l). Indeed, the reported LC50 is 

almost three times higher than the substance’s limit of water solubility. It is more than likely that the 

animals were exposed to much lower concentrations of test substance than the nominal concentrations 

60 

Draft 

indicate at all test concentrations, not just those in excess of water solubility. The substance is known to 

adsorb strongly to glassware and may have also adsorbed to the fish themselves. In the OECD SIDS 

hazard assessment of this substance, the study was assigned a Klimisch score of 3 (invalid). 

In a semi-static test in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) conducted according to OECD 203, a 96-hour 

LC50 of 0.84 mg/l was determined based on measured concentrations (Eadsforth et al, 2000). A stock 

solution was prepared by addition of 100 mg/l of the substance to test medium, followed by stirring for 22 – 

24 hours in sealed aspirators. This solution was allowed to stand for 4 – 5 hours, then a water 

accommodated fraction (WAF) was drawn off to give the stock solution. Dilution of this stock solution gave 

the test loadings as follows: 0, 10, 22, 46 and 100% of stock solution. Test media were renewed daily, and 

seven fish per concentration were exposed. Observations for mortality and sub-lethal effects were made at 

3 hours, then every 24 hours in all test vessels from test start. Test concentrations were analysed at 0, 24, 

48, 72 and 96 hours. Recoveries in the test concentrations were 55 – 85% (mean 67%). Measured 

concentrations, adjusted for the 67% mean measured recovery, were 0, 0.032, 0.59, 1.2 and 4.3 mg/l for 

the 0, 10, 22, 46 and 100% of WAF solutions, respectively. Physical measurements of dissolved oxygen 

and pH were made in fresh media at 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours and in old media at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours in 

all test concentrations and control. Temperature was recorded hourly. The temperature was 15.2 – 15.9 

˚C, pH 7.4 – 8.9 (maximum variation in any one vessel = 0.3 units), dissolved oxygen 5.9 – 9.6 mg/l and 

water hardness 150 – 174 mg/l as calcium carbonate. In one vessel (0.59 mg/l concentration), the 

dissolved oxygen fell below the guideline minimum of 6 mg/l at 72 hours. This deviation was thought not to 


have affected the test. One fish in the control was dead, and all fish in the highest two concentrations were 

dead at 96 hours. Several sub-lethal effects were observed: four fish in the 0.59 mg/l concentration 

exhibited increased cough frequency, hyperventilation and colour change at 96 hours; in the 1.2 mg/l 

concentration three fish exhibited increased cough frequency, hyperventilation and colour change and two 

fish were immobilised after 48 hours; in the 4.3 mg/l concentration one fish exhibited sideways swimming 

and one fish was immobilised after three hours. The study was assigned a Klimisch score of 2 (valid with 

restrictions) in the OECD SIDS hazard assessment. The 96-hour NOEC for mortality was reported as 0.59 

mg/l. The LC50 of 0.84 mg/l from this study is used as the critical value for acute toxicity to fish. 

4.1.2 Toxicity to Invertebrates 

Four acute toxicity studies in invertebrates are available for vinyl neodecanoate. In two studies the test 

organism was the freshwater flea Daphnia magna, in the other two the marine copepod Acartia tonsa. No 

long term studies in invertebrates have been identified. 

In a non-GLP 48-hour static study in Daphnia magna, an EC50 of 110 mg/l based on nominal 

concentrations was reported (Stephenson, 1983). Test solutions were prepared by the addition of stock 

solutions in acetone of the test substance to test media. Test solutions were then adjusted so that the 

acetone accounted for 0.1 ml/L of the solution, including controls. A control in which no acetone was 

present was not used. Nominal concentrations were 0, 10, 22, 46, 100, 460 and 1000 mg/l. Ten daphnids 

were exposed per concentration, and three replicates per concentration were used. Observations for 

immobility were made at 0, 24 and 48 hours. Observations of physical parameters were made at 0 and 48 

hours for dissolved oxygen and pH in the control and highest concentration tested. Temperature was 

recorded at four hour intervals in one vessel. The test temperature was 20 ± 2 ˚C, dissolved oxygen 9 – 9.2 

mg/l and pH 7.9 – 8.1. In the 100 mg/l concentration and higher concentrations floating test substance was 

observed. Daphnids were discouraged from swimming near this film by the addition of black caps over the 

affected vessels. After 48 hours four Daphnids were immobilised in the 46 mg/l concentration, 14 in the 

100 mg/l concentration, 25 in the 220 mg/l concentration, and all daphnids were immobilised in the two 

highest concentrations. Similar to the case with Stephenson acute fish study the result from this study, 

whilst showing a clear does – response relationship, cannot be used because all of the test concentrations 

were in excess of the substance’s water solubility. Indeed, the reported LC50 is far in excess of the 

substance’s limit of water solubility. It is more than likely that the animals were exposed to much lower 

concentrations of test substance than the nominal concentrations indicate at all test concentrations. The 

substance is known to adsorb strongly to glassware and may have also adsorbed to the daphnids 

themselves. In the OECD SIDS hazard assessment of this substance, the study was assigned a Klimisch 

score of 3 (invalid). 

Draft 

A second, more recent, static study was conducted in Daphnia magna following OECD guideline 202 

(Eadsforth et al., 2000). A 48-hour EC50 of 1.8 mg/l based on measured concentrations was reported. A 

100 mg/l loading rate water accommodated fraction (WAF) was prepared by the addition of 100 mg/l test 

substance to test media followed by 22 hours stirring in a sealed aspirator. After standing for four hours, a 

WAF was drawn off to give the stock solution. This stock solution was used through dilution to produce the 

different concentrations used in the test. These concentrations were made up of 4.6, 10, 22, 46 and 100% 

of the stock solution. Test concentrations were analysed at 0 and 48 hours, and measured recoveries were 

found to vary between 48 and 85% (mean 67%). Based on this mean measured analysis, the test 

concentrations were reported as 0, 0.1, 0.24, 0.65, 1.5 and 3.3 mg/l for the 0, 4.6, 10, 22, 46 and 100% 

dilutions of stock solution, respectively. Ten animals per concentration were tested, with two replicates per 

concentration. Observations for immobility were made at 0, 24 and 48 hours. Physical measurements were 

made hourly for temperature, and at 0 and 48 hours for dissolved oxygen and pH in the control and highest 

test concentration. Temperature was 20 – 20.2 ˚C, dissolved oxygen 7.5 – 8.3 mg/l, pH 7.8 – 8.0 and water 

hardness 164 mg/l as calcium carbonate. All daphnids were immobilised in the highest test concentration 

after 48 hours; no other immobilisation was observed. The 48-hour NOEC based on immobility was 

reported as 1.5 mg/l. In the OECD SIDS assessment of vinyl neodecanoate, this study was scored 1 (valid 

without restriction) on the Klimisch scale. 

In a semi-static study with the marine copepod Acartia tonsa, a 48-hour EC50 range of 0.06 – 1.3 mg/l was 

reported based on measured concentrations (Girling, 1991). Four test concentrations were prepared by 

dilution of a 10 mg/l stock solution, in which the test substance was added directly to test media. The 

nominal concentrations in the test were 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1 and 10 mg/l. Test media were renewed to 80% each 

day. Analytical monitoring was carried out on fresh and old media each day. Measured concentrations 


were determined as 0,

controls were tested. Observations were made at test start, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Physical measurements 

of pH and temperature were made at least at test start and end. The test temperature was 21.4 – 24.1 ˚C 

and pH 9.1 – 9.7. Test vessels were sealed to minimise volatilisation of the test material, and so excess 

sodium bicarbonate was added as a carbon dioxide source for the algae. Measured test concentrations 

were 0, 4.8 mg/l. The NOEC for both growth rate and biomass 

was 0.42 mg/l. 

The test temperature varied by more than the recommended limit in the guideline. The additional sodium 

bicarbonate added as the test was conducted in sealed vessels accounted for the higher pH of test 

solutions, according to the authors. Limited information are available on the chemistry and quality of culture 

medium, and both the initial cell concentration and light intensity were about half that recommended in the 

guideline. These shortcomings were thought not to have affected the growth of the algae in the study, and 

the test was deemed valid in the OECD SIDS assessment. 

4.1.4 Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) 

The measured log Kow value of vinyl neodecanoate is within the applicability domain of most QSAR 

models. The structure and functional groups present (branched alkyl chain, vinyl ester functional groups) 

are not unusual moieties and so may be represented in the training sets of many QSAR models commonly 

used. 

The EU TGD contains a section on the use of QSAR in risk assessment (Part III, chapter 4). The equations 

developed by Verhaar et al (1995) and by van Leeuwen et al (1992) are presented for non-polar narcosis 

and polar narcosis modes of action for acute ecotoxicity. For each derived equation, the chapter in the EU 

TGD gives details of the number of substances in the training set and their precision (r 2 (correlation 

coefficient) values, standard error). The table below shows the results for vinyl neodecanoate according to 

the equations for both modes of action (polar narcosis is relevant for esters). The domain for both the 

models is a log Kow between 1 and 6, and a variety of structures (see Verhaar et al 1995). 

Table 4.1 QSAR acute toxicity predictions for Vinyl Neodecanoate according to EU 

TGD 

Mode of action Organism Duration, 

Endpoint 

Equation Result (µmol/l) Result (mg/l) 

c 

Non-polar 

narcosis 

Fish 96 hour, LC50 Log LC50 = -0.85 

logKow – 1.39 

(baseline 

toxicity) 

a 

2.79 0.55 

Fish 28 – 32 day, Log NOEC = -0.90 

NOEC (ELS test) logKow – 2.30 a 

0.19 0.038 

Daphnia 48 hour, EC50 Log EC50 = -0.95 

logKow – 1.32 a 

1.06 0.21 

Daphnia 16 day, NOEC 

(growth or 

reproduction) 

Log NOEC = -1.05 


0.1 0.02 

Algae 72 hour, EC50 Log EC50 = -1.00 

logKow – 1.23 b 

0.74 0.147 

Polar narcosis 

(excess toxicity 

Fish 96 hour, LC50 Log LC50 = -0.73 

logKow – 2.16 

to baseline) 

a 

1.83 0.36 

Daphnia 48 hour, EC50 Log EC50 = -0.56 


2.92 0.58 

a 

Verhaar et al (1995) 

b 

van Leeuwan et al (1992) 

c 

calculated with the molecular mass of 198.3 g/mol. 

Draft 

The results returned for acute toxicity to fish and daphnia for both types of prediction are in reasonably 

close agreement with the measured data for vinyl neodecanoate (within a factor of two for acute fish; 

daphnia result within a factor of 3 (polar narcosis) or 9 (non-polar narcosis)). The predictions for algae 

however are very conservative (measured EC50 was >4.8 mg/l). 


The EPISUITE software (v3.20) developed by the Syracuse Research Corporation and US Environment 

Protection Agency was used to screen vinyl neodecanoate for acute toxicity through use of the ECOSAR 

(v.) program which is incorporated in the software. The measured values shown in table 4.1 were used as 

inputs for the run. 

Table 4.1 EPISUITE Inputs for Vinyl Neodecanoate 

SMILES code C=COC(=O)C(C)(CCC)CCCC 

Water Solubility 5.9 mg/l 

Vapour pressure 0.29 mmHg (38.6 Pa) 

Log Kow 4.9 

Boiling point 212 

Melting point 7.2 

The KOWWIN (v1.67) program predicted a log Kow value for the structure of 4.55. The program calculates 

log Kow based on the addition of coefficients for each type of fragment identified in the molecule. These 

coefficients are multiplied by the number of times each fragment is represented in the molecule. For 

example, the coefficient for the methyl group is 0.5473, and there are three methyl groups in the molecule, 

so 0.5473 x 3 = 1.6419 (the contribution from the three methyl groups present). The other identified 

fragments are five methylene carbons, one (terminal) alkenyl carbon, one alkene carbon, an ester and a 

tertiary carbon. The estimated log Kow value is in good agreement with the measured value, which is 

representative of the commercial material with varying alkyl branching patterns not considered in the 

KOWWIN estimate. 

ECOSAR (v0.99h) estimates acute toxicity from log Kow values and (predetermined) classes of molecule 

type. Regression equations based on the Konemann equation 7 have been formulated for each chemical 

class based on measured log Kow and toxicity data (the training set). The log Kow for the chemical being 

investigated can be inputted into the log Kow term in the equation in order to estimate the chemical’s 

toxicity. The resulting estimated value is corrected for the molecular weight of the compound. 

For vinyl neodecanoate the program includes a prediction for the “neutral organic SAR (baseline toxicity)” 

then modifies this with the classes it recognizes in the molecule. The program estimates acute toxicity 

based on the regression equation for the chemical class “esters” for the inputted molecule; it should be 

noted that a class exactly describing the vinyl ester arrangement in vinyl neodecanoate is not available, 

and that the vinyl group may be important for the substance’s toxicity. The results are shown in table 4.2 

and further details, including the regression equations for each organism, can be found in Annex II. 

64 

Draft 

Table 4.2 Results of ECOSAR prediction for aquatic toxicity of vinyl neodecanoate 

ECOSAR Class Organism Duration Endpoint Result mg/l (ppm) 

Neutral Organic 

SAR (baseline 

toxicity) 

Fish 14-day LC50 0.793 

Esters Fish 96 hour LC50 0.843 

Esters Daphid 48 hour LC50 0.362 

Esters Green Algae 96 hour EC50 0.075 

Esters Green Algae - ChV 0.061 

Esters Fish - ChV 0.046 

The applicability domain of the model states that for fish and daphnid acute toxicity the log Kow cutoff is 

5.0; for green algal EC50 toxicity the log Kow cutoff is 6.4; and for chronic toxicity the log Kow cutoff is 8.0. 

Vinyl Neodecanoate would appear to fall within the applicability domain of the model. 

The results returned for acute toxicity to fish and daphnia are in reasonably close agreement with the 

measured data for vinyl neodecanoate (almost exactly the same result for acute fish; daphnia result within 

a factor of 5). The predictions for algae however are very conservative (measured EC50 was >4.8 mg/l). 

7 The Konemann equation was developed using several different chemical types, including 

chlorobenzenes, -toluenes and –alkanes and ethers and ketones using 14-day toxicity test data on the 

guppy (Konemann, 1981). The Konemann equation is Log10 (1/LC50) = 0.871 log Kow - 4.87, 

where LC50 in units of µmol/L. 


4.1.5 Overall Summary of standard endpoint toxicity data 

Toxicity data on vinyl neodecanoate is limited to acute aquatic studies. The substance shows high acute 

toxicity to fish (96-hour LC50 < 1mg/l), moderate to high acute toxicity to Daphnia magna (48-hour EC50 1.8 

mg/l) and low toxicity to algae (EC50 >4.8 mg/l based on growth rate; NOEC 0.42 mg/l). 

Additionally high acute toxicity to the marine copepod Acartia tonsa (48-hour EC50 0.3 mg/l) has been 

demonstrated. 

No long term tests on vinyl neodecanoate are available. 

Table 4.3 below summarises the available acute toxicity data. 

Table 4.3 Acute Aquatic toxicity data for vinyl neodecanoate 

Species Rainbow 

trout 

Endpoint 96 hr 

mortality 

Concentrations 

(mg/l) 

Nominal/ 

measured 

Results 

(mg/l) 

Fish Aquatic Invertebrates Algae 

0, 0.32, 

0.59, 1.2, 

and 4.3 

Daphnia 

magna 

48 hr 

immobility 

0, 0.1, 0.24, 

0.65, 1.5, and 

3.3 

Acartia tonsa Acartia tonsa P. subcapitata 

48 hr 

immobility 

0,0.01, 0.1, 1, 

and 10 

Draft 

48 hr immobility 72 hr growth 

inhibition 

0, 0.02, 0.05, 

0.11, 0.28, 0.68, 

1.3, and 3.0 

0, 0.03, 0.05, 

011, 0.26, 0.66, 

1.9, and 3.8 

Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured 

LC50 = 

0.84 

NOEC = 

0.59 

Reference Eadsforth 

et al., 

2000 

4.1.6 Endocrine disruption 

EC50 = 1.8 

NOEC = 1.5 

Eadsforth et 

al., 2000 

EC50 = 0.06 – 

1.3 

(calculated) 

EC50 = 0.30 

NOEC = 0.11 

Girling, 1991 Worden et al., 

2001 

ErC50 > 4.8 

EbC50 = 3.4 

NOEC = 0.42 

Eadsforth et al., 

2000 

Tests on the effect of vinyl neodecanoate on the endocrine system of organisms are not available. 

4.1.7 Toxicity to Microorganisms 

A microbial growth inhibition test of vinyl neodecanoate was conducted on a pure culture of Pseudomonas 

fluorescens. Minimal details of the study are available, and so it is not possible to judge its validity. The 

duration of the study is not stated. Vinyl neodecanoate was emulsified in a detergent solution to give a 

stock concentration of 0.602 g/250 ml, from which dilutions were made to give final test concentrations of 

0, 1, 3.2, 10, 3.2, and 100 mg/L. Potassium dichromate was used as a control inhibitor (IC50 = 2.65 mg/L). 

No inhibition was observed at any of the tested concentrations and so the IC50 for vinyl neodecanoate was 

concluded to be in excess of 100 mg/L (Stone and Atkinson, 1982). The REACH CSR lists a study 

according to OECD 209 in which no effects were observed, but no further details are available. 

4.1.8 Toxicity to sediment organisms 

No data are available on vinyl neodecanoate’s toxicity to sediment-dwelling organisms. 


4.1.9 Derivation of PNEC for the Aquatic Compartment 

4.1.9.1 PNEC for surface water 

No long term test results are available for vinyl neodecanoate aquatic toxicity. Acute test data on three 

trophic levels are available, giving a lowest (96 hour) LC50 value of 0.84 mg/l (OECD 203; Rainbow Trout). 

Applying an assessment factor of 1000 to this value gives: 

freshwater PNECwater = 0.84 µg/l 

This value will be used in the risk assessment for the aquatic freshwater compartment. 

4.1.9.2 PNEC for sediment 

No toxicity data are available for sediment-dwelling organisms. Therefore the equilibrium partitioning 

approach is used to derive a PNEC for freshwater sediment: 

PNECsed = Ksusp-water × PNECwater × 1000 eqn 4.1.9.2 

Where Ksusp-water 

66 

RHOsusp 

= suspended matter – water partition coefficient 

= 294 m 3 /m 3 

RHOsusp = bulk density of wet suspended matter = 1,150 kg/m 3 

Using this equation, the PNEC for freshwater sediment is derived as follows: 

PNECsed = 0.215 mg/kg wet wt. 

This formula only considers uptake via the water phase. For substances with a high log Kow or high affinity 

for sediment, the calculation may lead to an underestimation of exposure as organisms may additional be 

exposed to the substance through ingestion of sediment and direct contact with sediment. The EU TGD 

suggests that for substances with a log Kow >5 an additional assessment factor of 10 should be applied to 

sediment PEC/PNEC ratios. Vinyl neodecanoate has a log Kow of 4.9, and so strictly is just excluded from 

this additional safety factor. However the effect of using the additional assessment factor is explored in 

Annex IV, as the log Kow value is so close to the cut-off. 

Draft 

4.1.9.3 PNEC for WWTP 

In a non-standard toxicity test on the microorganism Pseudomonas fluorescens the IC50 was greater than 

100 mg/l. However the study was assigned a Klimisch code of 4, unassignable, in the OECD HPV 

assessment as minimal experimental detail was given, including the duration of the exposure. Uncertainty 

also arises from the possible confounding effects of the Dobane PT emulsifier used to prepare the stock 

solution. Therefore the result of this study is not used to derive a PNEC for waste water treatment plants. 

In the absence of valid data, no PNECwwtp is derived. 

