.................................

.................................

Screening Results - Non Selection Reasons

 

CHLOROPRENE
CAS Number 126-99-8

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS due to its proposed listing by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) in its 9th Report on Carcinogens as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Act 1989. No data from industry was received. Subsequent to the Section 48 notice, contact with suppliers of products to the rubber tyre manufacturing industry indicated that the chemical is only imported into Australia as a polymer.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals.

Other databases searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency, other than the US National Toxicology Program, or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

Chloroprene is supplied as a colourless liquid. Acute administration to rats found it to be of low toxicity, though it was irritating to the eyes. Repeat dosing to rats resulted in depression of growth and liver damage. There was evidence of carcinogenic potential, effects on reproduction and developmental effects on the foetus.

Chloroprene is classified in the List of Designated Hazardous Substances 1999 as:

  • Harmful by inhalation and in contact with skin

  • Irritating to eyes

Reasons for Non-Selection

Chloroprene is imported into Australia only as a polymer hence exposure to the chemical is unlikely. The chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

GLYCEROL MONOTHIOGLYCOLATE
CAS Number 30618-84-9

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by a dermatologist who was of the view that glycerol monothioglycolate was responsible for a number of skin problems seen in hairdressers presenting at the practice. There was a suggestion the chemical was banned in Europe.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. No responses were received from industry. NICNAS was unable to determine that the chemical is imported as an ingredient of products used in Australia.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. This did not disclose any data on health effects or toxicology.

Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

No data was located in the Databases Searched. A report published in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology in 1991 found evidence of skin and respiratory system irritation and sensitisation as well as contact dermatitis in humans. No other toxicological data was found.

Reasons for Non-Selection

NICNAS was unable to find any evidence that glycerol monothioglycolate is used in Australia. The data available on health and environmental effects of the chemical was limited. Based on the available data the chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

HEXAFLUOROPROPYLENE

CAS Number

116-15-4

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS following publication of a draft report by the OECD suggesting kidney toxicity.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. No responses from industry were received. Subsequent contact with the Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers indicated the chemical is not used in Australia.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. Some data was retrieved from this source.

Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. These searches indicated that the OECD is evaluating this chemical under its High Production Volume Chemicals Program. Further data was extracted from the OECD's draft report.

Information on the Chemical

Data retrieved from the database searches indicated low acute toxicity in rats plus some mutagenic effect on animal cells.

The OECD draft report noted toxic effects on the kidney in repeated dosing to rodents.

The chemical is classified in the ASCC List of Designated Hazardous Substances 1999 as:

  • Harmful by inhalation

  • Irritating to respiratory system

Reasons for Non-Selection

As far as NICNAS could determine, hexafluropropylene is not used in Australia. The chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

ISOPRENE

CAS Number

78-79-5

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS due to its proposed listing in the 9th report on Carcinogens of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. No data from industry was received. The chemical is used overseas in the rubber tyre manufacturing industry. Subsequent to the Section 48 notice, contact with suppliers of products to the rubber tyre manufacturing industry indicated the chemical was not imported into Australia.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases.

The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency other than the US National Toxicology Progam, or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

The chemical is supplied as a colourless liquid. Studies in rats showed low acute toxicity. In humans it was found to be irritating to the skin and slightly irritating to the respiratory tract. Under repeated dosing changes in brain, lung and kidney weights were observed in one study in rats. The chemical was found to cause mutations in isolated animal cells and to have a possible effect on reproduction and/or developing foetuses. In a two year study in rats it caused an increased incidence of mammary fibroadenoma in females and mammary gland carcinoma in males. Kidney tubule adenoma occurred in both sexes while testicular adenoma was found in males. Rare brain tumors that may have been substance related occurred in females.

Reasons for Non-Selection

As far as NICNAS could determine, isoprene is not used in Australia. The chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

CHLORINATED POLYPROPYLENE

CAS Number

68442-33-1

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by a member of the public based on a member of that person's family becoming ill after using a product containing chlorinated polypropylene as part of that person's job.

Import, Manufacture & Use

During the screening of chemicals nominated by the public, background work was done by NICNAS. Data collected from the chemical industry indicate that the chemical is not manufactured in Australia. A total of 0.08 tonnes was imported into Australia as a constituent in a primer for automotive paint and is supplied to the trade only. In addition the chemical is purchased locally for manufacturing an adhesion promoter and a product used for screenprinting. These products are also supplied to the trade only and are not available to the general public.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. This did not disclose any data on health effects or toxicology. Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

No data was located.

Reasons for Non-Selection

The quantities used in Australia were found to be low. No relevant data on health and environment effects could be located. Based on the available data the chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

PARAGOETHITE

CAS Number

None

Reasons for Nomination

The substance was nominated by a member of the public because of environmental concerns. The person believed that paragoethite was imported from Brazil and that it was shipped from the Pasminco smelter in Hobart to Port Pirie and Newcastle thus creating a risk of spillage at sea and during trucking.

Import, Manufacture & Use

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS indicated that paragoethite is a mixture of minerals, mainly a solid iron residue. It is generated as a by-product of a process used for making zinc by the electrolytic method at Pasminco Hobart Smelter. Paragoethite is transported by ship to Pasminco Port Pirie Smelter where it is further treated to recover lead and zinc and other metals. The final product is an inert, glass like material that is safe to be disposed of as landfill. Paragoethite is not imported from overseas as far as NICNAS could determine. The substance is not used at the Newcastle facility of Pasminco.