4.1.9.4 PNECs for the Marine Environment 

Two studies for the same marine invertebrate, Acartia tonsa, are available for vinyl neodecanoate. The 

result from the Worden et al, 2001 study is preferred for risk assessment purposes, for the reasons 

discussed in section 4.1.2 above. This study gave a 48 hour EC50 of 0.3 mg/l, showing Acartia tonsa to be 

the most sensitive tested species in the dataset. Although this value is a factor of 6 lower than the result 

obtained with the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna, it cannot be concluded that all marine 

organisms will be more sensitive to vinyl neodecanoate than those of the freshwater environment. When 

extrapolating freshwater data to the marine environment, the EU TGD recommends using assessment 

factors for PNEC derivation a factor of ten higher than those used for the equivalent derivation in the 

freshwater compartment to account for the uncertainties in this extrapolation. This approach is used here, 

and an assessment factor of 10,000 is applied to the Acartia tonsa result to give: 

PNECmarine water = 0.03 µg/l 


No data are available for marine sediment-dwelling organisms. The PNEC for marine sediment can be 

estimated using equilibrium partitioning. This approach gives: 

PNECmarine sediment = 7.67 µg/kg wet wt. 

As for freshwater sediment, the EU TGD recommends that PEC/PNEC ratios are increased by a factor of 

10 for substances with a log Kow >5. As the log Kow for vinyl neodecanoate is 4.9, the effect of increasing 

PEC/PNEC ratios by this factor is explored in Annex IV. 

4.2 Terrestrial Compartment 

4.2.1 Terrestrial toxicity data 

No studies on terrestrial organisms are available for vinyl neodecanoate. 

4.2.2 PNEC for the Soil Compartment 

Similar to the freshwater sediment PNEC, equilibrium partitioning can be used to calculated a provisional 

PNEC for soil. The equation to do this is similar to that for sediment: 

PNECsoil = Ksoil-water × PNECwater × 1000 eqn 4.2.2 

RHOsoil 

= soil – water partition coefficient 

= 352 m 3 /m 3 

RHOsoil = bulk density of wet soil = 1,700 kg/m 3 

Where Ksoil-water 

Using this equation, the PNEC for soil is derived as follows: 

PNECsed = 0.174 mg/kg wet wt. 

As is the case with the sediment PNECs, this value assumes that exposure to the substance is entirely 

through soil pore water. Ingestion of soil-bound substance and contact with the substance bound to soil 

may in reality result in higher exposures for strongly adsorbing substances. As the substance’s log Kow is 

4.9 and the cut-off log Kow for the use of an additional factor of ten on the PEC/PNEC ratio is 5, the effect 

of increasing the PEC/PNEC ratios by this additional factor is explored in Annex IV. 

4.3 Atmosphere 

Draft 

4.3.1 Toxicity data relevant to the atmospheric compartment 

No data are available for effects on the atmosphere from the substance. 

4.3.2 PNEC for the atmospheric compartment 

A PNEC for the atmosphere cannot be derived in the absence of data. Given the substance’s physicochemical 

properties (including a reasonably high vapour pressure of 38.6 Pa at 25 ºC), processing of the 

chemical may result in releases to the atmosphere in cases where vent flaring is not in operation. In 

addition, the SimpleTreat model predicts that 51.5% of the substance would partition to the air from a 

waste water treatment plant. Such releases result in the regional and local predicted environmental 

concentrations in air. Although the predicted half-life for the reaction with hydroxyl radicals in the air is 

short (about 3.9 hours; see section 3.2.1), potential effects of the substance in the atmospheric 

compartment may require further scrutiny given the predicted concentrations in air. A large part of this 

would involve better exposure information, especially on the level of releases from processing. 


4.4 Non-compartment specific effects relevant for the food 

chain (secondary poisoning) 

4.4.1 Environmentally relevant studies 

The dietary fish bioaccumulation study discussed in section 3.2.9.3 above gave a growth- and lipidcorrected 

kinetic BMF of 0.137 and an estimated BCF of 1100 – 1670 (1670 lipid normalised to 5% lipid) 

l/kg. Although the study does not require steady state to be reached in the uptake phase (and indeed given 

the nature of the exposure conditions this is not likely in practice), a steady state BMF was estimated as 

0.115. 

As the study design and measurements directly result in a kinetic BMF value, this is used for fish in the risk 

assessment. The estimate BCF of 1670 l/kg is also used for fish in the risk assessment. 

4.4.2 Mammalian Effects 

One reproductive toxicity study conducted according to OECD guideline 422 is available for vinyl 

neodecanoate (Kuhn, 2005). The study was conducted over 28 days in which the substance was 

administered orally to rats. The following description is taken from the OECD HPV assessment (OECD, 

2006): 

Four groups (0, 100, 250, and 1000 mg/kg bw per day) of 20 Sprague-Dawley rats (10 males + 10 

females) each, received vinyl neodecanoate diluted in corn oil (vehicle) by gavage. The animals from the 

3 treatment groups were dosed daily for 14 days, after which each male from each group was paired with a 

female from the same group for mating for a maximum period of 14 days. Once mating was confirmed the 

animals were returned to their individual cages and continued to be dosed. The exposure was extended 

for pregnant females to include gestation and day 4 of lactation. At birth, each litter was examined and the 

pups were sexed. The pups were sexed again and weighed on day 1 and on lactation day 4. 

Effects on Fertility 

Successful conception was evident by gains in body weight, which occurred in 70% of the control (fed 

vehicle) females, and in 70, 80 and 80% of the low, middle and high dose groups, respectively. There was 

little difference in conception rates, number of pups delivered or incidence of stillborn pups among all 

groups. The results indicated that vinyl neodecanoate did not have a significant effect on fertility of rats 

under the tested experimental conditions. 

68 

Draft 

Developmental Toxicity 

Following the method described above, developmental parameters were noted. At birth, each litter was 

examined for number and sex of pups, stillbirths, live births, runts (pups significantly smaller than controls), 

presence of gross abnormalities, and nursing behavior. The pups were sexed again and weighed on day 1 

and on lactation day 4. 

One female from the 1000 mg/kg bw per day lost her litter at parturition or within the first day without clear 

evidence or reason for the loss. There were no abnormal pups in any of the control and treated groups. 

There were, however, 4 presumed (*) dead pups from the 1000 mg/kg bw group between day 0 and day 1 

(* lost litter, no explanations from test lab). The mean weights of individual pups at day 1 after parturition in 

the control and treatment groups were not significantly different and there was no dose trend in pup 

weights. All pups in all litters in control and the three treatment groups survived from day 1 through day 4. 

Mean pup weight gains were slightly greater (but not statistically significant) in the control group, but mean 

pup body weight gains in the three treatment groups were comparable with no dose related trend. Daily 

observation of litters did not reveal any gross abnormalities. 

Conclusion 

The OECD 422 test results indicate that vinyl neodecanoate is not toxic to reproductive functions in 

mammals. Both the maternal NOAEL and off-spring NOAEL can be considered to be 1000 mg/kg bw per 

day. 

This NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg body weight is used in the secondary poisoning scenario to derive a PNECoral. 

Following EU TGD methodology, a conversion factor of 20 (as the test was run on adult animals older than 

6 weeks) is applied to the NOAEL to give a NOEC (no observed effect concentration) of 20,000 mg/kg. 


Applying an assessment factor of 30 to this value gives a PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and 

mammals of 666.67 mg/kg. The assessment factor was chosen as the endpoint in the test is a chronic one. 

4.5 Classification 

4.5.1 Current Classification 

Vinyl neodecanoate is currently not classified according to Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC. Therefore suppliers 

of the substance are required to self-classify the substance. 

4.5.2 Proposal for the Environment 

According to the lowest E(L)C50 obtained from the acute data (48 hour Acartia tonsa toxicity, EC50 0.3 

mg/l), lack of ready biodegradability and a log Kow >4, the following classification may need to be applied 

to the substance for the environment according to Directive 67/548/EEC: 

N; R50/53; S60/61 

and according to Regulation EC 1272/2008: 

Aquatic acute 1 H400 

Aquatic chronic 1 H410 

Based on the lowest acute toxicity result falling within the range 0.1 to 1 mg/l, the M-factor is 1. 

Draft 


5 Risk Characterisation 

The PECs and PNECs derived in sections 3.3 and 4, respectively, are used to derive PEC/PNEC ratios 

(also called risk characterisation ratios). A ratio > 1 implies there is a potential risk. 

For certain compartments, “screening” or “indicative” PNECs have been derived as no measured data exist 

for organisms which dwell in that compartment (e.g. terrestrial and sediment compartments). These values 

should be conservative, such that if no risk is identified it can be assumed that this result is unequivocal, 

whereas if a risk is indicated it may be that in reality it is a “false positive”. In these latter instances more 

information should ideally be collected to refine the PEC/PNEC ration - effects data to generate a more 

accurate PNEC, or more information on exposure to refine the PEC. 

5.1 Aquatic Compartment 

5.1.1 PEC/PNEC ratios for surface water 

An aquatic PNEC of 0.84 µg/l has been derived for surface water. The PEC/PNEC ratios for the lifecycle 

steps for surface water are shown in table 5.1. 

Table 5.1: PEC/PNEC ratios for surface water (and sediment) 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios for surface water 

Production - 0.053 a 

Processing Large scale processors 75.4 

Small/medium scale processors 4.96 



70 

Private use 0.056 a 

Use in adhesives Formulation 17.2 





Industrial use 0.053 a 


products 

a 


a 

PEC/PNEC ratios for these scenarios approach those at the regional level, i.e. local releases are almost 

zero. 

Draft 

Four scenarios presented above indicate a risk for surface water organisms – large scale processors and 

small/medium scale processors who copolymerise vinyl neodecanoate, the formulation of copolymer 

containing residual quantities of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate for coatings and for adhesives. 

5.1.2 PEC/PNEC ratios for waste water treatment plant (WWTP) 

microorganisms 

The highest predicted concentration in WWTP influent is 6.71 mg/l (as a result of the processing of the 

substance into polymer at large sites). No PNEC for WWTP microorganisms has been derived in this 

evaluation, because no valid data were available. However the one study of unassignable quality resulted 

in no observed inhibitory effects up to a concentration of 100mg/l, which is greatly in excess of the 

concentrations predicted to be entering WWTPs. Therefore it is unlikely that there is cause for concern for 

this compartment. 

5.1.3 PEC/PNEC ratios for freshwater sediment 

No toxicity studies in sediment-dwelling organisms are available, so the equilibrium partitioning approach 

has been used to derive a PNEC for freshwater sediment. This PNECsed is 0.215 mg/kg wet wt. 


The PEC/PNEC ratios are the same as for surface water (although the PNEC is higher the PECs are also 

higher). Four scenarios presented above indicate a potential risk for surface water organisms – large scale 

processors and small/medium scale processors who copolymerise vinyl neodecanoate, the formulation of 

copolymer containing residual quantities of unreacted vinyl neodecanoate for use in coatings and in 

adhesives. The concentrations of vinyl neodecanoate predicted to occur in sediment are high. This 

estimation, in the context of sediment-dwelling organism toxicity, is considered further in section 5.1.4 

5.1.4 Uncertainties and Possible Refinements 

For the surface water risk characterisation, the greatest area of uncertainty is in the predicted 

environmental concentrations. At present the total tonnage of vinyl neodecanoate is represented as being 

reacted in a processing (polymerisation) step at two types of site; 80% at large scale processors and 20% 

at small/medium scale processors. This modelled step has been based on the situation for vinyl acetate, 

as documented in the EU ESR risk assessment. Emissions are currently based on realistic worst case 

assumptions, in accordance with the methodology of the EU TGD. In particular, a measured value for 

Henry’s Law constant and Koc might help to give more certainty to the predictions of partitioning behaviour 

of the substance in the WWTP and in surface waters. Information on the number and type of processors 

using vinyl neodecanoate to produce co-polymers would be useful, as would information on the scale, 

technical processes and releases of unreacted starting materials in use. As the major indicative risks are 

associated with this step, this information would be very useful. A small risk is identified for formulation of 

co-polymer (containing unreacted vinyl neodecanoate) into paint. Information on actual emissions from this 

process would help to elucidate whether this risk really exists. 

There is uncertainty over the allocation of tonnages to use patterns and quantities for downstream 

processes to formulate the resultant latex into paints and adhesives. This mainly applies to the “adhesive” 

use, which is thought to include seemingly disparate uses in cement, decorative plasters and fillers, and to 

some minor extent personal care products. However none of these scenarios result in a risk for surface 

water, and so are not really that important in the current evaluation. 

The PNEC for surface water is based on an acute fish study. Given the sensitivity of a marine invertebrate 

species and the relatively high sensitivity of a freshwater invertebrate species in acute studies, a long term 

study in a freshwater invertebrate might help to refine the PNEC for freshwater in the first instance. An 

early life stage fish test could also be considered if required after the assessment has been refined with the 

invertebrate data. However testing, if required, should not be conducted until after the evaluation has been 

refined with the above exposure information. 

Draft 

For freshwater sediment the risk characterisation ratios mirror those of freshwater. The uncertainty over 

the predicted environmental concentrations resulting from processing as discussed above also holds. 

However in addition there are no measured effects data for sediment-dwelling organisms. If, after the 

evaluation has been refined with more exposure information (and the PNEC for sediment has been refined 

as a result of any chronic aquatic testing) as stated above, risks are still identified for sediment, the 

conductance of a study in a sediment dwelling species could be considered (several OECD test guidelines 

exist for freshwater species: OECD TG 218, Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using Spiked Sediment; 

OECD TG 225, Sediment-water Lumbriculus toxicity test using spiked sediment). (Annex IV looks at the 

effect that adding an additional assessment factor of 10 on the PNEC for this compartment have on the 

outcome of the evaluation.) 

5.1.5 Conclusions for the Aquatic compartment 

Risks identified for surface water and freshwater sediment are: 

i) Processing – Large Scale Processors 

ii) Processing – Small/medium scale processors 

iii) Use in coatings (emulsion paints) – formulation 

iv) Use in adhesives – formulation 

Further information to refine the fate and behaviour modelling of the substance (Henry’s law constant and 

adsorption/desorption coefficient) and specific exposure information would help to refine the PECs for 

these scenarios in the first instance. Should risks still remain, then a long-term test in an aquatic 

invertebrate species may help to refine the PNEC. An early life stage fish test could also be considered if 

risks still remain after the data from the invertebrate test have been used to refine the evaluation. If aquatic 

testing was to be conducted, careful consideration of the test system would be needed to ensure that 


volatile losses of the test substance during the study did not invalidate the result. In the case of sediment, if 

potential risks were still identified after refinement with exposure data and the long-term aquatic testing, a 

toxicity test in a sediment-dwelling organism would help to refine the PNEC for freshwater sediment. 

5.2 Terrestrial Compartment 

5.2.1 PEC/PNEC ratios 

No toxicity studies in terrestrial organisms are available, so the equilibrium partitioning approach has been 

used to derive a PNEC for the terrestrial compartment. This PNECsoil is 0.174 mg/kg wet wt. Table 5.2 

shows the PEC/PNEC ratios derived for the lifecycle steps of vinyl neodecanoate. 

Table 5.2: PEC/PNEC ratios for soil 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios for soil 

Production One site only 0.406 


Small/med scale processors 63.6 



72 


Use in adhesives Formulation 222 






Use in personal care Formulation 

-3 a 

1.79 x 10 

products 

Private use 

-3 a 

1.08 x 10 

a 


zero. 

Draft 

Risks are identified for the same four scenarios as for surface water and sediment. 

5.2.2 Uncertainties and refinements 

As for surface water and sediment, information to help model the substance’s partitioning behaviour in the 

WWTP (Henry’s law constant, Koc) and information specific to processing of the substance and the 

formulation of the resulting latex into emulsion paints and adhesives would help to refine the PECs for the 

terrestrial compartment in the scenarios for which risks are indicated. No information on toxicity in 

terrestrial species exists. As for freshwater sediment, equilibrium partitioning is used to derive a PNEC for 

the terrestrial environment. Should risks remain after refinement of the PECs with exposure information 

and any chronic aquatic testing (refinement of the PNEC using equilibrium partitioning), information on 

toxicity in a soil-dwelling species would be useful to refine the terrestrial PNEC. A test according to OECD 

TG 222 (earthworm reproduction test) could be considered (a chronic study is preferred given the 

substance’s indicated persistence and moderate bioaccumulation potential). 

5.2.3 Conclusions for the terrestrial compartment 

The risks identified for soil are uncertain, in that no actual measured toxicity data in a soil-dwelling species 

are available and the PECs from which the risks are derived are based on default reasonable worst case 

emissions in the large part, and there is uncertainty in the environmental behaviour modelling. The results 

do, however, indicate that there is the possibility of concern for these four scenarios, and that further 

information is needed to elucidate these risks. As for the freshwater compartment, more information on 

behaviour in the WWTP and on actual releases should be sought for the scenarios which result in a 

potential risk before consideration is given to any testing. 


5.3 Atmospheric Compartment 

5.3.1 Conclusions for the atmospheric compartment 

Vinyl neodecanoate has a fairly high vapour pressure and Henry’s Law constant, meaning that emissions 

to air from the substance’s processing and by volatilisation from surface waters may be appreciable. 

However no information exists on biotic or abiotic effects in the atmosphere. Predictions of reaction with 

hydroxyl radicals indicate that the substance is likely to be degraded by this route fairly rapidly, should the 

conditions allow. Further information on the actual releases to the atmosphere from processing of the 

substance are needed, including information on any mitigating factors in place (e.g. flaring of vent gas, 

etc.). 

5.4 Non-compartment specific effects relevant for the food 

chain (secondary poisoning) 


A PNECoral for secondary poisoning has been derived from an oral NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/d from a 90-day 

repeat dose study in the rat. Using a default conversion factor of 10, a NOEC of 1 x 10 4 mg/kg was 

derived. A default TGD assessment factor of 300 gave a PNECoral of 33.3 mg/kg. Estimated PEC/PNEC 

ratios for the fish food chain and for the earthworm food chain are shown in table 5.3. 

Table 5.3: PEC/PNEC ratios for secondary poisoning 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios 

for fish food chain 

Production One site only 2.24 x 10 -3 7.4 x 10 -3 


Small/med scale processors 0.087 0.688 

Draft 

PEC/PNEC ratios 

for earthworm food 

chain 



Private use 2.29 x 10 -3 3.36 x 10 -3 


Private use 2.25 x 10 -3 3.04 x 10 -3 



Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 3.14 x 10 -3 0.0102 

Use in personal care 

products 


Formulation 2.24 x 10 -3 2.93 x 10 -3 

Private use 2.24 x 10 -3 2.92 x 10 -3 

Risks are identified for fish-eating predators and earthworm eating animals from large-scale processing of 

the substance. A risk for earthworm eating animals is indicated for formulation of adhesives. For the fish 

food chain the risk ratio is low (near 1), indicating the uncertainty in this prediction. The ratios for the 

earthworm food chain are higher, and probably warrant further exploration. 


In the secondary poisoning assessment, an extra layer of potential uncertainty is introduced – predicted 

concentrations in surface water and in soil, themselves subject to uncertainty, are taken together with 

bioconcentration factors to give concentrations in prey organisms. In the case of fish, a BCF estimated 

from measured data in a fish dietary biomagnification study that agrees reasonably well with QSARpredicted 

data is used. The main uncertainty therefore lies with the surface water concentrations to which 

fish are exposed, and so the further work indicated in section 5.1.4 is most relevant here too. 

There are no measured data related to uptake for earthworms. A number of publications have highlighted 

that the TGD methodology often overestimates uptake for higher log Kow substances in earthworms (see 

for example Brookes and Crookes, 1999), so the PEC/PNEC ratios given here are likely to be 


overestimates for this reason. Again, the further work identified above looking at releases and partitioning 

behaviour in a WWTP of the substance will be helpful in refining the RCRs for earthworm secondary 

poisoning. 

5.4.3 Conclusions for predators 

The secondary poisoning risks for the fish and earthworm food chains are in general low. Two scenarios 

result in a potential risk Further information to refine the predicted releases and the substance’s behaviour 

in WWTP, as detailed in sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 above, would help to refine the PEC/PNEC ratios. 

5.5 Marine compartment 


The PNEC for marine waters is derived from a test involving the most sensitive organism tested with vinyl 

neodecanoate. It is PNECmarine water = 0.03 µg/l. Equilibrium partitioning is used to derive a PNEC for marine 

sediment from this result: PNECmarine sediment = 7.67 µg/kg wet wt. Comparing the marine PECs with these 

PNECs gives the risk characterisation ratios listed in table 5.4. PEC/PNEC ratios for marine secondary 

poisoning are also presented. 

Table 5.4: PEC/PNEC ratios for marine waters, sediment and secondary poisoning 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC PEC/PNEC PEC/PNEC ratios for 

ratios for ratios for marine top predators 

marine water marine 

and sediment predators 

Production - 0.14 a 2.24 x 10 -4 a -4 a 

2.11 x 10 


processors 

2.23 x 10 3 1.38 0.275 


processors 

145 0.0898 0.018 

Use in coatings – Formulation 94.4 0.058 0.012 


Private use 0.233 2.68 x 10 -4 2.2 x 10 -4 

Use in adhesives Formulation 508 0.314 0.063 

Private use 0.164 2.25 x 10 -4 a -4 a 

2.13 x 10 

Use in cements Formulation 1.47 1.03 x 10 -3 3.75 x 10 -4 

Industrial use 0.723 2.7 x 10 -4 2.23 x 10 -4 

Use in plasters/fillers Formulation 1.69 1.17 x 10 -3 4 x 10 -4 

Industrial use 0.723 2.7 x 10 -4 2.23 x 10 -4 


products 

a 2.12 x 10 -4 a -4 a 

2.11 x 10 

Private use 0.14 a 2.11 x 10 -4 a -4 a 

2.11 x 10 

a 


zero. 

74 

Draft 

Several risks, some of them very high, are indicated for the marine compartment. These are discussed 

further below. 


Some of the indicated risks for marine water and sediment are very high. The PNECs for marine waters 

and sediment are low, based on a sensitive marine species and using a high assessment factor (10,000) in 

accordance with the EU TGD. For the marine water assessment, more information on the location and 

releases of sites processing the substance and sites formulating the co-polymer latex containing unreacted 

vinyl neodecanoate is required. The marine assessment assumes that waste water from industrial sites 

enters the marine environment with minimal or no pre-treatment, in contrast to the freshwater assessment. 

If any sites for which risks are identified are located in coastal regions then information on the quantities of 

the substance in waste water and their practices for disposing of it would be very useful, especially in the 

case of processors who polymerise the substance into latex and those that formulate the latex into paints. 

Given the conservative approach taken, it is likely that the risks indicated for the other formulation steps 

(cements and plasters) are “false positives”. (It should be noted that refinement of the emissions for 


freshwater will have an impact on the marine assessment as it is currently derived.) A single risk for marine 

predators is identified for the fish food chain. Given this result’s closeness to 1, it is likely to be a “false 

positive” for the reasons given above. 

The PNEC for the marine environment is derived from the acute Acartia tonsa toxicity data. In the first 

instance, if risks are still identified after more exposure information is used to refine the assessment, any 

freshwater aquatic chronic tests should be used to refine the marine PNEC (reduction of the assessment 

factor). If risks still remain, a long term study in Acartia tonsa would add greater certainty to the derivation 

of the marine water PNEC (and allow use of a lower assessment factor). Should risks still remain, a 

chronic study in another marine invertebrate species could be considered. For sediment, the refinements 

for the marine water PNEC would refine the sediment PNEC given that it is derived from equilibrium 

partitioning. As for surface water and sediment, a more reliable value of Koc would help with partition 

modelling. If a freshwater sediment test was conducted, this information would prove useful to compare the 

marine sediment PNEC against. 

Note that a chronic study in Acartia tonsa would also allow the substance to be assessed against the EU 

PBT “T” criterion. 

5.5.3 Conclusions for the Marine Environment 

Further information on the location and potential releases would greatly help to refine the marine PECs, 

especially for sites that use the substance to produce polymer latex and those that formulate the latex into 

paints. Further information in Henry’s law constant and adsorption/desorption coefficient (Koc) would help 

to give greater certainty to the modeling of the substance in a WWTP, and so PECs in surface water, 

sediment and soil. Further freshwater aquatic testing could be used to refine both the marine water and 

sediment PNECs once the exposure aspect of the evaluation has been addressed, if risks are still 

identified. If greater certainty in the marine PNEC is required, a study similar in nature to the OECD 211 

test guideline (Daphnia magna reproduction test) in Acartia tonsa could be considered. Further, a chronic 

study in a second marine invertebrate could be considered if risks still remain. Results from the marine 

water refinement will inform the marine sediment PNEC. Any testing recommended in freshwater sediment 

dwelling organisms could be used to compare against the marine sediment PNEC. 

5.6 Assessment against PBT criteria 

5.6.1.1 Persistence 

Draft 

No measured data relating to degradation in the freshwater or marine environment are available for vinyl 

neodecanoate. Available laboratory studies conducted according to OECD test guidelines (301D and 

302C) show that the substance is neither readily nor inherently biodegradable. Although there are 

uncertainties associated with these tests (and especially the inherent test; see section 3.2.2.2), and QSAR 

predictions indicate that the substance should biodegrade rapidly, in the absence of further test data the 

“P” screening criteria are fulfilled. 

5.6.1.2 Bioaccumulation 

The measured octanol-water partition coefficient of vinyl neodecanoate suggested that the “B” screening 

criteria were met. A bioaccumulation study in fish following a protocol in which the substance was dosed 

via food was conducted. This study resulted in a biomagnification factor of 0.137. Using the depuration 

data to estimate a BCF involved estimating what the uptake rate constant would have been had the 

substance been tested via water exposure. According to the method of Sijm et al (1995), an estimated 

uptake rate constant resulted in a bioconcentration factor in the range of 1100 – 1670. Other methods are 

available to estimate uptake rate constants, some resulting in higher estimates of bioconcentration with 

BCFs >2000. However there is a great deal of uncertainty attached to this estimation approach. On 

balance, considering the food assimilation efficiency, depuration rate and half-life that were measured 

directly in the feeding study, it can be concluded that the substance is unlikely to meet the “B” (or “vB”) 

criteria. 


5.6.1.3 Toxicity 

No long term studies are available (the criterion used is a long term NOEC of

o Further test data to help with environmental fate and behaviour modeling, especially of the substance 

in waste water treatment plants: Henry’s Law and adsorption/desorption constants, Koc 

o Quantities used for the different types of processing (polymerization) 

o information on the number and type of processors 

o information on the location of processors (especially those in coastal regions) 

o information on the technical processes and releases 

o further information on levels of residual substance in polymers 

o information on releases to the atmosphere from processing 

o Quantities formulated into paints and adhesives 

o information on the number and type of formulators 

o information on the location of formulators (especially those in coastal regions) 

o information on the technical processes and releases during formulation 

o if use in cement composites does exist, quantities formulated and any information on releases 

If the evaluation still indicates risks after it is refined with the above information, further testing would be 

indicated to refine the PNECs for the affected compartments. Table 6.2 below lists the testing in the order 

that it would need to be carried out considering the way in which the evaluation has been derived. 

Table 6.2: possible testing requirements if risks still indicated after environmental 

behaviour modeling and exposure refinement 

Compartment with potential 

risk 

Strategy to refine PNEC 

Freshwater iii. long term study in invertebrate (OECD 211) – apply AF 100 to 

NOEC. 


iv. fish early life stage (OECD 210) – apply AF 50 to the lower 

NOEC. 

Freshwater sediment If risks still indicated after aquatic testing: 

ii. OECD TG 218, Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using 

Spiked Sediment; or OECD TG 225, Sediment-water 

Lumbriculus toxicity test using spiked sediment - use result for 

PNEC derivation. 

Soil If risks still indicated after aquatic testing: 

ii. OECD TG 222 (earthworm reproduction test) - use result for 

PNEC derivation. 

Marine water Use results from freshwater aquatic chronic testing if available - apply 

AF 1000 to NOEC. 


i. Long term study in Acartia tonsa, according to OECD 211 test 

guideline (Daphnia magna reproduction test) method - apply 

AF 500 to the lower NOEC. 


ii. long term study in a second invertebrate species – apply AF 

100 to the lowest NOEC. 

Marine sediment Follow refinement strategy for marine water. No internationally agreed 

marine sediment test available. Compare equilibrium partitioning 

PNEC against freshwater sediment PNEC, if available. 

Notes: AF = assessment factor 

Draft 

PBT assessment 

Further information on biodegradation in relation to the PBT assessment would be advantageous although 

not necessary as the substance is unlikely to meet the B criterion. In the context of OSPAR, a test more 

appropriate or modified for the substance would give a better indication of whether the P criterion are likely 

to be met. 

A chronic study in Acartia tonsa similar to the OECD 211 would allow direct comparison with EU PBT 

criteria. 


References & Bibliography 

Arcozzi, R., Ferrari, G., Gini, L., Pistolesi, G., “The influence of vinyl polymers on the characteristics of 

polymer-modified mortars”, ACI Special Publication 173, pp 163-186, 1997. 

Araujo, P.H.H, Sayer, C., Giudici, R., Poco, J.G.R., “techniques for reducing residual monomer content in 

polymers: a review”, Polymer engineering and Science, 42, 7, 1442 – 1468, 2002. 

Audier, M., 2007, AA-071238 VeoVa 10 Tank 311, dd. 12-01-2007, Analytical report SR-1130391.01.A02, 

SGS Nederland B.V., Spijkenisse, The Netherlands. Unpublished report. 

Brookes, D.N., Crookes, M. J., “Verification of bioaccumulation models for use in environmental standards. 

Part B: terrestrial models”, the Environment Agency of England and Wales, 1999. (ISBN 978-1-84432-756- 

0) 

Brookes, D.N., Crookes, M. J., “Environmental risk evaluation report: long-chain chlorinated paraffins”, the 

Environment Agency of England and Wales, 2009. (ISBN 978-1-84432-977-9) 

Brookes, D.N., Crookes, M. J., “Estimation of fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) from depuration data”, in 

preparation, 2010. 

Craft, M. L., Solz, J. A., “Commercial vinyl and acrylic fill materials”, Journal of the American Institute for 

Conservation, vol 37, no. 1, pp 23 – 34, 1998. 

de Vette, H., 2007, Density and water solubility of VeoVa 10. Report no. RAA 07-1238, Resolution 

Research Nederland B.V., Pernis, The Netherlands. Unpublished report. 

European Chemicals Bureau, Risk assessment of vinyl acetate (CAS# 108-05-4; EINECS-No. 203-545-4), 

conducted under the EU Existing Substances Regulation, final version 18.08.2008. 

European Commission, Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, 2003. 

Gomes C. E. M., Ferreira, O. P., “Analyses of microstructural properties of VA/VeoVA copolymer modified 

cement pastes”, Artigo Tecnico Cientifico, vol. 15, no.3, 2005. 

Hicks, S., “vinyl neodecanoate: dietary bioaccumulation study with rainbow trout, Oncorynchus mykiss”, 

ABC Study report no. 60655, 2007. 

Howarth, GA, Hayward, GR, “Water-borne resins”, OCCA Student Monograph No. 3, Oil and Colour 

Chemists’ Association, British Coatings Federation, 1996. 

OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Emission Scenario Documents No. 20, 

Emission Scenario Document On Adhesive Formulation, 2009a. 

OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series On Emission Scenario Documents No. 22, 

Emission Scenario Document On the Coatings Industry (Paints, Lacquers And Varnishes), 2009b. 

OECD SIDS assessment of neodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester, 2007. 

Ohm, R., Ed, Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, Thirteenth Edition. R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, 

CT., 1990. 

NICNAS, 2000 (National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, Australia. Available at 

http://www.nicnas.gov.au/publications/car/new/plc/plc0100fr/plc129fr.pdf) 

Skeist, I., Ed, Handbook of Adhesives, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc., 1977. 

Smith, M., 2007, Determination of vapour pressure and auto ignition temperature (liquids and gases). 

Report no. 2382/001. SafePharm Laboratories Ltd, Shardlow, UK. 

78 

Draft 

USEPA, 2000. EPIWIN (Estimation Program Interface for Windows) version 3.12, Office of Pollution 

Prevention Toxics (OPPTS) and Syracuse Research Corporation. 

VeoVa 10 Data Sheet (1988), Shell Resins Technical Manual. Unpublished report. 

Webb, J. D., 2001, VeoVa 10: Determination of octanol/water partition coefficient, Report no. OG-01- 

49002. Shell Global Solutions (UK), Cheshire Innovation Park, London. Unpublished report. 

Resolution Performance Products, British Coatings Federation (BCF) and European Resin Manufacturer 

Association, communication, “Vinyl Neodecanoate. Industry review: Information to the chemicals 

Stakeholder Forum”, 2002. 

Resolution Performance Products, Product Data Sheet VV 1.1 “VeoVa 10 Monomer”, October 2002a. 

Resolution Performance Products, Product Bulletin VV 0.1 “Characteristics and reactivity Parameters of 

VeoVa Monomers”, October 2002b. 

Resolution Performance Products, Product Bulletin VV 2.0 “General Principles of Emulsion Polymerisation 

with VeoVa Monomers”, October 2002c. 

Resolution Performance Products, Product Bulletin VV 0.2 “Applications and advantages of VeoVa 

Monomers”, October 2002d. 

Resolution Performance Products, Product Bulletin VV 2.4.3 “VeoVa/Acrylic Latices with reduced tackiness 

and improved dirt pick-up resistance”, July 2003. 

Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Product Bulletin “Core/Shell VeoVa, Acrylate Polymers for High Performance 

Coatings”, 2006a. 


Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Product Bulletin “VeoVa, Lattices for Solvent-free and Low-Odour Paints”, 

2006b. 

Sipailaite-Ramoskiene, V, Fataraite, E, Mickus, K.V., Mazeika, R, “The Adhesion, Mechanical Properties 

and water resistance of vinyl acetate copolymer based blends”, Materials Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp 1392 – 

1320, 2003. 

Science Information Services, “Vinyl neodecanoate in adhesives”, Environment Agency, 2008a. 

Science Information Services, “Vinyl neodecanoate in cement”, Environment Agency, 2008b. 

Science Information Services, “Vinyl neodecanoate in paints and coatings”, Environment Agency, 2008c. 

Science Information Services, “Vinyl neodecanoate in personal care products”, Environment Agency, 

2008d. 

Science Information Services, “Other uses for vinyl neodecanoate”, Environment Agency, 2008e. 

Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, “Adhesives”, 5th ed., A1, 1985. 

Wu, X.Q., Hong, X.M., Cordeiro C., Schork, F.J., “Miniemulsion and macroemulsion copolymerisation of 

vinyl acetate with vinyl versatate”, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 85, 10, 2219 – 2229, 2002. 

Draft 


Glossary of terms 

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) A measure of degradation potential 

Bioconcentration factor (BCF) A measure of chemical uptake; the ratio between 

the concentration in an organism and the 

concentration in an environmental compartment 

(usually water) 

CAS number An identifying code number assigned to chemicals 

by the Chemical Abstract Services. The CAS 

number is a generally recognised identification 

reference for a chemical; it is possible that a 

substance can have more than one such number 

Lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) The lowest concentration in a mammalian toxicity 

test that does gives rise to adverse effects (relative 

to a control) 

Lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) The lowest concentration in a toxicity test that gives 

rise to adverse effects (relative to a control) 

Median effective concentration (EC50) The concentration in a toxicity test at which a 

particular effect is observed in half of the organisms 

exposed for a specified time 

Median lethal concentration/dose (LC/D50) The concentration in a toxicity test that can be 

expected to cause death in half of the organisms 

exposed for a specified time 

No observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) The highest concentration in a mammalian toxicity 

test that does not give rise to adverse effects 

(relative to a control) 

No observed effect concentration (NOEC) The highest concentration in a toxicity test that does 

not give rise to adverse effects (relative to a control) 

Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) This parameter gives an indication of the 

partitioning behaviour of a substance between water 

and lipid-containing materials such as cell 

membranes or organic matter in soils and 

sediments 

Readily biodegradable Rapid environmental degradation to carbon dioxide 

and water, etc., as measured by laboratory 

screening tests involving micro-organisms 

80 

Draft 


List of abbreviations 

AF Assessment factor 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BAF Bioaccumulation factor 

BCF Bioconcentration factor 

BMF Biomagnification factor 

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand 

bw Body weight 

CAS Chemical Abstract Services 

CEFIC European Chemical Industry Council 

CMR Carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic to reproduction 

COD Chemical oxygen demand 

Defra Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

DIN Deutsche Industrie Norm (German norm) 

dw Dry weight 

EC European Communities 

EC10 Effect Concentration measured as 10% effect 

EC50 Median effect concentration 

ECB European Chemicals Bureau 

ECx As EC50, but for x% effect; x usually being 0, 10, or 100 

EINECS European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances – this lists 

all chemical substances that were supplied to the market prior to 18th September 1981 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA) 

EQS Environmental quality standard 

ESD Emission Scenario Document 

ESIS European Chemical Substances Information System 

ESR The Existing Substances Regulation – Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on 

the evaluation and control of the risks of ‘existing’ substances 

EU European Union 

EUSES European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (software tool in 

support of the TGD on risk assessment) 

Draft 

FAF Food Accumulation Factor 

GLP Good laboratory practice 

HLC Henry’s Law constant 

HPLC High pressure liquid chromatography 

HPV High Production Volume (supply > 1000 tonnes/year) 

HPVC High production volume chemical (supply > 1000 tonnes/year) 

HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank 

IC Industrial category 

IC50 Median Immobilisation Concentration or median Inhibitory Concentration 

IPC Integrated pollution control 

IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety 

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (EC Directive 96/61/EEC) 

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation 

IUCLID International Uniform Chemical Information Database: contains data collected 

under the Existing Substances Regulation (ESR) 

IUPAC International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry 


Koc Organic carbon normalised distribution coefficient 

Kow Octanol–water partition coefficient 

Kp Solids–water partition coefficient 

Kplant-water Partition coefficient between plant tissues and water 

Partition coefficient between suspended sediment and water 

Ksusp-water 

Ksoil-water 

82 

Partition coefficient between soil and water 

L(E)C50 Median lethal (effect) concentration 

LD50 Median lethal dose 

LOAEL Lowest observed adverse effect level 

LOEC Lowest observed effect concentration 

LOEL Lowest observed effect level 

log Kow Log of the octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) 

LPV Low production volume (supply 10-1000 tonnes/year) 

LPVC Low production volume chemical (supply 10-1000 tonnes/year) 

MITI Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan 

MOS Margin of safety 

N Dangerous for the environment (Symbols and indications of danger for 

dangerous substances and preparations according to Annex III of Directive 67/548/EEC 

n.t.p. Normal temperature and pressure 

NO(A)EL No observed (adverse) effect level 

NOEC No observed effect concentration 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the 

Northeast Atlantic, http://www.ospar.org 

P Persistent 

PBT Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic 

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 

PNEC Predicted no effect concentration 

ppm Parts per million 

(Q)SAR (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship 

RCR Risk characterisation ratio 

SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 

Draft 

SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology And Chemistry 

SIAR SIDS Initial Assessment Report, OECD 

SIDS Screening Information Data Set, OECD 

SMILES Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System – the SMILES code is a 

chemical notation system used to represent a molecular structure by a linear string of 

symbols; it is a simple way of entering chemical structural information into a computer 

programme 

SRC Syracuse Research Corporation 

STP Sewage treatment plant 

STW Sewage treatment works 

TG Test guideline 

TGD Technical Guidance Document 

UBA Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Protection Agency in Austria and 

Germany) 

US EPA Environmental Protection Agency, USA 

UV Ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum 


vB Very bioaccumulative 

vP Very persistent 

vPvB Very persistent and very bioaccumulative 

WAF Water accommodated fraction 

w/v Weight per volume ratio 

w/w Weight per weight ratio 

wt Weight 

wwt Wet weight 

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant 

Draft 


7 Annexes 

7.1 Annex I: Results of Public Domain searches for Vinyl 

Neodecanoate 

The information services group of the Environment Agency conducted a number of searches of information 

in the public domain for information relating to vinyl neodecanoate. Searches were carried out using the 

substance’s known names and trade names. Searches were carried out using keywords like “VeoVa”. A 

wide variety of resources were looked at. This included a general web search, as well as the following 

databases: Web of Knowledge, Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Science Direct. A large number 

of patents were retrieved, although only those on fuel additives were included as these were novel 

applications. All the others were ignored as they tended to be modifications of current applications. 

It should also be noted that the team based their findings on the information that was presented to them. 

In a number of instances, where the material safety data sheet (or product data sheet) mentioned VeoVa - 

it was not clear whether this was specifically VeoVa 10, or whether it included any other variants (e.g. 