Databases Searched

A search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals, did not disclose any health effects or toxicological data of the mixture.

Other Databases Searched included the OECD databases, such as Exichem. The searches indicated that the substance had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program. Extensive data is available on the constituents.

Information on the Substance

The paragoethite process was introduced following modifications to the zinc smelting process so as to cease the production of hazardous jarosite as the waste product. Paragoethite is composed of sulphate, copper, arsenic, lead, silica, iron and zinc, with the last two typically making up about 50% of the mixture. The appearance is of a red to brown paste material.

Re-processing of paragoethite avoids the need for use of extensive areas as waste dumps and dumping at sea as with previous waste streams.

Reasons for Non-Selection

Extensive hazard information is available on the constituents of paragoethite. Occupational and environmental exposure to the substance is considered to be low.

The substance did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation as a Candidate chemical of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

IRON PENTACARBONYL

CAS Number

13463-40-6

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by a member of the public due to concerns about toxic effects of exposure to iron in high doses.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under S48 of the Act. No data from industry were received. According to published literature, uses for the chemical include:

  • To make carbonyl iron which is used to make high frequency coils for radio and television;

  • As an antiknock agent in motor fuels;

  • As a catalyst and reagent in chemical reactions.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public, background work done by NICNAS included a search of websites of overseas regulatory agencies, the TOMES CPS database, Exichem and OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency, or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

The chemical is supplied as an oily yellow liquid. Studies in rats showed medium acute toxicity. Dermal toxicity in rabbits was low. The chemical was a lung irritant in animals and repeated exposure to rats caused severe lung effects. In humans, high concentrations were reported to cause headaches, dizziness, fever, cyanosis, respiratory and central nervous system effects, kidney and liver damage. Iron pentacarbonyl has an occupational exposure standard assigned of 0.23 mg/m3 TWA and 0.45 mg/m3 STEL.

Reasons for Non-Selection

As far as NICNAS could determine, iron pentacarbonyl is not used in Australia. On this basis, the chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

ETHACURE 300

CAS Number

106264-79-3

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS because of possible mutagenic potential and apparent lack of data about its effects.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. Data collected from the chemical industry indicate that 61 tonnes per year of the chemical is imported into Australia. The uses were all associated with polyurethane production.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. This search disclosed limited health effects or toxicological data.

Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

The chemical is supplied as an amber-coloured liquid. Database searches found Ethacure 300 to have possible toxic effects on isolated bacterial cells.

Ethacure 300 is classified in the List of Designated Hazardous substances 1999 as:

  • Harmful if swallowed

  • May cause sensitisation by skin contact.

  • Very toxic to aquatic organisms.

  • May cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

Reasons for Non-Selection

The data on health effects available on the chemical was limited. The substance is already classified for health effects and is required to be labelled accordingly. Environmental concerns are currently of low priority for this chemical.

__________________________________________

POLACURE 740M

CAS Number

57609-64-0

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS because of possible mutagenic potential and apparent lack of data about its effects.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. The survey revealed that three tonnes were imported into Australia for use in polyurethane coatings manufacture.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. This search disclosed no health effects or toxicological data.

Other Databases Searched included OECD databases, such as Exichem. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

No information was located.

Reasons for Non-Selection

The NICNAS survey found the quantities of Polacure 740M used in Australia to be low. No relevant data on health and environment effects could be located. The chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

CYANACURE

CAS Number

52411-33-3

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS because of possible mutagenic potential and apparent lack of data about its effects.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Act 1989. No data was received from the chemical industry.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. This search disclosed limited health effects or toxicological data.

Other Databases Searched included the Exichem and other OECD databases. The searches indicated that the chemical had not been evaluated by any overseas agency or that any work had been undertaken or was underway in the OECD Existing Chemicals Program.

Information on the Chemical

Database searches found Cyanacure to have possible toxic effects on isolated bacterial cells.

Reasons for Non-Selection

NICNAS was unable to determine that Cyanacure is used in Australia. The data available on the chemical was limited. Environmental concerns are currently of low priority for this chemical. Based on the available data the chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

__________________________________________

TRICHLOROACETIC ACID
CAS Number 76-03-9

Reasons for Nomination

The chemical was nominated by NICNAS following publication of data in an OECD report suggesting trichloroacetic acid may be damaging to the environment.

Import, Manufacture & Use

The chemical was subject to a call for information under Section 48 of the Act. Data collected from the chemical industry indicate that a total of 0.4 tonnes is imported into Australia. Uses of the chemical in Australia were not determined.

Databases Searched

During screening of chemicals nominated by the public background work done by NICNAS included a search of the TOMES CPS database, an extensive collection of proprietary and licensed databases with medical, hazard, and environmental information for the safe management and handling of chemicals. Other Databases Searched included the OECD databases, such as Exichem. These searches indicated that the chemical has been evaluated by the OECD under its High Production Volume Chemicals Program. Data was extracted from the OECD's report.

Information on the Chemical

The report showed the chemical to have low acute toxicity in rats. Under repeat dosing to rats cell death was noted in the gums and lining of the mouth. Severe changes to white blood cells occurred as well as toxic effects on the liver and heart.

Some mutagenic activity was noted in isolated animal cells. Liver tumours occurred in mice but not rats.

Reasons for Non-Selection

The NICNAS survey found the quantities used in Australia to be low with low potential exposure. The chemical did not meet the published screening criteria for prioritisation of nominated chemicals.

 

 

.................................