VeoVa 9 or VeoVa 11). These findings were included in the search results for completeness. 

7.1.1 Examples of Vinyl Neodecanoate Polymer suppliers, Polymer types 

and Applications 

Polymer Name Composition* Supplier Applications Likely 

Industry 

Acrilem 30 WA Vinyl versatate 

copolymer 

Acrilem 3355 WA Vinyl versatate 

copolymer 

Acrilem MC Vinyl versatate 

copolymer 

84 

Actichem 

Actichem 

Actichem Lime based coatings 

Draft 

Mowilith LDM 2010 P Vinylacetate-VeoVa Celanese Powder paints, Construction 

chemicals 

Mowilith LDM 2452 Vinyl Ac-VeoVac- 

Acrylate 

Celanese Emulsion paints, Emulsion 

plasters AGITAN 281, 260, 

295 


Sector 

Construction 

Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Mowilith 2020 P Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Celanese Construction chemicals Construction 

Mowilith LDM 2110 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Celanese Masonry paints, lime 

finishes, flock adhesives, 

resin-bound plasters and 

textured coatings, deep 

shade paints, interior paints 

Interior paints 

Mowilith LDM 2383 APEO free Vinyl 

acetate-VeoVa 

Celanese Interior and exterior paints 

Mowilith LDM 2416 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Celanese Interior and exterior paints - 

matt, semigloss and 

tixotropic paints. 

Mowilith DM 2452 Acrylate-Vinyl Acetate- 

VeoVa 

Celanese Highly pigmented interior 

emulsion paints, exterior and 

mid-sheen paints and 

textured coatings. Also 

compatible with cement 

Interior and 

exterior paints 

Interior, 

exterior, 

cement

Mowilith LDM 1355 Vinyl acetate-ethylene- 

VeoVa 

Mowilith LDM 1025 Vinyl acetate-ethylene- 

VeoVa 

Celanese Emulsion adhesives, 

Laminating adhesive, contact 

adhesive 

Celanese Laminating adhesives 

(parquet) 

Celvolit LDM 2465 Vinyl acetate-versatate Celanese Architectural coatings 

Draft 

Adhesives 

Adhesives 

Mowilith DM 200 P Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Celanese Powder paints, Construction 

chemicals 

Construction 

Disponil AES 25 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa 10 Cognis External wall paint 

Enorex VN 166 Acrylate-VeoVa Collano AG Anti-corrosion paints Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Enorex V50 VVA Acrylate-Vinyl acetate- 

VeoVa 

Enorex VAC 50 P Acrylate-Vinyl acetate- 

VeoVa 

Collano Collano AG Emulsion Paints, 

Emulsion adhesives AGITAN 

281, 295, 315; emulsion 

adhesives 

Collano Collano AG Emulsion 

Plasters, Deep penetrating 

sealers, emulsion adhesives, 

AGITAN 295 

Enorex WS 45 D Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Collano AG Emulsion plasters, Deep 

penetrating sealers, AGITAN 

281, 295, 701, 731 

Vinavil 03 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Collano Emulsion paints, Emulsion 

plasters AGITAN 230 

Vinavil 1515 vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Vinavil 8020S Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Vinavil 5501P Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Vinavil 5526 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Vinavil VV10Z Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Ravemul 023 vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Architectural 

paints and 

plasters; 

Adhesives 

Architectural 

paints and 

plasters; 

Adhesives 

Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Vinavil Thermo-sealable adhesives Adhesives 

Vinavil Substrate for cement, plaster 

and fibre-cement 

Vinavil Substrate for mortars and 

adhesive and plaster 

coatings 

Vinavil Substrate for cements, 

mortars and gypsum plasters 

Vinavil Substrate for self-levelling 

compounds 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Adhesives, 

Coatings and 

Cements 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Vinavil Thermo-sealable adhesives Adhesives 

Collano DXV 4051 Acrylic-VeoVa Collano Outside paints, EIFS, stucco 

and plasters. Water based, 

VOC free 


Collano H 276 AV Acrylic-VeoVa Collano Resin for high end wood 

coatings and varnishes. 

86 

Water based, VOC free 

Collano M 1630 AV Acrylic-VeoVa Collano Resin for anti-corrosion 

primers. Water based, VOC 

Collano TE 204 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Resin for stain blocking 

paints and primers. Water 

based, VOC free 

Collano TE 221 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Resin for priming wood to 

prevent tannin migration. 

free. 

Water based, VOC free 

Collano WS 45 D Vinylacetate-VeoVa Collano Resin for Venetian plaster, 

lime based paints and 

cement based systems. 

Water based, VOC free. 

Building adhesives, mortar, 

concrete, hydrophobic 

coatings 

Collano AVE 191 Acrylic-VeoVa Collano 

Collano H 276 AV Acrylic-VeoVa Collano 

Collano M 1630 AV Acrylic-VeoVa Collano 

Collano DXV 4051 Acrylic-VeoVa Collano Resin for emulsion paints, 

silicate paints, rainproof 

paints. Renders: Standard, 

chalk/mineral/silicates/silicon 

es/ embedding compounds, 

quickly rainproof renders. 

Construction: tile adhesive, 

building adhesive, mortar 

and concrete, hydrophobic 

coatings, priming 

Collano TE 160 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Paint: stain covering coatings 

Collano TE 204 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Paint: stain covering coatings 

Collano TE 221 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano 

Collano VAC 50 A Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Emulsion, silicone paints, 

renders, priming bond coat 

Collano VAC 50 P Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Emulsion, silicone paints, 

renders, priming bond coat 

Collano 50 AVV Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Adhesives 

Collano 50 CVM Maleinate-Vac-VeoVa Collano Renders and construction 

Draft 

Collano 50 VVA Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Collano Renders and construction 

Collano DIQ 4052 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa- 

Alkyd 

Collano Emulsion and stain covering 

paints 


Varnish 

Construction 

Interior, 

exterior paints 

Wood coating 

Plasters 

Rhodopas VV 405 Vinylacetate-VeoVa Rhodia Emulsion paints Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Rhodopas VV 405 Vinylacetate-VeoVa Rhodia Emulsion paints AGITAN 315 Architectural 

paints and 

plasters

Rhodopas VV 473 Vinylacetate-VeoVa Rhodia Emulsion paints AGITAN 315 Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Rhodopas VV 473 Vinylacetate-VeoVa Rhodia Emulsion paints Architectural 

paints and 

plasters 

Emultex 521 Vinylacetate-VeoVa 10 Synthomer Interior/exterior coatings 

Emultex 523 Vinylacetate-VeoVa 10 Synthomer Interior/exterior coatings 

Emultex VV530 Vinylacetate-VeoVa 10 Synthomer Exterior coatings 

Emultex VV568 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Synthomer Interior/exterior coatings 

Emultex VV573 Vinylacetate-VeoVa 10 Synthomer Interior/exterior coatings 



Emultex VV665 Acrylic-Vac-VeoVa Synthomer Interior coatings 

NeoCar Latex 2300 Vinyl acetate, butyl 

acrylate, vinyl versatate 

DLP 110 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

DLP 1240 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

DAL 260 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate 

Dilexo V 350 Styrene-vinyl acetatevinyl 

versatate 

DOW Architectural Coatings, 

Industrial Coatings 

DOW Dry mortar blends, including 

cements and lime plasters 

Draft 

Cements and 

plasters 

DOW Tile grout, mortar blends Cements and 

plasters 

Dryamix 

Ltd 

Neste 

Chemicals 

Redipol RDP 04 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Yil-Long 

Chemical 

Group Ltd 

Redipol RDP 05 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Yil-Long 

Chemical 

URAMUL VV60 (CO 

60) 

Group Ltd 

Redispersible polymer 

powder for use in tile 

adhesive, self-levelling 

cement, mortar, finish 

plaster, gypsum and 

anhydrite modification 

Architectural 

Plasters, 

adhesives 

Emulsion adhesives Adhesives 

Re-dispersible emulsion 

powder for tile and joint 

cement 

Re-dispersible emulsion 

powder for soft plaster and 

mortar products 

Vinyl acetate-Versatate DSM Emulsion paints, emulsion 

plasters 

Axilat PAV 22 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Tile adhesive mortars, 

gypsum joint compounds, 

coatings and textures, self- 

levelling floor compounds 

Axilat PAV 23 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Tile adhesive mortars, 

gypsum-based compounds, 

Cements and 

plasters 

Cements and 

plasters 

Coatings and 

Plasters 

Coatings, 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 


88 

self-levelling floor 

compounds, microtoppings 

Axilat PAV 27 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Stucco, exterior insulation 

and finish systems, highbuild 

vertical applications, 

repair mortars 

Axilat PAV 29 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Adhesives and base coats 

for exterior insulation and 

finish systems, foam 

coatings, repair mortars, 

stucco, pool plasters, 

decorative overlays and 

textures 

Axilat PAV 30 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Tile adhesives, repair 

mortars, plaster joints, floor 

finishing mortars, external 

thermal insulation mortars 

Axilat PAV 33 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Hexion Self-levelling floor 

compounds, decorative 

overlays and textures, 

microtoppings, gypsumbased 

flooring compounds, 

Axilat UP 820A Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate-maleic ester 

tile adhesive mortars 

Hexion Adhesives and base coats 

for exterior insulation and 

finishing systems, tile 

adhesive mortars, stucco, tile 

grouts 

MP1322 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Elotex Mineral plasters, gypsumbased 

compounds, grouts, 

tile adhesives 

FL1200 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Elotex Self-levelling floor 

compounds 

Draft 


compounds, trowelling 

compounds, repair mortars 


compounds, joint filler, 

trowelling compounds, 

plasters, renders, flowbed 

adhesive mortar, repair 

mortars 


compounds, adhesive 

mortars, trowelling 

compounds 

HD1500 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Elotex Sealing slurries and mortars, 

repair mortars, joint fillers, 

polymer based plasters, 

adhesives 

HD1510 Vinyl acetate-VeoVa Elotex Sealing slurries and mortars, 

repair mortars, joint fillers, 

FX3300 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 

versatate-ethylene 

FL3200 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 


polymer based plasters 

Elotex Tile adhesive, thixotropic 


plasters, renders 

Elotex Self-levelling floor 

compounds 


Cements and 

Plasters 

Coatings, 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Coatings, 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Adhesives, 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Plasters 

Cements






versatate-acrylate 



HD4500 Vinyl acetate-vinyl 



versatate-acrylate- 

ethylene 


versatate-acrylate- 

ethylene 

Vinnapas LL 5050 Ethylene-vinyl acetatevinyl 

versatate 


compounds 


compounds, flowbed 

adhesive mortars 




Elotex Adhesive mortars, repair 

mortars, decorative renders 

Elotex Tile grouts, cement-based 

renders, sealing slurries and 

mortars, repair mortars 




Draft 

Cements 

Cements 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Cements and 

Plasters 

Plasters 

Elotex Tile adhesive for exteriors Cements and 

Plasters 

Wacker 

polymer 

systems 

*composition is listed using the names given in the company information 

Ceramic tile, exterior 

insulation and finishing 

systems, trowelling 

compounds and plasters 

The above information is publicly available and was found in the following sources: 

Münzing Chemie GMBH 

Datasheet on Architectural Paints and Plasters 

http://www.munzing.com/techinfo/2.pdf 

Plasters 

NeoCar Polymers 

The NeoCar Latices contain versatic-derived polymers and there are recommendations in the document 

for the inclusion of the two below in various formulations of exterior white house paint with zinc oxide and 

exterior flat paint for masonry respectively. Both are recommended for architectural and industrial use. 

Links to MSDSs: http://www.dow.com/ucarlatex/prod/neocar_l/index.htm 

NeoCar Literature: 

http://www.dow.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_0035/0901b80380035867.pdf?filepath=ucarlatex/pdfs/noreg/3 

09-00048.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc 

Celanese 

Produce a range of paints, emulsions, powder paints, plasters etc., listed above. 

Collano 

Collano uses water-based binders. They are the basis for modern paints, varnishes, renders, and primers 

as well as for wood protection and anti-corrosion products. Water-based binders are water-resistant, 

hydrophobic, and water-vapour permeable. 

Specific products from Collano find uses as: 

Paints, including emulsion paints, silicate paints, silicone paints, quickly rainproof paints, anti-corrosion 

primers and topcoats, plastic primers; 

Renders, including standard, chalk/mineral/silicates/silicones, adhesives, embedding compounds, quickly 

rainproof renders; 

Construction resins, including tile adhesive, building adhesive, mortar and concrete, deep primers, 

hydrophobic coatings, priming bond coats. 

http://www.collano.com/en/markt/farben/index.php?navid=45 

http://www.collano.com/docs/produkte/Bindemittel/produkte_bindemittel_e.pdf 

Some products from Collano are listed above in the table. 

Cognis 


polymers, coatings and inks. The internet link provides details on formulations for emulsion paints using 

the Cognis product Disponil AES 25. 

http://www.products.cognis.com/cognis/prodleafR2.nsf/($ProductsbyDocID_PL- 

Header)/REF36B280AB20262C97C1256FE300508760/$file/DISPONIL_r_AES_25_E.pdf 

Dryadmix Ltd 

DAL 260 is a redispersible polymer powder made from a vinyl acetate-vinyl versatate for architectural use 

in tile adhesives, self-levelling cement, mortar, plaster, gypsum and anhydrite modification. 

http://dryadmix.com/ 

The following company/organisation websites were also searched, but no information on products that 

might contain vinyl neodecanoate: 

Ciba 

Akzo Nobel (including Dulux) 

Arkema 

Solvay Chemicals 

Intertronics 

International Organisation for Standardisation 

Chemo India 

Raleigh Coatings 

Spencer Coatings 

Synthatec Powder Coatings 

Chem Co International 

Dreisol Coatings 

Firwood 

National Starch and Chemical 

National Adhesives 

Ablestik 

Emerson and Cuming 

Purpond 

Alco Chemical 

Revertex Finewaters 

Cembureau (European Cement Association) 

British Cement Association 

CEMEX UK Operations 

Castle Cement 

Lafarge Cement UK 

Tarmac Buxton Lime and Cement 

Concrete.info database 

ConcreteProducts – magazine 

Portland Cement association 

Drymix.info (The international community for drymix mortars) 

90 

Draft 

7.1.2 Information found relating to use in fuel additives 

A number of patents were found that mention the substance in the context of fuel additives. However as 

these are patents there is no evidence that such use is currently undertaken. 

Hydroxyl-containing copolymers, and their use for the preparation of fuel oils having improved lubricity 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6364918.html 

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6364918/description.html 

Additives for low-sulfur mineral oil distillates, comprising graft copolymers based on ethylene-vinyl ester 

copolymers 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/70157509.html 

Flowability of mineral oils and mineral oil distillates using alkylphenol-aldehyde resins 

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5998530/description.html 

Fuel oil compositions 


http://www.freshpatents.com/Fuel-oil-compositions-dt20060907ptan20060196109.php?type=description 

Copolymers, and their use as additives for improving the cold-flow properties of middle distillates 

http://www.wikipatents.com/6458174.html 

7.1.3 Use of vinyl neodecanoate co-polymers in personal care products 

(PCP) 

A number of PCP uses were found in the literature search. These are listed below. 

Vinyl Acetate / Crotonates / Vinyl Neodecanoate Copolymer 

RESYN ® 28-2930 

Manufacturers: 

National Starch Personal Care 

http://www.personalcarepolymers.com/PCP/Home.htm 

Product Overview 

http://www.personalcarepolymers.com/PCP/Products/ProductOverview.htm?id=145 

Description: RESYN 28-2930 polymer has holding power, manageability, gloss and adhesion to the hair 

without flaking. It provides hydrocarbon tolerance, superior compatibility with dimethyl ether and high 

humidity curl retention. RESYN 28-2930 polymer can be blended with AMPHOMER polymer series or 

BALANCE polymer series to customize the desired properties. It is an excellent resin for cost effective 

formulations. Applications: Hair Gel, Hair Spray, Mousse, Styling Product 

Material Safety Data Sheet: 

www.personalcarepolymers.com/PCP/Common/MSDSViewer.aspx?id=948&tofile=1 

PRODUCT NUMBER 28-2930 

PRODUCT NAME RESYN ® 28-2930 

Hair fixative 

Manufacturer National Starch and Chemical Company 

Personal Care 

10 Finderne Avenue 

Bridgewater, NJ 08807-3300 

USA 

Draft 

The following information was found, relating to use in the EU: 

European Hairspray Formulations: 

http://www.personalcarepolymers.com/PCP/Common/AttachmentViewer.aspx?id=2e8e6a7b-59ac-4f8e- 

8e94-110227bb07e9&itemName=AMPHOMER%C2%AE+HC&itemNumber=28-4942 

National Starch Hairspray Polymers 

Trade name INCI designation Primary Applications 

Acrylates 

AMPHOMER® Octylacrylamide/Acrylates/Butyla 

minoethyl Methacrylate 

Copolymer 

AMPHOMER® 4961 Acrylates/Octylacrylamide 

Copolymer 

AMPHOMER® LV-71 Octylacrylamide/Acrylates/Butyla 


Copolymer 

High VOC hairspray, best curl 

retention, good DME tolerance 

High VOC hairspray 

High and 80% VOC Hairsprays 


AMPHOMER® HC Acrylates/Octylacrylamide 

Copolymer 

RESYN® XP Acrylates/Octylacrylamide 

Copolymer 

92 

High VOC hairspray, especially 

designed for high levels of 

propane/butane sprays 

High VOC hairspray, highest 

propane/butane tolerance of all 

NSC resins 

LOW-VOC Acrylates 

BALANCE® 0/55 Acrylates Copolymer 55% VOC sprays, emulsion 

polymer 

BALANCE® 47 Octylacrylamide/Acrylates/Butyla 


Copolymer 

55% VOC sprays, low viscosity 

polymer 

BALANCE® CR Acrylates Copolymer 55% VOC sprays, emulsion 

polymer 

Polyurethane 

DynamX® Polyurethane-14 (and) AMP- 

Acrylates Copolymer 

Flexible Hold sprays that provide 

long lasting hold, all VOC levels 

Vinyl Acetates 

RESYN® 28-1310 VA/Crotonates Copolymer High VOC hairsprays, moderate 

hold and curl retention 

RESYN® 28-2930 Vinyl Acetate/Crotonates/Vinyl 

Neodecanoate Copolymer 

High VOC to 55% VOC levels; in 

low VOC, often used in 

combinations, nice feel 

Draft 

Listed in NCBI database: 

http://0-pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.catalog.llu.edu/summary/summary.cgi?sid=198650&loc=ec_rcs#Subinfo 

Used in the following products (no percentages given) in the US: 

Household products database: 

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=2970 

Chemical Information 

Chemical Name: Vinyl Acetate/Crotonates/vinyl neodecanoate copolymer 

CAS Registry Number: 058748-38-2 

Synonyms: Vinyl acetate, crotonic acid, vinyl neodecanoate terpolymer; Acetic acid ethenyl 

ester, polymer with 2-butenoic acid and ethenyl neodecanoate; 2-Butenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate and ethenyl neodecanoate 

Information from other National Library of Medicine databases: 

Health Studies: “No information available in HSDB at this time” 

Toxicity Information: Search TOXNET 

Chemical Information: Search ChemIDplus 


Products that contain copolymers made from vinyl neodecanoate: 

Brand Category Form 

Aussie Sprunch Spray, Non Aerosol, Unscented Personal Care pump spray 

Aussie Instant Freeze Spray, Aerosol Personal Care aerosol 

Aussie Instant Freeze Spray, Non Aerosol Personal Care pump spray 

Aussie 12 Hour Hair Spray, Protects Against Humidity Personal Care pump spray 

Clairol 3 in 1 Condition Hairspray Extra Hold, Unscented, Aerosol Personal Care aerosol 

Aussie Mega Styling Spray, Aerosol Personal Care aerosol 

Aussie Sprunch Spray, Non Aerosol Personal Care pump spray 

Aussie Real Volume Body Lock Aerosol Spray Personal Care aerosol 

Vitalis Maximum Hold Hairspray for Men, Non-aerosol, Unscented Personal Care pump 

spray 

The only mention of % composition of the copolymer can be found as follows: 

Hair : VOC 55 SUPER HOLD HAIR SPRAY FEATURING LUVISET[R] PUR (BASF) 

http://www.allbusiness.com/chemicals/commodity-chemicals-industry-organic-alcohols/8078465-1.html 

INGREDIENTS % BY WEIGHT 

Alcohol denatured 30.98 

Water 10.00 

Luviset[R] PUR Polyurethane-1[1] 26.67 

Aminomethyl Propanol 0.20 

Luviset[R] CAN 

VA/Crotonates/Vinyl Neodecanoate Copolymer1 2.00 

D,L Panthenol[1] 0.10 

Phytantriol[1] 0.05 

Fragrance q.s. 

Hydrofluo 

Acrylates/Vinyl Neodecanoate Crosspolymer 

ACULYN 38 

Manufacturers: 

Rohm and Haas 

http://www.rohmhaas.com/wcm/index.page? 

Draft 

ACULYN 38 Rheology Modifier: 

http://www.rohmhaas.com/wcm/products/product_print.page?display-mode=print&product=1010181 

Description 

Aculyn 38 is an alkali-swellable anionic acrylic polymer emulsion (ASE) that is lightly crosslinked to impart 

a short pseudoplastic flow. It is a liquid, cold-processable product that instantaneously thickens upon 

neutralization providing ease of handling and increased manufacturing efficiency. This thickener is offered 

at 28% solids and has been developed for use as a rheology modifier and suspending agent for personal 

care surfactant formulations. It is effective in a range of personal care surfactants and is useful at pH 3-11, 

depending on formulation. It is stable in the presence of sodium chloride and two common conditioning 

agents, Polyquaternium-7 and Polyquaternium-10 as well as, polar solvents and zinc pyrithione. The 

polymer has a well-established toxicological profile and is safe in normal use. 


Physical Description 

The values presented in this chart should not be considered as product 

specifications. 

INCI name Acrylates/Vinyl Neodecanoate Crosspolymer 

Association None 

Ionic nature Anionic 

Appearance Milky liquid 

Solvent Water 

Solids 29 

pH (as supplied) 2.7 

Density 1.05 

Equivalent weight 239 

Rheology Short, smooth 

Shear thinning Moderate 

Viscosity, mPa s 

(as supplied) 

94 

7.2 Annex II 

QSAR Equations for the Chemical class Esters according to and taken from the US EPA/Syracuse 

Research Corporation’s ECOSAR Software 

7.2.1 FISH 96-h LC50 (Mortality) 

ESTIMATED TOXICITY: 

The fish 96-h LC50 values used to develop this SAR were measured by Veith et al (1984) and the octanolwater 

partition coefficients (Kow) were calculated using the computer program, CLOGP (Version 3.3). To 

find the estimated acute toxicity of an ester use the SAR equation: 

Log LC50 = -0.535 logKow + 0.25 

The LC50 is in millimoles per litre (mM/L); N = 29; and the Coefficient of Determination (R2) = 0.828. To 

convert the LC50 from mM/L to mg/L, multiply by the molecular weight of the ester. 

APPLICATION: 

This SAR may be used to estimate the toxicity of esters with log Kow values of less than 5.0 and 

molecular weights less than 1000. This SAR may be used to estimate toxicity for the following esters: 

1. Acetates 

2. Benzoates 

3. Dicarboxylic aliphatics 

4. Phthalates derived from aliphatic alcohols and phenol. 

LIMITATIONS: 

For esters with log Kow values greater than 5.0, a test duration of greater than 96 hours may be 

required for proper expression of toxicity. Also, if the toxicity value obtained by the use of this SAR 

exceeds the water solubility of the compound (measured or estimated), mortalities of 50% would not be 

expected in a saturated solution during an exposure period of 96 hours. Under these circumstances, the 

appropriate SARs 

to use are the fish 14-day LC50 by Konemann or the daphnid 16-d LC50 or 16-d EC50 by Hermans et al. 

REFERENCES: 

Draft 

Veith GD, DeFoe D, and Knuth M. 1984. Structure-activity relationships for screening organic chemicals 

for potential ecotoxicity effects. Drug Metabolism Reviews 15(7):1295-1303. 

7.2.2 GREEN ALGAE 96-h EC50 (Growth) 


The green algae 96-h EC50 values used to develop this SAR were determined by USEPA (1991) and 

the octanol water partition coefficients (Kow) were calculated using the computer program, CLOGP 

(Version 3.3). To find the estimated toxicity of an ester use the SAR equation: 

Log EC50 = -0.881 - 0.519 log Kow 

The EC50 is in millimoles per litre (mM/L); N = 2; and the Coefficient of Determination (R2) = 1.0. To 

convert the EC50 from mM/L to mg/L, multiply by the molecular weight of the ester. 


APPLICATIONS: 

This SAR may be used to estimate toxicity for esters with log Kow values less than 6.4 and molecular 

weights less than 1000. 

LIMITATIONS: 

For esters with log Kow values greater than 6.4, a test duration of greater than 96 hours may be 

required for proper expression of toxicity. Also, if the acute toxicity values obtained by the use of this 

equation exceeds the water solubility of the compound (measured or estimated), significant 

effects would not be expected in a saturated solution during an exposure period of 96 hours. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SAR: 

An assumption was made that the excess toxicity of esters will decrease with increasing log Kow. 

Therefore, it was assumed that at a log Kow of 6.4, the green algae EC50 value (as a logarithm in 

millimoles per litre) will be -4.2. These coordinates were combined with the measured acute toxicity 

information for esters to calculate the SAR. 

REFERENCES: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. OTS PMN ECOTOX. Washington, DC: 

Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA. 

7.2.3 GREEN ALGAE Chronic Value (Growth) 


The green algae chronic value (ChV) used to develop this SAR was determined by USEPA (1991) and 

the octanol water partition coefficient (Kow) was calculated using the computer program, CLOGP (Version 

3.3). To find the estimated chronic toxicity of an ester use the SAR equation: 

96 

Log ChV = -1.01 - 0.51 log Kow 

Draft 

The ChV is in millimoles per litre (mM/L); N = 2; and the Coefficient of Determination (R2) = 1.0. To 

convert the ChV from mM/L to mg/L, multiply by the molecular weight of the ester. 

APPLICATIONS: 

This SAR may be used to estimate toxicity for esters with log Kow values less than 8.0 and molecular 

weights less than 1000. 

LIMITATIONS: 

For esters with log Kow values greater than 8.0, a test duration of greater than 16 days may be required 

for proper expression of toxicity. Also, if the acute toxicity values obtained by the use of this equation 

exceeds the water solubility of the compound (measured or estimated), significant 

effects would not be expected in a saturated solution during an exposure period of 16 days. 

REFERENCES: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. OTS PMN ECOTOX. Washington, DC: 

Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA. 


7.3 Annex III: Consideration of EU tonnage level on 

PEC/PNEC ratios 

The industry data on the total production tonnage of the substance give a wide range (46 – 230 kilotonnes; 

(OECD SIDS, 2007). In the assessment, the upper limit of the range is taken. This annex looks at what the 

outcome of the evaluation would be if the lower limit is taken as the production volume, with the same 

fraction of this volume being used in the EU (57%; 26,220 tonnes). The table below presents the results for 

freshwater, sediment, soil, marine water and sediment and secondary poisoning for which risks were 

identified in the evaluation (these are given in parentheses). 

Table 7.3 PEC/PNEC ratios for the lower production tonnage estimate (and 

respectively reduced EU tonnage) 

Lifecycle 

stage 


processors 

Use in 

coatings – 

emulsion 

paints 

Use in 

adhesives 

Use in 

cement 

composites 

Use in 

plasters/ 

fillers 

Step/type PEC/PNEC 

ratios for 

freshwater 

and sediment 

Small/medi 

um scale 

processors 

PEC/PNEC 

ratios for soil 

PEC/PNEC 

ratios for 

marine 

water and 

sediment 

26.4 (75.4) 341 (973) 782 (2.23 x 

10 3 ) 

3.46 (4.96) 44.6 (63.6) 102 (145) - 

Formulation 3.21 (3.24) 41.2 (41.2) 94.3 (94.4) - 

PEC/PNEC ratios for 

secondary poisoning 

Draft 

0.46 (1.3) (freshwater fish 

foodchain) 

0.48 (1.38) (marine fish 

foodchain) 

3.68 (10.5) (earthworm 

foodchain) 

Formulation 17.2 (17.2) 222 (222) 508 (508) 2.39 (2.39) (earthworm 

foodchain) 

Formulation - - 1.39 (1.47) - 

Formulation - - 1.61 (1.69) - 

As can be seen the potential risks are still indicated, except for the freshwater and marine fish foodchains 

for the large scale processing scenario. 


7.4 Annex IV: Considerations for PEC/PNEC ratios for the 

terrestrial, freshwater sediment and marine sediment 

compartments 

The soil PNEC derived in the evaluation assumes that exposure to the substance is entirely through soil 

pore water. Ingestion of soil-bound substance and contact with the substance bound to soil may in reality 

result in higher exposures for strongly adsorbing substances. Similar arguments apply for sediment (both 

freshwater and marine). As the substance’s log Kow is 4.9 and the cut-off log Kow for the use of an 

additional assessment factor of ten on the PEC/PNEC ratios for soil and sediments is 5, the effect of 

increasing the PEC/PNEC ratios by this additional factor is explored here. Tables 7.4 – 7.6 below present 

the revised PEC/PNEC ratios for the three compartments. 

Table 7.4: PEC/PNEC ratios for soil with additional assessment factor of ten 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios for soil 

Production One site only 4.06 


98 

Small/med scale processors 636 

Use in coatings – Formulation 412 


Use in adhesives 

Private use 

Formulation 

0.42 

2220 

Use in cements 

Use in plasters/fillers 

Private use 

Formulation 

Industrial use 

Formulation 

0.114 

5.8 

2.55 

6.8 


products 


Formulation 0.0179 


Table 7.5: PEC/PNEC ratios for freshwater sediment with additional assessment 

factor of ten 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios for freshwater 

sediment 

Production - 0.53 


Draft 

Small/med scale processors 49.6 



Use in adhesives 

Private use 

Formulation 

0.56 

172 







products 


Table 7.6: PEC/PNEC ratios for marine sediment with additional assessment factor 

of ten 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC ratios for marine sediment 

Production - 1.4 


Small/med scale processors 1450 


Use in coatings – Formulation 944 



Use in adhesives Formulation 5080 






products 

professional use 7.23 

Formulation 1.42 


More risks are identified for each compartment. The additional assessment factor of ten for marine 

sediment has a huge effect; all scenarios are now indicated as being a risk. This result is driven by the low 

toxicity data the PNEC is derived from and the very large assessment factor applied to it for the marine 

water PNEC. It should be noted that the additional assessment factor of ten would mean that a regional 

risk was indicated for marine sediment. Given the quantities involved these results for the marine sediment 

compartment are clearly not appropriate and reflect the conservative nature of the PEC and PNEC 

derivations. 

Draft 


7.5 Annex V: Estimation of Bioconcentration Factor from 

Dietary study Data and Consequences for Secondary 

Poisoning Assessment 

This annex looks at the estimation of the uptake rate constant, K1, and subsequent estimation of BCF from 

the data collected in the fish dietary bioaccumulation study. Several estimates are presented below from 

literature methods to give a range of BCFs. Not all the available models for predicting K1 have been used. 

The idea of the annex is to give an idea of the variation possible, and so the variation possible in 

secondary poisoning PEC/PNEC ratios, rather than looking at all available methods and trying to present 

the “best” BCF value. 

The BCF is used in the secondary poisoning assessment, so EUSES has been rerun with the lowest and 

highest estimates to see what effect this has on the outcome of this part of the evaluation. A thorough 

explanation and discussion around the methods to estimate K1 can be found in Crookes and Brooke 

(2010). 

Method of Sijm et al. (1993, 1994, 1995) 

The method uses fish weight to estimate an uptake rate constant and is presented in section 

3.2.9.3 of this evaluation. 

100 

u 

−0. 

32± 

0. 

03 

( 520 ± 40) 

⋅ W 

k = 

eqn 3.2.9.3-b 

where: ku = the uptake rate constant (L/kg/d) 

W = mean treated fish weight (grams wet weight) at the end of uptake/start of depuration 

The applicability domain of this method is for neutral organic chemicals with a log KOW > 3. The allometric 

equation was developed from 29 data points (from 13 chemicals) and had a correlation coefficient of 0.85. 

Two methods were used to derive the equation; gill perfusion studies in rainbow trout and in vivo studies in 

guppy. The four gill perfusion studies used isolated gills from fish with an average weight of either 54 or 

109 g, with a perfusate rate of artificial blood through the gills of 2 mL/100 g fish/minute (equivalent to 28.8 

L/kg/day). Water containing the test substances was passed over the gills at a rate of 1 L/minute. The in 

vivo guppy studies were conducted by Opperhuizen (1986), Opperhuizen and Voors (1987) and De Voogt 

(1990), and uptake rate constants were taken from these reports for use in developing the equation. Data 

from the following chemicals were used to develop the equation: 

Draft 

phenol, anthracene, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexabromobenzene, 2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl, decachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,5-trichloroanisole, 2,3,6trichloroanisole, 

2,3,4,5-tetrachloroanisole, pentachloroanisole, octachloronaphthalene, octachlorodibenzop-dioxin, 

tetrachloroveratrole. 

The equation indicates that the rate of uptake is higher in smaller fish than it is in larger fish. Sijm 

et al. (1995) state that reasons for this difference may be that smaller fish have higher ventilation rates 

than larger fish, and that the surface area of the gill relative to body weight is greater for smaller fish. 

Method of Barber (2003) 

Barber reviewed ten of the existing models (including the method of Sijm et al. described above) 

used for the prediction of bioconcentration in fish in his publication, comparing each model’s results using 

experimental BCF data. The experimental data he used were for neutral organic chemicals or weakly 

ionisable organic chemicals that were in their neutral form at the pH tested. A total of 284 substances and 

22 fish species were covered in this dataset. Barber also formulated an allometric equation similar to the 

Sijm equation based on 517 data points: 

−0. 

197 

k u = 455 ⋅ W 

eqn 7.3-a 

where: ku = the uptake rate constant (L/kg/d) 



Barber carried out analysis of the models relating uptake rate constant to fish weight, and for the dataset 

considered derived allometric regression equations with correlation coefficients for each. (NB: The log KOW 

range of the dataset is unknown, so the applicability of the derived regressions in terms of log KOW is 

unknown). 

Method of Barber (2003) (based on Gobas and Mackay (1987)) 

In the same publication discussed above, Barber used the same dataset to calibrate one of the 

reviewed models (Gobas and Mackay (1987)), giving the following equations relating uptake rate constant 

to fish weight and KOW: 

1. 

048 

−0. 

4 

⎛1400 

⋅ W ⋅ K ⎞ OW 

k 1 = 0. 

343⋅ 

⎜ 

100 ⎟ 

eqn 7.3-b 

+ K OW 

⎝ 

⎠ 

1. 

025 

−0. 

4 

⎛1400 

⋅ W ⋅ K ⎞ OW 

k 1 = 0. 

401⋅ 

⎜ 

100 ⎟ 

eqn 7.3-c 

+ K OW 

⎝ 

⎠ 

The two equations refer to different levels of fish respiratory demand (eqn 7.3b for “routine” and eqn 7.3c 

for “standard” respiratory demand, standard respiratory demand being representative of laboratory 

conditions and half that of routine respiratory demand). (NB: The log KOW range of the dataset is unknown, 

so the applicability of the derived regressions in terms of log KOW is unknown). 

Method of Hendriks et al. (2001) (The OMEGA Model) 

Hendriks developed a model, Optimal Modelling for Ecotoxicological Assessment (OMEGA), to 

estimate k1 and k2 values, which was based on a broad range of different compounds (alcohol ethoxylates, 

carbamates, chlorobiocides, DDT, chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins, chlorodibenzo-p-furans, chloronaphthalenes, 

chlorophenoxy acids, drugs, haloaliphatic hydrocarbons, haloanilines, halobenzenes, halobiphenyls, 

3,3’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl, halophenols, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, monocyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, nitrogenbiocides, phenols, phosphorbiocides, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

polycyclic heteroaromatic hydrocarbons, pyrethroids, toxins, stable substances). 

Draft 

Although based on the fugacity concept, the variables for water absorption-excretion coefficient 

(γ) diffusion resistance in water (ρH20) and through lipid layers (ρCH2) in the equation developed to estimate 

k1 can be set to fitted values developed from literature data in the publication. This means that the method 

can be used to relate uptake rate constant to fish weight and log KOW essentially alone if one assumes 

default values for these terms. 

−κ 

W 

k 1 = 

eqn 7.3-d 

ρ CH 2 1 

ρ H 2O 

+ + 

K γ 

where: k1 = the uptake rate constant (L/kg/d) 

OW 


κ = rate exponent = 0.25 

ρH2O = water layer diffusion resistance = 2.8×10 -3 day kg -κ 

ρCH2 = lipid layer permeation resistance = 68 day kg -κ 

γ = water absorption – excretion coefficient = 200 kg κ day -1 


Methods of Arnot and Gobas (2003, 2004) 

These publications concerned the prediction of bioaccumulation factors (BAF) for aquatic food 

webs. One of the equations presented is used to predict an uptake rate constant from fish weight and KOW, 

and so is useful here. The method for predicting a BAF is based on a non-steady state mass balance 

approach, and involves an equation relating BAF to fish lipid content, KOW, lipid content of the diet, 

dissolved fraction of the chemical, and several rate constants (for uptake via the gills, elimination by 

metabolism, elimination by egestion and growth). The equation presented in the 2003 paper for estimating 

k1 is as follows. 

102 

1 

k 1 = 

eqn 7.3-e 

⎛ 1 ⎞ 0. 

4 

⎜ 

⎜0. 

01+ 

⎟ ⋅ W 

⎝ K OW ⎠ 

In 2004 Arnot and Gobas updated their method, relating uptake to the gill ventilation rate (GV), gill 

uptake efficiency (EW, in turn related to diffusion rate across the gill) and fish weight (W): 

E W ⋅ G V 

k 1 = 

eqn 7.3-f 

W 

The gill uptake efficiency was described as a function of KOW, and gill ventilation rate described in terms of 

fish weight and the dissolved oxygen concentration, as follows. 

E 

G 

W 

V 

1 

= 

⎛ 155 ⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜1. 

85 + 

⎟ 

⎝ K OW ⎠ 

OX 

Draft 


eqn 7.3-g 

0. 

65 

1400 ⋅ W 

= eqn 7.3-h 

C 

where k1 = uptake rate constant (L kg -1 day -1 ) 

EW = gill uptake efficiency – assumed to be a function of KOW 

GV = gill ventilation rate (L day -1 ) 

W = weight of the organisms (kg) 

COX = dissolved oxygen concentration (mg O2 L -1 ) 

The dissolved oxygen concentration in this equation 7.3h can be estimated as 

( − 0. 

24 ⋅T 

+ 14. 

) S 

COX = 04 ⋅ 

eqn 7.3-i 

where T = temperature (°C) 

S = degree of oxygen saturation in water (%) 

The values used should be typical for a bioconcentration study carried out for the species tested. 

For example for rainbow trout (12 °C and a minimum of 60 % oxygen saturation) the dissolved oxygen 

concentration would be 6.7 mg O2 L -1 . 

The authors indicated that this model is applicable to non-ionising organic chemicals with a log 

KOW in the approximate range 1 to 9. 

Method of Thomann (1989) 

This publication details a method for predicting the concentration of a chemical in a generic 

aquatic food chain, the general approach of which is used in the QEAFDCHN (Quantitative Environmental

Analysis Food Chain) model described in other publications by the author and co-workers including 

Connolly, the author of the forerunning program FDCHN. The method is based on the conservation of 

mass and energy. A broadly similar approach to that of Arnot and Gobas for estimating the uptake rate 

constant is taken, with the uptake rate constant on a lipid basis being related to ventilation volume (V), 

transfer efficiency of the chemical (E) and fish lipid weight (Wlipid): 

V × E 

' 

k = 

eqn 7.3-j 

1 Wlipid 

Subsequent equations in the paper relate ventilation volume to other variables. 

V 

r'⋅W lipid 

= eqn 7.3-k 

CO 

( a OC ⋅ a C ) 

( a ⋅ρ) 

r'= 

⋅ r 

eqn 7.3-l 

wd 

−γ 

r = φ ⋅ W 

eqn 7.3-m 

’ -1 -1 

Where k1 = uptake rate constant (L kg lipid day ) 

V = ventilation volume (L day -1 ) 

E = transfer efficiency of the chemical 

Wlipid = lipid weight of the organism (kg lipid) 

r’ = respiration rate on an oxygen basis (g O2 day -1 kg lipid -1 ) 

CO 

aoc 

ac 

= dissolved oxygen concentration in the water phase (kg L -1 ) 

= oxygen to carbon ratio (of the fish) 

= carbon to dry weight ratio (of the fish) 

awd = wet to dry weight ratio (of the fish) 

ρ = lipid fraction of the fish 

r = respiration rate of the fish (day -1 ) 

W = wet weight of the organisms (g) 

Draft 

Φ = the value is a function of the specific organism and ecosystem function; values vary 

between 0.014 and 0.05 for routine metabolism 

γ = the value is a function of the specific organism and ecosystem function; recommended 

values vary between 0.2 and 0.3 for routine metabolism 

Substituting and combining the equations gives 

k 

= 

−γ 

( a ⋅ a ⋅ φ ⋅ W ⋅ E) 

' oc c 

1 

wd CO 

( a ⋅ a ⋅ ρ ⋅ ) 

eqn 7.3-n 

The author made a number of assumptions to reduce the combined equation (aoc = 2.67, ac = 0.45, awd = 5, 

CO = 8.5 mg/L and Φ = 0.036) to give 

3 −γ 

' 10 ⋅ W ⋅ E 

k ≈ 

eqn 7.3-o 

1 ρ 


The author considered that the transfer efficiency (E) across gill membranes depended on 

chemical properties such as the lipid partition coefficient (i.e. octanol-water partition coefficient), steric 

properties and molecular weight. The author considered the available experimental data on the variation of 

uptake efficiency with log KOW for a range of fish weights and derived the following equations from the data 

for organisms of the order of

Low BCF estimate (288) 

Private use 3.4 x 10 -5 3.5 x 10 -6 3.3 x 10 -6 

Use in cements Formulation 4.2 x 10 -5 1.8 x 10 -5 6 x 10 -6 

Industrial use 3.4 x 10 -5 4.3 x 10 -6 3.5 x 10 -6 

Use in 

Formulation 3.9 x 10 -5 1.3 x 10 -5 5 x 10 -6 


Use in personal 

care products 

High BCF estimate (3036) 


Formulation 3.4 x 10 -5 3.3 x10 -6 3.3 x 10 -6 

Private use 3.4 x 10 -5 3.3 x10 -6 3.3 x 10 -6 

Lifecycle stage Step/type PEC/PNEC 

ratios for 

fish food 

chain 

PEC/PNEC 

ratios for 

marine 

predator 

PEC/PNEC 

ratios for 

marine top 

predator 

Production One site only 3.6 x 10 -4 3.4 x 10 -4 6.9 x 10 -5 


processors 

0.141 0.251 0.101 

Small/med 

scale 

processors 

9.5 x 10 -3 0.0164 6.6 x 10 -3 



-3 0.011 4.3 x 10 -3 

Private use 3.6 x 10 -4 4.5 x 10 -5 7.3 x 10 -5 

Use in adhesives Formulation 3.6 x 10 -4 3.7 x 10 -5 6.9 x10 -5 

Private use 3.6 x 10 -4 3.7 x 10 -5 7 x 10 -5 

Use in cements Formulation 4.4 x 10 -4 1.8 x 10 -4 1.3 x 10 -4 


Use in 

Formulation 4.1 x 10 


-4 1.3 x 10 -4 1.1 x 10 -4 


Use in personal Formulation 3.6 x 10 

care products 

-4 3.5 x10 -5 6.9 x 10 -5 

Private use 3.6 x 10 -4 3.5 x10 -5 6.9 x 10 -5 

Draft 

The increased BCF value used in the EUSES run above still results in no risk scenarios for secondary 

poisoning for fish foodchains. 

References 

Sijm D.T.H.M., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1993), "The influence of temperature on the uptake rate 

constants of hydrophobic compounds determined by the isolated perfused gills of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)", Aquat. Toxicol. 25: 1-14. 

Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., Part P. and Opperhuizen A. (1994), "Experimentally determined blood and 

water flow limitations for uptake of hydrophobic compounds using perfused gills of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss): Allometric applications", Aquat. Toxicol. 30: 325-341. 

Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., De Jonge W.J., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1995), "Allometry in the 

uptake of hydrophobic chemicals determined in vivo and in isolated perfused gills", Toxicol. Appl. 

Pharmacol. 131: 130-135. 

Barber M.C. (2003). A review and comparison of models for predicting dynamic chemical bioconcentration 

in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22: 1963-1992. 

Opperhuizen A. (1986), "Bioconcentration of hydrophobic chemicals in fish", in Aquatic Toxicology and 

Environmental Fate, STP 921, Poston, T.M. and Purdy, R., Editors. American Society for Testing and 

Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA: 304-315. 

Arnot J.A. and Gobas F.A.P.C. (2004), "A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicals in 

aquatic ecosystems", Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 2343-2355. 

Thomann R.V. (1989). Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic food chains. 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707. 


Hendriks A.J., van der Linde A., Cornelissen G. and Sijm D.T.H.M. (2001), "The power of size. 1. Rate 

constants and equilibrium ratios for accumulation of organic substances related to octanol-water partition 

ratio and species weight", Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 1399-1420. 

Arnot J.A. and Gobas F.A.P.C. (2003), "A generic QSAR for assessing the bioaccumulation potential of 

organic chemicals in aquatic food webs", QSAR Comb. Sci. 22: 337-345. 

Crookes M. and Brooke D. (2010), "Estimation of fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) from depuration data", 

Environmental Agency, Bristol, UK. 

Opperhuizen A. and Voors P.I. (1987), "Uptake and elimination of polychlorinated aromatic ethers by fish: 

chloroanisoles", Chemosphere. 16: 953-962. 

De Voogt P. (1990), "QSARs for the environmental behaviour of polynuclear (hetero)aromatic compounds - 

Studies in aqueous systems", Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 

Gobas F.A.P.C. and Mackay D. (1987), "Dynamics of hydrophobic organic chemical bioconcentration in 

fish", Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 495-504. 

106 

Draft 


7.6 Annex 6: EUSES Output 

STUDY 

STUDY IDENTIFICATION 

Study name Vinyl neodecanoate S 

Study description EA ERE S 

Author dnb S 

Institute EA S 

Address D 

Zip code D 

City D 

Country D 

Telephone D 

Telefax D 

Email daniel.merckel@environment-agency.gov.uk S 

Calculations checksum 8ECDC19A S 

Draft 


DEFAULTS 

DEFAULT IDENTIFICATION 

General name Standard Euses 2.1 D 

Description According to TGDs D 

CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPARTMENTS 

GENERAL 

Density of solid phase 2.5 [kg.l-1] D 

Density of water phase 1 [kg.l-1] D 

Density of air phase 1.3E-03 [kg.l-1] D 

Environmental temperature 12 [oC] D 

Standard temperature for Vp and Sol 25 [oC] D 

Temperature correction method Temperature correction for local distribution D 

Constant of Junge equation 0.01 [Pa.m] D 

Surface area of aerosol particles 0.01 [m2.m-3] D 

Gas constant (8.314) 8.314 [Pa.m3.mol-1.K-1] D 

SUSPENDED MATTER 

Volume fraction solids in suspended matter 0.1 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction water in suspended matter 0.9 [m3.m-3] D 

Weight fraction of organic carbon in suspended matter 0.1 [kg.kg-1] D 

Bulk density of suspended matter 1.15E+03 [kgwwt.m-3] O 

Conversion factor wet-dry suspended matter 4.6 [kgwwt.kgdwt-1] O 

SEDIMENT 

Volume fraction solids in sediment 0.2 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction water in sediment 0.8 [m3.m-3] D 

Weight fraction of organic carbon in sediment 0.05 [kg.kg-1] D 

SOIL 

Volume fraction solids in soil 0.6 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction water in soil 0.2 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction air in soil 0.2 [m3.m-3] D 

Weight fraction of organic carbon in soil 0.02 [kg.kg-1] D 

Weight fraction of organic matter in soil 0.034 [kg.kg-1] O 

Bulk density of soil 1.7E+03 [kgwwt.m-3] O 

Conversion factor wet-dry soil 1.13 [kgwwt.kgdwt-1] O 

STP SLUDGE 

Fraction of organic carbon in raw sewage sludge 0.3 [kg.kg-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in settled sewage sludge 0.3 [kg.kg-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in activated sewage sludge 0.37 [kg.kg-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in effluent sewage sludge 0.37 [kg.kg-1] D 

108 

Draft 

DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION RATES 

Rate constant for abiotic degradation in STP 0 [d-1] D 

Rate constant for abiotic degradation in bulk sediment 0 [d-1] (12[oC]) D 

Rate constant for anaerobic biodegradation in sediment 0 [d-1] (12[oC]) D 

Fraction of sediment compartment that is aerated 0.1 [m3.m-3] D 

Concentration of OH-radicals in atmosphere 5E+05 [molec.cm-3] D 

Rate constant for abiotic degradation in bulk soil 0 [d-1] (12[oC]) D 

RELEASE ESTIMATION 

Fraction of EU production volume for region 100 [%] D 

Fraction of EU tonnage for region (private use) 10 [%] D 

Fraction connected to sewer systems 80 [%] D 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 

GENERAL 

Number of inhabitants feeding one STP 1E+04 [eq] D 

Sewage flow 200 [l.eq-1.d-1] D 

Effluent discharge rate of local STP 2E+06 [l.d-1] O 

Temperature correction for STP degradation No D 

Temperature of air above aeration tank 15 [oC] D 

Temperature of water in aeration tank 15 [oC] D 

Height of air column above STP 10 [m] D 

Number of inhabitants of region 2E+07 [eq] D 

Number of inhabitants of continental system 3.5E+08 [eq] O 

Windspeed in the system 3 [m.s-1] D 

RAW SEWAGE 

Mass of O2 binding material per person per day 54 [g.eq-1.d-1] D 

Dry weight solids produced per person per day 0.09 [kg.eq-1.d-1] D 

Density solids in raw sewage 1.5 [kg.l-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in raw sewage sludge 0.3 [kg.kg-1] D 


PRIMARY SETTLER 

Depth of primary settler 4 [m] D 

Hydraulic retention time of primary settler 2 [hr] D 

Density suspended and settled solids in primary settler 1.5 [kg.l-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in settled sewage sludge 0.3 [kg.kg-1] D 

ACTIVATED SLUDGE TANK 

Depth of aeration tank 3 [m] D 

Density solids of activated sludge 1.3 [kg.l-1] D 

Concentration solids of activated sludge 4 [kg.m-3] D 

Steady state O2 concentration in activated sludge 2E-03 [kg.m-3] D 

Mode of aeration Surface D 

Aeration rate of bubble aeration 1.31E-05 [m3.s-1.eq-1] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in activated sewage sludge 0.37 [kg.kg-1] D 

Sludge loading rate 0.15 [kg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Hydraulic retention time in aerator (9-box STP) 6.9 [hr] O 

Hydraulic retention time in aerator (6-box STP) 10.8 [hr] O 

Sludge retention time of aeration tank 9.2 [d] O 

SOLIDS-LIQUIDS SEPARATOR 

Depth of solids-liquid separator 3 [m] D 

Density suspended and settled solids in solids-liquid separator 1.3 [kg.l-1] D 

Concentration solids in effluent 30 [mg.l-1] D 

Hydraulic retention time of solids-liquid separator 6 [hr] D 

Fraction of organic carbon in effluent sewage sludge 0.37 [kg.kg-1] D 

LOCAL DISTRIBUTION 

AIR AND SURFACE WATER 

Concentration in air at source strength 1 [kg.d-1] 2.78E-04 [mg.m-3] D 

Standard deposition flux of aerosol-bound compounds 0.01 [mg.m-2.d-1] D 

Standard deposition flux of gaseous compounds 3E-04 [mg.m-2.d-1] O 

Suspended solids concentration in STP effluent water 15 [mg.l-1] D 

Dilution factor (rivers) 10 [-] D 

Flow rate of the river 1.8E+04 [m3.d-1] D 

Calculate dilution from river flow rate No D 

Dilution factor (coastal areas) 100 [-] D 

SOIL 

Mixing depth of grassland soil 0.1 [m] D 

Dry sludge application rate on agricultural soil 5E+03 [kg.ha-1.yr-1] D 

Dry sludge application rate on grassland 1000 [kg.ha-1.yr-1] D 

Averaging time soil (for terrestrial ecosystem) 30 [d] D 

Averaging time agricultural soil 180 [d] D 

Averaging time grassland 180 [d] D 

PMTC, air side of air-soil interface 1.05E-03 [m.s-1] O 

Soil-air PMTC (air-soil interface) 5.56E-06 [m.s-1] D 

Soil-water film PMTC (air-soil interface) 5.56E-10 [m.s-1] D 

Mixing depth agricultural soil 0.2 [m] D 

Fraction of rain water infiltrating soil 0.25 [-] D 

Average annual precipitation 700 [mm.yr-1] D 

Draft 

REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTION 

CONFIGURATION 

Fraction of direct regional emissions to seawater 1 [%] D 

Fraction of direct continental emissions to seawater 0 [%] D 

Fraction of regional STP effluent to seawater 0 [%] D 

Fraction of continental STP effluent to seawater 0 [%] D 

Fraction of flow from continental rivers to regional rivers 0.034 [-] D 

Fraction of flow from continental rivers to regional sea 0 [-] D 

Fraction of flow from continental rivers to continental sea0.966 [-] O 

Number of inhabitants of region 2E+07 [eq] D 

Number of inhabitants in the EU 3.7E+08 [eq] D 

Number of inhabitants of continental system 3.5E+08 [eq] O 


AREAS 

REGIONAL 

Area (land+rivers) of regional system 4E+04 [km2] D 

Area fraction of freshwater, region (excl. sea) 0.03 [-] D 

Area fraction of natural soil, region (excl. sea) 0.27 [-] D 

Area fraction of agricultural soil, region (excl. sea) 0.6 [-] D 

Area fraction of industrial/urban soil, region (excl. sea) 0.1 [-] D 

Length of regional seawater 40 [km] D 

Width of regional seawater 10 [km] D 

Area of regional seawater 400 [km2] O 

Area (land+rivers+sea) of regional system 4.04E+04 [km2] O 

Area fraction of freshwater, region (total) 0.0297 [-] O 

Area fraction of seawater, region (total) 9.9E-03 [-] O 

Area fraction of natural soil, region (total) 0.267 [-] O 

Area fraction of agricultural soil, region (total) 0.594 [-] O 

Area fraction of industrial/urban soil, region (total) 0.099 [-] O 

CONTINENTAL 

Total area of EU (continent+region, incl. sea) 7.04E+06 [km2] D 

Area (land+rivers+sea) of continental system 7E+06 [km2] O 

Area (land+rivers) of continental system 3.5E+06 [km2] O 

Area fraction of freshwater, continent (excl. sea) 0.03 [-] D 

Area fraction of natural soil, continent (excl. sea) 0.27 [-] D 

Area fraction of agricultural soil, continent (excl. sea) 0.6 [-] D 

Area fraction of industrial/urban soil, continent (excl. sea) 0.1 [-] D 

Area fraction of freshwater, continent (total) 0.015 [-] O 

Area fraction of seawater, continent (total) 0.5 [-] D 

Area fraction of natural soil, continent (total) 0.135 [-] O 

Area fraction of agricultural soil, continent (total) 0.3 [-] O 

Area fraction of industrial/urban soil, continent (total) 0.05 [-] O 

MODERATE 

Area of moderate system (incl.continent,region) 8.5E+07 [km2] D 

Area of moderate system (excl.continent, region) 7.8E+07 [km2] O 

Area fraction of water, moderate system 0.5 [-] D 

ARCTIC 

Area of arctic system 4.25E+07 [km2] D 

Area fraction of water, arctic system 0.6 [-] D 

TROPIC 

Area of tropic system 1.275E+08 [km2] D 

Area fraction of water, tropic system 0.7 [-] D 

110 

Draft 

TEMPERATURE 

Environmental temperature, regional scale 12 [oC] D 

Environmental temperature, continental scale 12 [oC] D 

Environmental temperature, moderate scale 12 [oC] D 

Environmental temperature, arctic scale -10 [oC] D 

Environmental temperature, tropic scale 25 [oC] D 

Enthalpy of vaporisation 50 [kJ.mol-1] D 

Enthalpy of solution 10 [kJ.mol-1] D 

MASS TRANSFER 

Air-film PMTC (air-water interface) 4.03E-03 [m.s-1] O 

Water-film PMTC (air-water interface) 4.82E-06 [m.s-1] O 

PMTC, air side of air-soil interface 1.05E-03 [m.s-1] O 

PMTC, soil side of air-soil interface 1.7E-10 [m.s-1] O 

Soil-air PMTC (air-soil interface) 5.56E-06 [m.s-1] D 

Soil-water film PMTC (air-soil interface) 5.56E-10 [m.s-1] D 

Water-film PMTC (sediment-water interface) 2.78E-06 [m.s-1] D 

Pore water PMTC (sediment-water interface) 2.78E-08 [m.s-1] D 

AIR 

GENERAL 

Atmospheric mixing height 1000 [m] D 

Windspeed in the system 3 [m.s-1] D 

Aerosol deposition velocity 1E-03 [m.s-1] D 

Aerosol collection efficiency 2E+05 [-] D 


RAIN 

Average precipitation, regional system 700 [mm.yr-1] D 

Average precipitation, continental system 700 [mm.yr-1] D 

Average precipitation, moderate system 700 [mm.yr-1] D 

Average precipitation, arctic system 250 [mm.yr-1] D 

Average precipitation, tropic system 1.3E+03 [mm.yr-1] D 

RESIDENCE TIMES 

Residence time of air, regional 0.687 [d] O 

Residence time of air, continental 9.05 [d] O 

Residence time of air, moderate 30.2 [d] O 

Residence time of air, arctic 22.3 [d] O 

Residence time of air, tropic 38.6 [d] O 

WATER 

DEPTH 

Water depth of freshwater, regional system 3 [m] D 

Water depth of seawater, regional system 10 [m] D 

Water depth of freshwater, continental system 3 [m] D 

Water depth of seawater, continental system 200 [m] D 

Water depth, moderate system 1000 [m] D 

Water depth, arctic system 1000 [m] D 

Water depth, tropic system 1000 [m] D 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

Suspended solids conc. freshwater, regional 15 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. seawater, regional 5 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. freshwater, continental 15 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. seawater, continental 5 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. seawater, moderate 5 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. seawater, arctic 5 [mg.l-1] D 

Suspended solids conc. seawater, tropic 5 [mg.l-1] D 

Concentration solids in effluent, regional 30 [mg.l-1] D 

Concentration solids in effluent, continental 30 [mg.l-1] D 

Concentration biota 1 [mgwwt.l-1] D 

RESIDENCE TIMES 

Residence time of freshwater, regional 43.3 [d] O 

Residence time of seawater, regional 4.64 [d] O 

Residence time of freshwater, continental 172 [d] O 

Residence time of seawater, continental 365 [d] O 

Residence time of water, moderate 2.69E+03 [d] O 

Residence time of water, arctic 5.84E+03 [d] O 

Residence time of water, tropic 1.09E+04 [d] O 

Draft 

SEDIMENT 

DEPTH 

Sediment mixing depth 0.03 [m] D 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in freshwater, reg 10 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in seawater, reg 10 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in freshwater, cont 10 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in seawater, cont 5 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in water, moderate 1 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in water, arctic 1 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

(Biogenic) prod. susp. solids in water, tropic 1 [g.m-2.yr-1] D 

SEDIMENTATION RATES 

Settling velocity of suspended solids 2.5 [m.d-1] D 

Net sedimentation rate, freshwater, regional 2.8 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, seawater, regional 1.53 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, freshwater, continental 2.75 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, seawater, continental 6.69E-03 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, moderate 2.8E-03 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, arctic 2E-03 [mm.yr-1] O 

Net sedimentation rate, tropic 2E-03 [mm.yr-1] O 

SOIL 

GENERAL 

Fraction of rain water infiltrating soil 0.25 [-] D 

Fraction of rain water running off soil 0.25 [-] D 


DEPTH 

Chemical-dependent soil depth No D 

Mixing depth natural soil 0.05 [m] D 

Mixing depth agricultural soil 0.2 [m] D 

Mixing depth industrial/urban soil 0.05 [m] D 

Mixing depth of soil, moderate system 0.05 [m] D 

Mixing depth of soil, arctic system 0.05 [m] D 

Mixing depth of soil, tropic system 0.05 [m] D 

EROSION 

Soil erosion rate, regional system 0.03 [mm.yr-1] D 

Soil erosion rate, continental system 0.03 [mm.yr-1] D 

Soil erosion rate, moderate system 0.03 [mm.yr-1] D 

Soil erosion rate, arctic system 0.03 [mm.yr-1] D 

Soil erosion rate, tropic system 0.03 [mm.yr-1] D 

CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS, WORMS AND CATTLE 

PLANTS 

Volume fraction of water in plant tissue 0.65 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction of lipids in plant tissue 0.01 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction of air in plant tissue 0.3 [m3.m-3] D 

Correction for differences between plant lipids and octanol0.95 [-] D 

Bulk density of plant tissue (wet weight) 0.7 [kg.l-1] D 

Rate constant for metabolism in plants 0 [d-1] D 

Rate constant for photolysis in plants 0 [d-1] D 

Leaf surface area 5 [m2] D 

Conductance 1E-03 [m.s-1] D 

Shoot volume 2 [l] D 

Rate constant for dilution by growth 0.035 [d-1] D 

Transpiration stream 1 [l.d-1] D 

WORMS 

Volume fraction of water inside a worm 0.84 [m3.m-3] D 

Volume fraction of lipids inside a worm 0.012 [m3.m-3] D 

Density of earthworms 1 [kgwwt.l-1] D 

Fraction of gut loading in worm 0.1 [kg.kg-1] D 

CATTLE 

Daily intake for cattle of grass (dryweight) 16.9 [kg.d-1] D 

Conversion factor grass from dryweight to wetweight 4 [kg.kg-1] D 

Daily intake of soil (dryweight) 0.41 [kg.d-1] D 

Daily inhalation rate for cattle 122 [m3.d-1] D 

Daily intake of drinking water for cattle 55 [l.d-1] D 

112 

Draft 


SUBSTANCE 

SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION 

General name Vinyl neodecanoate S 

Description D 

CAS-No 51000-52-3 S 

EC-notification no. D 

EINECS no. D 

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 

Molecular weight 198.31 [g.mol-1] S 

Melting point 7.2 [oC] S 

Boiling point 212 [oC] S 

Vapour pressure at test temperature 38.6 [Pa] S 

Temperature at which vapour pressure was measured 25 [oC] D 

Vapour pressure at 25 [oC] 38.6 [Pa] O 

Octanol-water partition coefficient 4.9 [log10] S 

Water solubility at test temperature 5.9 [mg.l-1] S 

Temperature at which solubility was measured 20 [oC] S 

Water solubility at 25 [oC] 6.32 [mg.l-1] O 

PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS 

SOLIDS-WATER 

Chemical class for Koc-QSAR Esters S 

Organic carbon-water partition coefficient 2.82E+03 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in soil 56.5 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in sediment 141 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient suspended matter 282 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in raw sewage sludge 847 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in settled sewage sludge847 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in activated sewage sludge 1.05E+03 [l.kg-1] O 

Solids-water partition coefficient in effluent sewage sludge1.05E+03 [l.kg-1] O 

Soil-water partition coefficient 85 [m3.m-3] O 

Suspended matter-water partition coefficient 71.5 [m3.m-3] O 

Sediment-water partition coefficient 71.4 [m3.m-3] O 

AIR-WATER 

Environmental temperature 12 [oC] D 

Water solubility at environmental temperature 5.26 [mg.l-1] O 

Vapour pressure at environmental temperature 15.4 [Pa] O 

Sub-cooled liquid vapour pressure 15.4 [Pa] O 

Fraction of chemical associated with aerosol particles 6.5E-06 [-] O 

Henry's law constant at 25 [oC] 1.21E+03 [Pa.m3.mol-1] O 

Henry's law constant at environmental temperature 580 [Pa.m3.mol-1] O 

Air-water partitioning coefficient 0.245 [m3.m-3] O 

Draft 

BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS 

PREDATOR EXPOSURE 

Bioconcentration factor for earthworms 954 [l.kgwwt-1] O 

HUMAN AND PREDATOR EXPOSURE 

Bioconcentration factor for fish 1.67E+03 [l.kgwwt-1] S 

QSAR valid for calculation of BCF-Fish Yes O 

Biomagnification factor in fish 1 [-] O 

Biomagnification factor in predator 1 [-] O 

HUMAN EXPOSURE 

Partition coefficient between leaves and air 1.85E+03 [m3.m-3] O 

Partition coefficient between plant tissue and water 453 [m3.m-3] O 

Transpiration-stream concentration factor 0.0378 [-] O 

Bioaccumulation factor for meat 2E-03 [d.kg-1] O 

Bioaccumulation factor for milk 6.31E-04 [d.kg-1] O 

Purification factor for surface water 0.25 [-] O 

BIOTA-WATER 

FOR REGIONAL/CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTION 

Bioconcentration factor for aquatic biota 1.67E+03 [l.kgwwt-1] O 

DEGRADATION AND TRANSFORMATION RATES 

CHARACTARIZATION 

Characterization of biodegradability Not biodegradable D 


STP 

Degradation calculation method in STP First order, standard OECD/EU tests D 

Rate constant for biodegradation in STP 0 [d-1] O 

Total rate constant for degradation in STP 0 [d-1] O 

Maximum growth rate of specific microorganisms 2 [d-1] D 

Half saturation concentration 0.5 [g.m-3] D 

WATER/SEDIMENT 

WATER 

Rate constant for hydrolysis in surface water 6.93E-07 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Rate constant for photolysis in surface water 6.93E-07 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for biodegradation in surface water 0 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Total rate constant for degradation in bulk surface water1.39E-06 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Rate constant for biodegradation in saltwater 0 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Total rate constant for degradation in bulk saltwater 1.39E-06 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

SEDIMENT 

Rate constant for biodegradation in aerated sediment 6.93E-07 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Total rate constant for degradation in bulk sediment 6.93E-08 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

AIR 

Specific degradation rate constant with OH-radicals 0 [cm3.molec-1.s-1] D 

Rate constant for degradation in air 0 [d-1] O 

SOIL 

Rate constant for biodegradation in bulk soil 6.93E-07 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Total rate constant for degradation in bulk soil 6.93E-07 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

REMOVAL RATE CONSTANTS SOIL 

Total rate constant for degradation in bulk soil 6.93E-07 [d-1] (12[oC]) O 

Rate constant for volatilisation from agricultural soil 7.36E-05 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for leaching from agricultural soil 2.82E-05 [d-1] O 

Total rate constant for removal from agricultural top soil1.02E-04 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for volatilisation from grassland soil 1.47E-04 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for leaching from grassland soil 5.64E-05 [d-1] O 

Total rate constant for removal from grassland top soil 2.04E-04 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for volatilisation from industrial soil 2.94E-04 [d-1] O 

Rate constant for leaching from industrial soil 1.13E-04 [d-1] O 

Total rate constant for removal from industrial soil 4.08E-04 [d-1] O 

114 

Draft 


RELEASE ESTIMATION 

CHARACTERIZATION AND TONNAGE 

High Production Volume Chemical Yes S 

Production volume of chemical in EU 2.3E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] S 

Fraction of EU production volume for region 100 [%] D 

Regional production volume of substance 2.3E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Continental production volume of substance 0 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Volume of chemical imported to EU 0 [tonnes.yr-1] D 

Volume of chemical exported from EU 9.89E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] S 

Tonnage of substance in Europe 1.31E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

USE PATTERNS 

PRODUCTION STEPS 

EMISSION INPUT DATA [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] 

Usage/production title Production site S 

Industry category 3 Chemical industry: chemicals used in synthesis S 

Use category 33 Intermediates S 

Extra details on use category Substance processed elsewhere S 

Extra details on use category Dry process S 

Main category production Ib Intermed. stored on-site/continuous prod. S 

Use specific emission scenario No D 

Emission scenario no special scenario selected/available S 

Fraction of tonnage for application 1 [-] O 

Total of fractions for all production steps 1 [-] O 

Relevant production volume for usage 2.3E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Regional production volume of substance 2.3E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Regional production volume for usage 2.3E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

OTHER LIFE CYCLE STEPS 

EMISSION INPUT DATA [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] 

Usage/production title Polymerisation large sites S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 11 Polymers industry S 


Extra details on use category Polymerization processes S 

Extra details on use category Wet: monomers S 

INDUSTRIAL USE 



Draft 

TONNAGE 

Fraction of tonnage for application 0.8 [-] S 

Fraction of chemical in formulation 1 [-] D 

Tonnage of formulated product 1.05E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Relevant tonnage for application 1.05E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Regional tonnage of substance 1.05E+05 [tonnes.yr-1] O 


Regional tonnage of substance (private use step) 1.05E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Continental tonnage of substance (private use step) 9.44E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

EMISSION INPUT DATA [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] 

Usage/production title Polymerisation smaller sites S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 11 Polymers industry S 


Extra details on use category Polymerization processes D 

Extra details on use category Wet: monomers D 




TONNAGE 

Fraction of tonnage for application 0.2 [-] S 

Fraction of chemical in formulation 1 [-] D 


Relevant tonnage for application 2.62E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Regional tonnage of substance 2.62E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 


Regional tonnage of substance (private use step) 2.62E+03 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Continental tonnage of substance (private use step) 2.36E+04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 


EMISSION INPUT DATA [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] 

Usage/production title Polymer use in paints S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 14 Paints, lacquers and varnishes industry S 

Use category 55/0 Others S 

Extra details on use category Water based D 

Extra details on use category Do it yourself D 

FORMULATION 

Use specific emission scenario No S 


Main category formulation III Multi-purpose equipment D 

PRIVATE USE 



TONNAGE 


Fraction of chemical in formulation 6E-05 [-] S 


Relevant tonnage for application 85.2 [tonnes.yr-1] S 

Regional tonnage of substance 85.2 [tonnes.yr-1] O 


Regional tonnage of substance (private use step) 8.52 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Continental tonnage of substance (private use step) 76.7 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

EMISSION INPUT DATA [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] 

Usage/production title Polymer use in adhesives S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 14 Paints, lacquers and varnishes industry S 

Use category 55/0 Others D 

Extra details on use category Water based D 

Extra details on use category Do it yourself D 

FORMULATION 




116 

Draft 

PRIVATE USE 



TONNAGE 









EMISSION INPUT DATA [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] 

Usage/production title Polymer use in cement S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 6 Public domain S 

Use category 13 Construction materials and additives S 

Extra details on use category No extra details necessary D 


FORMULATION 








TONNAGE 









EMISSION INPUT DATA [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] 

Usage/production title Polymer use in plaster S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 6 Public domain S 

Use category 13 Construction materials and additives S 



FORMULATION 







TONNAGE 









EMISSION INPUT DATA [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] 

Usage/production title Polymer in personal care products S 

USE PATTERN 

Industry category 5 Personal / domestic use S 

Use category 9 Cleaning/washing agents and additives S 

Extra details on use category Unknown type D 


Draft 

FORMULATION 



PRIVATE USE 



TONNAGE 


Fraction of chemical in formulation 1.4E-05 [-] S 

Tonnage of formulated product 286 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Relevant tonnage for application 4E-03 [tonnes.yr-1] S 

Regional tonnage of substance 4E-03 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Tonnage of formulated product 286 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Regional tonnage of substance (private use step) 4E-04 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Continental tonnage of substance (private use step) 3.6E-03 [tonnes.yr-1] O 

Total of fractions for all applications 1 [-] O 

INTERMEDIATE RESULTS 

INTERMEDIATE [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] 

PRODUCTION 

Emission tables A1.2 (specific uses), B1.6 (general table) S 


RELEASE FRACTIONS 

Fraction of tonnage released to air 1E-05 [-] O 

Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 0 [-] O 

Fraction of tonnage released to surface water 0 [-] O 

Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 1E-05 [-] O 

Fraction of tonnage released to agricultural soil 0 [-] O 

Emission fractions determined by special scenario No O 

EMISSION DAYS 

Fraction of the main local source 1 [-] S 

Number of emission days per year 300 [-] O 

Release to wastewater only No D 

Emission days determined by special scenario No O 

REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] 

PRODUCTION 

REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 2.3E+03 [kg.yr-1] O 

Regional release to wastewater 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Regional release to surface water 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Regional release to industrial soil 2.3E+03 [kg.yr-1] O 

Regional release to agricultural soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 

CONTINENTAL 

Continental release to air 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Continental release to wastewater 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Continental release to surface water 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Continental release to industrial soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Continental release to agricultural soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 

INTERMEDIATE [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] 




Fraction of tonnage released to air 5E-06 [-] S 

Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 1.92E-04 [-] S 


Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 0 [-] O 



118 

Draft 

EMISSION DAYS 

Fraction of the main local source 0.2 [-] S 




REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] 


REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 524 [kg.yr-1] O 

Regional release to wastewater 2.01E+04 [kg.yr-1] O 


Regional release to industrial soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 


CONTINENTAL 






INTERMEDIATE [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] 






Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 2E-04 [-] S 


Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 0 [-] O 



EMISSION DAYS 

Fraction of the main local source 0.05 [-] O 




REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] 


REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 2.62E+04 [kg.yr-1] O 



Regional release to industrial soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 


CONTINENTAL 






INTERMEDIATE [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] 

FORMULATION 

Emission tables A2.1 (general table), B2.3 (specific uses) S 



Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 5E-03 [-] S 





Draft 

EMISSION DAYS 





PRIVATE USE 

Emission tables A4.5 (specific uses), B4.4 (specific uses) S 


Fraction of tonnage released to air 0 [-] O 

Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 0.01 [-] S 





EMISSION DAYS 

Fraction of the main local source 2E-03 [-] O 


Release to wastewater only Yes O 


REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] 

FORMULATION 

REGIONAL 


Regional release to wastewater 426 [kg.yr-1] O 


Regional release to industrial soil 8.52 [kg.yr-1] O 



CONTINENTAL 






PRIVATE USE 

REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Regional release to wastewater 84.3 [kg.yr-1] O 




CONTINENTAL 


Continental release to wastewater 759 [kg.yr-1] O 


Continental release to industrial soil 380 [kg.yr-1] O 


INTERMEDIATE [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] 

FORMULATION 



Fraction of tonnage released to air 2.8E-04 [-] S 

Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 0.05 [-] S 





EMISSION DAYS 





PRIVATE USE 


120 

Draft 



Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 5E-03 [-] O 





EMISSION DAYS 





REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] 

FORMULATION 

REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 12.9 [kg.yr-1] O 





CONTINENTAL 







PRIVATE USE 

REGIONAL 






CONTINENTAL 


Continental release to wastewater 196 [kg.yr-1] O 


Continental release to industrial soil 196 [kg.yr-1] O 


INTERMEDIATE [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] 

FORMULATION 




Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 0.02 [-] O 





EMISSION DAYS 








Fraction of tonnage released to air 0.05 [-] O 



Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 0.45 [-] O 



Draft 

EMISSION DAYS 





REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] 

FORMULATION 

REGIONAL 






CONTINENTAL 







REGIONAL 







CONTINENTAL 






INTERMEDIATE [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] 

FORMULATION 









EMISSION DAYS 








Fraction of tonnage released to air 0.05 [-] O 



Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 0.45 [-] O 



EMISSION DAYS 





122 

Draft 

REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] 

FORMULATION 

REGIONAL 






CONTINENTAL 







REGIONAL 






CONTINENTAL 







INTERMEDIATE [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] 

RELEASE FRACTIONS AND EMISSION DAYS [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] 

FORMULATION 

Emission tables A2.# (specific uses), B2.3 (specific uses) S 



Fraction of tonnage released to wastewater 9E-04 [-] O 


Fraction of tonnage released to industrial soil 8.1E-03 [-] O 



EMISSION DAYS 

Fraction of the main local source 1 [-] O 




PRIVATE USE 









EMISSION DAYS 





REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL RELEASES [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] 

FORMULATION 

REGIONAL 

Regional release to air 8E-04 [kg.yr-1] O 

Regional release to wastewater 3.6E-03 [kg.yr-1] O 




Draft 

CONTINENTAL 






PRIVATE USE 

REGIONAL 




Regional release to industrial soil 3.96E-03 [kg.yr-1] O 


CONTINENTAL 


Continental release to wastewater 3.53 [kg.yr-1] O 


Continental release to industrial soil 0.0357 [kg.yr-1] O 



REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL TOTAL EMISSIONS 

Total regional emission to air 80.8 [kg.d-1] O 

Total regional emission to wastewater 62.2 [kg.d-1] O 

Total regional emission to surface water 15.6 [kg.d-1] O 

Total regional emission to industrial soil 6.99 [kg.d-1] O 

Total regional emission to agricultural soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Total continental emission to air 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Total continental emission to wastewater 2.1 [kg.d-1] O 

Total continental emission to surface water 0.525 [kg.d-1] O 

Total continental emission to industrial soil 1.58 [kg.d-1] O 

Total continental emission to agricultural soil 0 [kg.d-1] O 

LOCAL 

[1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] [PRODUCTION] 

Local emission to air during episode 7.67 [kg.d-1] O 

Emission to air calculated by special scenario No O 

Local emission to wastewater during episode 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Emission to water calculated by special scenario No O 

Show this step in further calculations Yes O 

Intermittent release No D 

[2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 



Local emission to wastewater during episode 13.4 [kg.d-1] O 




[3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 







[4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [FORMULATION] 





Specific biocides scenario available Yes D 



124 

Draft 

[4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 

Local emission to air during episode 0 [kg.d-1] O 


Local emission to wastewater during episode 5.62E-04 [kg.d-1] O 





[5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [FORMULATION] 








[5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [PRIVATE USE] 









[6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [FORMULATION] 

Local emission to air during episode 2E-03 [kg.d-1] O 


Local emission to wastewater during episode 8E-03 [kg.d-1] O 




[6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 







[7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [FORMULATION] 

Local emission to air during episode 2.33E-03 [kg.d-1] O 






[7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 







[8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [FORMULATION] 

Local emission to air during episode 2.67E-06 [kg.d-1] O 






[8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 







Draft 


DISTRIBUTION 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 

CONTINENTAL 

Fraction of emission directed to air 69.5 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to water 11.1 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to sludge 19.4 [%] O 

Fraction of the emission degraded 0 [%] O 

Total of fractions 100 [%] O 

Indirect emission to air 1.46 [kg.d-1] O 

Indirect emission to surface water 0.234 [kg.d-1] O 

Indirect emission to agricultural soil 0.408 [kg.d-1] O 

REGIONAL 

Fraction of emission directed to air 70.8 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to water 9.86 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to sludge 19.3 [%] O 

Fraction of the emission degraded 0 [%] O 


Indirect emission to air 44.1 [kg.d-1] O 

Indirect emission to surface water 6.14 [kg.d-1] O 

Indirect emission to agricultural soil 12 [kg.d-1] O 

LOCAL 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] [PRODUCTION] 

INPUT 

Use or bypass STP (local freshwater assessment) Use STP D 

Use or bypass STP (local marine assessment) Bypass STP D 

Local emission to wastewater during episode 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Concentration in untreated wastewater 0 [mg.l-1] O 

Local emission entering the STP 0 [kg.d-1] O 

CONFIGURATION 

Type of local STP With primary settler (9-box) D 

Number of inhabitants feeding this STP 1E+04 [eq] O 

Effluent discharge rate of this STP 2E+06 [l.d-1] O 

Calculate dilution from river flow rate No O 

Flow rate of the river 1.8E+04 [m3.d-1] O 

Dilution factor (rivers) 10 [-] O 

Dilution factor (coastal areas) 100 [-] O 

OUTPUT [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] [PRODUCTION] 

Fraction of emission directed to air by STP 0 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to water by STP 0 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP 0 [%] O 

Fraction of the emission degraded in STP 0 [%] O 


Local indirect emission to air from STP during episode 0 [kg.d-1] O 

Concentration in untreated wastewater 0 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent 0 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in effluent exceeds solubility No O 

Concentration in dry sewage sludge 0 [mg.kg-1] O 

PEC for micro-organisms in the STP 0 [mg.l-1] O 

126 

Draft 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

INPUT 




Concentration in untreated wastewater 6.71 [mg.l-1] O 

Local emission entering the STP 13.4 [kg.d-1] O 

CONFIGURATION 









OUTPUT [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

Fraction of emission directed to air by STP 71.3 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to water by STP 9.46 [%] O 

Fraction of emission directed to sludge by STP 19.3 [%] O 



Local indirect emission to air from STP during episode 9.57 [kg.d-1] O 


Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent 0.635 [mg.l-1] O 


Concentration in dry sewage sludge 3.27E+03 [mg.kg-1] O 

PEC for micro-organisms in the STP 0.635 [mg.l-1] O 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 












Draft 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [FORMULATION] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [FORMULATION] 














INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 

INPUT 




Concentration in untreated wastewater 2.81E-04 [mg.l-1] O 

Local emission entering the STP 5.62E-04 [kg.d-1] O 

CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 






Local indirect emission to air from STP during episode4.01E-04 [kg.d-1] O 


Concentration of chemical (total) in the STP-effluent 2.66E-05 [mg.l-1] O 


Concentration in dry sewage sludge 0.137 [mg.kg-1] O 

PEC for micro-organisms in the STP 2.66E-05 [mg.l-1] O 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [FORMULATION] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








128 

Draft 

OUTPUT [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [FORMULATION] 













INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [PRIVATE USE] 

INPUT 







CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [PRIVATE USE] 













INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [FORMULATION] 

INPUT 



Local emission to wastewater during episode 8E-03 [kg.d-1] O 

Concentration in untreated wastewater 4E-03 [mg.l-1] O 

Local emission entering the STP 8E-03 [kg.d-1] O 

CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [FORMULATION] 






Local indirect emission to air from STP during episode 5.7E-03 [kg.d-1] O 






Draft 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 









OUTPUT [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 













INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [FORMULATION] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [FORMULATION] 












130 

Draft 


INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 














INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [FORMULATION] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








OUTPUT [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [FORMULATION] 










Concentration in dry sewage sludge 2.93E-03 [mg.kg-1] O 



INPUT AND CONFIGURATION [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 

INPUT 






CONFIGURATION 








Draft 

OUTPUT [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 










Concentration in dry sewage sludge 5.24E-04 [mg.kg-1] O 



REGIONAL, CONTINENTAL AND GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION 

PECS 

REGIONAL 

Regional PEC in surface water (total) 4.49E-05 [mg.l-1] O 

Regional PEC in seawater (total) 4.21E-06 [mg.l-1] O 

Regional PEC in surface water (dissolved) 4.46E-05 [mg.l-1] O 

Qualitative assessment might be needed (TGD Part II, 5.6) No O 

Regional PEC in seawater (dissolved) 4.2E-06 [mg.l-1] O 


Regional PEC in air (total) 1.07E-04 [mg.m-3] O 

Regional PEC in agricultural soil (total) 0.0113 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Regional PEC in pore water of agricultural soils 2.25E-04 [mg.l-1] O 

Regional PEC in natural soil (total) 3.86E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Regional PEC in industrial soil (total) 0.0394 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Regional PEC in sediment (total) 4.65E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Regional PEC in seawater sediment (total) 3.7E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

CONTINENTAL 

Continental PEC in surface water (total) 4.68E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Continental PEC in seawater (total) 4.76E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Continental PEC in surface water (dissolved) 4.65E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Continental PEC in seawater (dissolved) 4.74E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Continental PEC in air (total) 1.04E-04 [mg.m-3] O 

Continental PEC in agricultural soil (total) 4.19E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Continental PEC in pore water of agricultural soils 8.37E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Continental PEC in natural soil (total) 3.76E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Continental PEC in industrial soil (total) 1.39E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Continental PEC in sediment (total) 4.84E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Continental PEC in seawater sediment (total) 4.18E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

GLOBAL: MODERATE 

Moderate PEC in water (total) 5.1E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Moderate PEC in water (dissolved) 5.08E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Moderate PEC in air (total) 1.04E-04 [mg.m-3] O 

Moderate PEC in soil (total) 3.75E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Moderate PEC in sediment (total) 4.48E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

GLOBAL: ARCTIC 

Arctic PEC in water (total) 1.27E-06 [mg.l-1] O 

Arctic PEC in water (dissolved) 1.27E-06 [mg.l-1] O 

Arctic PEC in air (total) 1.02E-04 [mg.m-3] O 

Arctic PEC in soil (total) 1.35E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Arctic PEC in sediment (total) 1.12E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

132 

Draft 

GLOBAL: TROPIC 

Tropic PEC in water (total) 2.68E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Tropic PEC in water (dissolved) 2.67E-07 [mg.l-1] O 

Tropic PEC in air (total) 1.05E-04 [mg.m-3] O 

Tropic PEC in soil (total) 1.76E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Tropic PEC in sediment (total) 2.36E-05 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

STEADY-STATE FRACTIONS 

REGIONAL 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional freshwater 1.55E-04 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional seawater 1.62E-05 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional air 4.16E-03 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional agricultural soil 0.0884 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional natural soil 3.41E-05 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional industrial soil 0.0129 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional freshwater sediment 1.85E-04 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in regional seawater sediment4.92E-06 [%] O 

CONTINENTAL 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental freshwater 1.42E-04 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental seawater 0.32 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental air 0.703 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental agricultural soil0.0288 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental natural soil 2.91E-03 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental industrial soil3.98E-03 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental freshwater sediment 1.69E-04 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in continental seawater sediment 4.86E-03 [%] O 



Steady-state mass fraction in moderate water 19.1 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in moderate air 7.81 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in moderate soil 0.12 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in moderate sediment 0.058 [%] O 


Steady-state mass fraction in arctic water 31.2 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in arctic air 4.19 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in arctic soil 0.188 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in arctic sediment 0.0947 [%] O 


Steady-state mass fraction in tropic water 23 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in tropic air 12.8 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in tropic soil 0.0552 [%] O 

Steady-state mass fraction in tropic sediment 0.0699 [%] O 

STEADY-STATE MASSES 

REGIONAL 

Steady-state mass in regional freshwater 162 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional seawater 16.9 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional air 4.33E+03 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional agricultural soil 9.19E+04 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional natural soil 35.5 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional industrial soil 1.34E+04 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional freshwater sediment 192 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in regional seawater sediment 5.11 [kg] O 

CONTINENTAL 

Steady-state mass in continental freshwater 147 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental seawater 3.33E+05 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental air 7.31E+05 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental agricultural soil 2.99E+04 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental natural soil 3.02E+03 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental industrial soil 4.14E+03 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental freshwater sediment 175 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in continental seawater sediment 5.05E+03 [kg] O 


Steady-state mass in moderate water 1.99E+07 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in moderate air 8.12E+06 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in moderate soil 1.24E+05 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in moderate sediment 6.02E+04 [kg] O 

Draft 


Steady-state mass in arctic water 3.25E+07 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in arctic air 4.35E+06 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in arctic soil 1.95E+05 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in arctic sediment 9.84E+04 [kg] O 


Steady-state mass in tropic water 2.39E+07 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in tropic air 1.33E+07 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in tropic soil 5.73E+04 [kg] O 

Steady-state mass in tropic sediment 7.26E+04 [kg] O 

LOCAL 


LOCAL CONCENTRATIONS AND DEPOSITIONS [PRODUCTION] 

AIR 

Concentration in air during emission episode 2.13E-03 [mg.m-3] O 

Annual average concentration in air, 100 m from point source 1.75E-03 [mg.m-3] O 

Total deposition flux during emission episode 2.3E-03 [mg.m-2.d-1] O 

Annual average total deposition flux 1.89E-03 [mg.m-2.d-1] O 

WATER, SEDIMENT 

Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 0 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in surface water exceeds solubility No O 

Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)0 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 0 [mg.l-1] O 

Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved) 0 [mg.l-1] O 


SOIL, GROUNDWATER 

Concentration in agric. soil averaged over 30 days 0.017 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 


Concentration in grassland averaged over 180 days 0.0291 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Fraction of steady-state (agricultural soil) 0.312 [-] O 

Fraction of steady-state (grassland soil) 0.525 [-] O 

LOCAL PECS [PRODUCTION] 

AIR 

Annual average local PEC in air (total) 1.86E-03 [mg.m-3] O 


Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 4.46E-05 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved)4.46E-05 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode 2.78E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 4.2E-06 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved) 4.2E-06 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode2.61E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 


Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days 0.017 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 


Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days 0.0291 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Local PEC in pore water of agricultural soil 3.46E-04 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in pore water of grassland 5.83E-04 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil 3.46E-04 [mg.l-1] O 


LOCAL CONCENTRATIONS AND DEPOSITIONS [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

AIR 






Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0633 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)0.052 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0668 [mg.l-1] O 

Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved) 0.0549 [mg.l-1] O 

134 

Draft 







LOCAL PECS [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

AIR 



Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0633 [mg.l-1] O 

Qualitative assessment might be needed (TGD Part II, 5.6) Yes O 

Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved) 0.052 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in fresh-water sediment during emission episode 3.94 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0668 [mg.l-1] O 

Qualitative assessment might be needed (TGD Part II, 5.6) Yes O 

Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved) 0.0549 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in marine sediment during emission episode 4.16 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 





Local PEC in pore water of agricultural soil 0.811 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in pore water of grassland 0.277 [mg.l-1] O 

Local PEC in groundwater under agricultural soil 0.811 [mg.l-1] O 




AIR 






Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 4.12E-03 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)3.39E-03 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 4.35E-03 [mg.l-1] O 

Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved) 3.58E-03 [mg.l-1] O 








AIR 


















Draft 


LOCAL CONCENTRATIONS AND DEPOSITIONS [FORMULATION] 

AIR 

















LOCAL PECS [FORMULATION] 

AIR 




















LOCAL CONCENTRATIONS AND DEPOSITIONS [PRIVATE USE] 

AIR 












Concentration in agric. soil averaged over 30 days 1.71E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 


Concentration in grassland averaged over 180 days 5.8E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 



LOCAL PECS [PRIVATE USE] 

AIR 


136 

Draft 






Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 7E-06 [mg.l-1] O 





Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 30 days 1.75E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Local PEC in agric. soil (total) averaged over 180 days1.74E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Local PEC in grassland (total) averaged over 180 days6.19E-04 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 






AIR 







Concentration in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0144 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average concentration in surface water (dissolved)0.0119 [mg.l-1] O 

Concentration in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0152 [mg.l-1] O 

Annual average concentration in seawater (dissolved) 0.0125 [mg.l-1] O 








AIR 



Local PEC in surface water during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0145 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average local PEC in surface water (dissolved) 0.0119 [mg.l-1] O 


Local PEC in seawater during emission episode (dissolved) 0.0152 [mg.l-1] O 


Annual average local PEC in seawater (dissolved) 0.0125 [mg.l-1] O 











AIR 





Draft 














AIR 





















AIR 


















AIR 











138 

Draft 










AIR 



















AIR 




















AIR 

















Draft 


AIR 




















AIR 



















AIR 




















AIR 





140 

Draft 














AIR 





















AIR 


















AIR 











Draft 









EXPOSURE 

SECONDARY POISONING 

SECONDARY POISONING [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] [PRODUCTION] 

Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (freshwater)0.0745 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil 0.246 [mg.kg-1] O 

Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine)7.02E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators 7.02E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

SECONDARY POISONING [2 "POLYMERISATION LARGE SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 


Concentration in earthworms from agricultural soil 350 [mg.kg-1] O 

Concentration in fish for secondary poisoning (marine) 45.9 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Concentration in fish-eating marine top-predators 9.18 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

SECONDARY POISONING [3 "POLYMERISATION SMALLER SITES"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 





SECONDARY POISONING [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [FORMULATION] 





SECONDARY POISONING [4 "POLYMER USE IN PAINTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 





SECONDARY POISONING [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [FORMULATION] 





SECONDARY POISONING [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [PRIVATE USE] 





142 

Draft 

SECONDARY POISONING [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [FORMULATION] 





SECONDARY POISONING [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 





SECONDARY POISONING [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [FORMULATION] 





SECONDARY POISONING [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 





SECONDARY POISONING [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [FORMULATION] 






SECONDARY POISONING [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 





Draft 


EFFECTS 

INPUT OF EFFECTS DATA 

MICRO-ORGANISMS 

Test system Respiration inhibition, EU Annex V C.11, OECD 209 S 

EC50 for micro-organisms in a STP >100 [mg.l-1] S 

EC10 for micro-organisms in a STP ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for micro-organisms in a STP ?? [mg.l-1] D 

AQUATIC ORGANISMS 

FRESH WATER 

L(E)C50 SHORT-TERM TESTS 

LC50 for fish 0.84 [mg.l-1] S 

L(E)C50 for Daphnia 1.8 [mg.l-1] S 

EC50 for algae 3.4 [mg.l-1] S 

LC50 for additional taxonomic group ?? [mg.l-1] D 

Aquatic species other D 

NOEC LONG-TERM TESTS 

NOEC for fish ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for Daphnia ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for algae ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for additional taxonomic group ?? [mg.l-1] D 




MARINE 


LC50 for fish (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

L(E)C50 for crustaceans (marine) 0.3 [mg.l-1] S 

EC50 for algae (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

Marine species other D 

LC50 for additional taxonomic group (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

Marine species other D 


NOEC for fish (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for crustaceans (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for algae (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

NOEC for additional taxonomic group (marine) ?? [mg.l-1] D 

144 

Draft 

FRESH WATER SEDIMENT 


LC50 for fresh-water sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 

Weight fraction of organic carbon in tested sediment 0.05 [kg.kg-1] D 

EC10/NOEC LONG-TERM TESTS 

EC10 for fresh-water sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 






NOEC for fresh-water sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 






MARINE SEDIMENT 


LC50 for marine sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 



EC10/NOEC LONG-TERM TESTS 

EC10 for marine sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 






NOEC for marine sediment organism ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 






TERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS 


LC50 for plants ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 

Weight fraction of organic carbon in tested soil 0.02 [kg.kg-1] D 

LC50 for earthworms ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 


EC50 for microorganisms ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 


LC50 for other terrestrial species ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 



NOEC for plants ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 


NOEC for earthworms ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 


NOEC for microorganisms ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 


NOEC for additional taxonomic group ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 

Terrestrial species other D 


NOEC for additional taxonomic group ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 

Terrestrial species other D 


BIRDS 

LC50 in avian dietary study (5 days) ?? [mg.kg-1] D 

NOEC via food (birds) ?? [mg.kg-1] D 

NOAEL (birds) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Conversion factor NOAEL to NOEC (birds) 8 [kg.d.kg-1] D 

Draft 

MAMMALS 

REPEATED DOSE 

ORAL 

Oral NOAEL (repdose) 1E+03 [mg.kg-1.d-1] S 

Oral LOAEL (repdose) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Oral CED (repdose) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Species for conversion of NOAEL to NOECRattus norvegicus (

FERTILITY 

ORAL 

Oral NOAEL (fert) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Oral LOAEL (fert) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Oral CED (fert) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 


CARC (THRESHOLD) 

ORAL 

Oral NOAEL (carc) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Oral LOAEL (carc) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 

Oral CED (carc) ?? [mg.kg-1.d-1] D 


MARINE 

Same taxonomic group for marine LC50 and NOEC No O 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC Marine0.3 [mg.l-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC Marine 1E+04 [-] O 

PNEC for marine organisms 3E-05 [mg.l-1] O 

STATISTICAL 

PNEC for marine organisms with statistical method ?? [mg.l-1] D 

FRESH WATER SEDIMENT 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC sediment (fresh) ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC sediment (fresh) ?? [-] O 

PNEC for fresh-water sediment organisms (from toxicological data) ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

PNEC for fresh-water sediment organisms (equilibrium partitioning) 0.0522 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in fresh-water sediment? Yes O 

PNEC for fresh-water sediment-dwelling organisms 0.0522 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

MARINE SEDIMENT 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC sediment (marine) ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC sediment (marine) ?? [-] O 

PNEC for marine sediment organisms (from toxicological data) ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

PNEC for marine sediment organisms (equilibrium partitioning) 1.87E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in marine sediment? Yes O 

PNEC for marine sediment organisms 1.87E-03 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

TERRESTRIAL 

Same taxonomic group for LC50 and NOEC No O 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC Terr ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC Terr ?? [-] O 

PNEC for terrestrial organisms (from toxicological data) ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

PNEC for terrestrial organisms (equilibrium partitioning) 0.042 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

Equilibrium partitioning used for PNEC in soil? Yes O 

PNEC for terrestrial organisms 0.042 [mg.kgwwt-1] O 

STATISTICAL 

PNEC for terrestrial organisms with statistical method ?? [mg.kgwwt-1] D 

SECONDARY POISONING 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC oral 1E+04 [mg.kg-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC oral 300 [-] O 

PNEC for secondary poisoning of birds and mammals 33.3 [mg.kg-1] O 

148 

Draft 

STP 

Toxicological data used for extrapolation to PNEC micro >100 [mg.l-1] O 

Assessment factor applied in extrapolation to PNEC micro100 [-] O 

PNEC for micro-organisms in a STP >1 [mg.l-1] O 


RISK CHARACTERIZATION 

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE 

LOCAL 

RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [1 "PRODUCTION SITE"] [PRODUCTION] 

WATER 

RCR for the local fresh-water compartment 0.0531 [-] O 


RCR for the local marine compartment 0.14 [-] O 

RCR for the local fresh-water compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 

RCR for the local marine compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 

SEDIMENT 

RCR for the local fresh-water sediment compartment 0.0531 [-] O 

Extra factor 10 applied to PEC/PNEC No O 

RCR for the local marine sediment compartment 0.14 [-] O 


SOIL 

RCR for the local soil compartment 0.406 [-] O 


RCR for the local soil compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 

STP 

RCR for the sewage treatment plant

SOIL 




STP 


RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [5 "POLYMER USE IN ADHESIVES"] [FORMULATION] 

WATER 



RCR for the local marine compartment 508 [-] O 



SEDIMENT 



RCR for the local marine sediment compartment 508 [-] O 


SOIL 

RCR for the local soil compartment 222 [-] O 



STP 


PREDATORS 

RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (fresh-water) 3.01E-03 [-] O 

RCR for fish-eating birds and mammals (marine) 1.03E-03 [-] O 

RCR for top predators (marine) 3.75E-04 [-] O 

RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals 9.17E-03 [-] O 

RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [6 "POLYMER USE IN CEMENT"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

WATER 






SEDIMENT 





SOIL 




PREDATORS 





RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [FORMULATION] 

WATER 






SEDIMENT 





152 

Draft 

SOIL 




PREDATORS 




RCR for worm-eating birds and mammals 0.0102 [-] O 

RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [7 "POLYMER USE IN PLASTER"] [INDUSTRIAL USE] 

WATER 






SEDIMENT 





SOIL 





PREDATORS 





RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [FORMULATION] 

WATER 






SEDIMENT 





SOIL 

RCR for the local soil compartment 1.79E-03 [-] O 



PREDATORS 





RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF [8 "POLYMER IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS"] [PRIVATE USE] 

WATER 






SEDIMENT 





Draft 

SOIL 

RCR for the local soil compartment 1.08E-03 [-] O 



PREDATORS 





REGIONAL 

WATER 

RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment 0.0531 [-] O 

RCR for the regional marine compartment 0.14 [-] O 

RCR for the regional fresh-water compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 

RCR for the regional marine compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 

SEDIMENT 

RCR for the regional fresh-water sediment compartment0.089 [-] O 


RCR for the regional marine sediment compartment 0.199 [-] O 


SOIL 

RCR for the regional soil compartment 0.268 [-] O 


RCR for the regional soil compartment, statistical method ?? [-] O 


We are The Environment Agency. It's our job to look after your 

environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future 

generations. 

Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and 

the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and 

society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and 

healthier. 

The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a 

better place. 

154 

Draft

S - OSPAR Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?