Opinion on the results of the Risk Assessment of: METHYL OXIRANE (PROPYLENE OXIDE) - Human health and Environment - CAS N°: 75-56-9 - EINECS N°: 200-879-2 Report version : Final Version, 20 February June 2001 carried out in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances1. Opinion expressed at the 24th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 12 June 2001Opinion on the results of the Risk Assessment of: METHYL OXIRANE (PROPYLENE OXIDE) - Human health and Environment - CAS N°: 75-56-9 - EINECS N°: 200-879- Report version : Final Version, 20 February June 2001 carried out in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. Opinion expressed at the 24th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 12 June 2001.
Terms of reference
In the context of
Regulation 793/93 (Existing
Substances Regulation), and on
the basis of the examination of
the Risk Assessment Report the
CSTEE is invited to examine the
following issues:
1. Does the CSTEE agree
with the conclusions of the
Risk Assessment Report?
2. If the CSTEE
disagrees with such
conclusions, the CSTEE is
invited to elaborate on the
reasons for this divergence of
opinion.
Introduction
PO is produced in the EU
by 8 companies and its total
usage in the EU is appr.
1,495,000 tonnes. Its main uses
are use as a monomer in polymer
production, use as an
intermediate in the synthesis
of other substances and,
accounting for only a small
proportion, direct
applications.
There is a discrepancy
in the RAR regarding the number
of producing companies that
should be resolved (section
2.2. states "8", section
4.1.1.1.1. states "7").
Propylene oxide is
currently classified as Cat 2
Carcinogen and is labelled R45-
May cause cancer. Hence, it is
already subject to stringent
risk control measures that
reduce exposure to as low a
level as is reasonably
practicable.
HUMAN HEALTH
General comments
The assessment follows
the recommendations of the TGD
and is comprehensive and
properly written. The CSTEE
agrees in general with the
overall conclusion of the risk
assessment.
The critical health
concerns are mutagenicity and
carcinogenicity. As it is not
currently possible to determine
a threshold for mutagenic
events and, thus, to identify a
threshold for carcinogenicity,
conclusion iii) is reached for
workers and consumers for these
endpoints. The CSTEE supports
this conclusion.
In addition the CSTEE
notes that as industry develops
measures that reduce exposure
of workers to as low a level as
reasonably practicable, and
because consumer exposures are
extremely low it is concluded
in the RAR that there is no
need for the development of a
risk reduction strategy at this
time (conclusion iii a, being
dependent upon the industry
continuing to implement new
procedures to reduce exposure
when possible).
Propylene oxide has not
been adequately tested for skin
sensitisation and, therefore,
there is no evaluation of risks
to any human population for
this endpoint. Given the high
level of control currently
exercised and the low level of
dermal and inhalation exposure,
no further testing on skin and
respiratory sensitisation is
required.
Specific comments
Exposure assessment
PO is mainly used as an
intermediate in the synthesis
of other substances, with 7-8
EU producers and an estimated
150-300 user plants.
Occupational exposure is
between 0-30 ppm 8-hr TWA and
it can be controlled to less
than 3 ppm.
A worst-case 15 minutes
TWA of 33-67 ppm during
loading/unloading of road, rail
and ship storage tankers has
been calculated with the EASE
model. Worst case calculated
exposures from EASE for
sampling were > 33 ppm (15
minutes TWA).
Worst-case dermal
exposure is estimated 0 0.1
mg/cm²/day with the EASE model
based on incidental contacts
whilst sampling or touching a
wet surface.
Consumer exposure to PO
in consumer products is
considered to be negligible.
Potential exposure through
contact with foodstuffs,
medicinal products, and
hydraulic fluids (brake fluids
for cars) is mentioned but no
further details are given in
the RAR. Propylene, a compound
of, for instance, car exhaust
and cigarette smoke, is another
source of PO exposure not
mentioned in the RAR.
Human exposure
indirectly via the environment
is estimated to range from 3
ng/kg/d to 3.9 ug/kg/d with
inhalation contributing mostly
to this exposure.
Effects assessment
PO is rapidly absorbed
into the tissues and
metabolised via conjugation
with glutathione and
hydrolysis. At high doses
saturation of the metabolic
process for elimination is
assumed. Haemoglobin and DNA
adduct formation has been
observed in several animal
tissues following inhalation
exposure, including nasal
mucosa, trachea, lung, liver,
brain and testes. The RAR text
needs modification in that no
kidney adducts have been
investigated in the inhalation
experiments.
PO is harmful by
inhalation, oral or dermal
routes of exposure.
It may cause local
irritation on contact with the
skin and eyes. It has
demonstrated some potential to
cause skin sensitisation and it
is plausible that it could bind
to tissue proteins and elicit
an immunological response. A
further case-report has been
published (Morris AD et al.,
1998).
There is no data
available on respiratory
sensitisation.
Repeated inhalation
exposure produces irritation of
the nasal epithelium, with
marginal effects at 30 ppm and
pronounced epithelial damage at
100 ppm and above. Target
tissues are the sites of the
initial contact.
Propylene oxide is a
direct acting mutagen in a wide
variety of standard in vitro
test systems and in somatic
cells in vivo. There is no
evidence for propylene oxide to
induced heritable mutations in
germ cells from dominant lethal
tests in rats and mice. Given
that propylene oxide is a
direct-acting mutagen that
might reach the germ cells, the
assessor, however, concludes
that the possibility for PO
inducing heritable mutations in
germ cells cannot be
discounted. Further information
on genotoxic effects of PO in
germ cells of Drosophila has
not been included in the RAR
(Vogel EW and Nivard MJ, 1998).
PO is a respiratory
tract carcinogen in animals.
Repeated gavage induced
forestomach carcinoma in rats.
At present, the relative
contribution to the
carcinogenic process made by
irritation, consequential
proliferative response and
genotoxicity is unclear.
There is no evidence for
reproductive and developmental
toxicity at non-maternally
toxic dose levels from animal
studies.
Risk characterisation
Overall, the critical
health concerns are for
mutagenicity and
carcinogenicity. PO is a
direct-acting mutagen and is
capable of producing somatic
cell mutations in vivo,
particularly in the tissues at
the site of contact. PO is a
respiratory tract carcinogen in
animals. Possibly, chronic
inflammation is a key influence
in the development of cancer,
but the carcinogenic mechanisms
involved (eg cell turnover, DNA
repair) remain unproven.
Occupational exposures are an
order of magnitude below the
levels at which respiratory
tract irritation is observed in
animals.
The CSTEE, therefore,
supports the view that for both
mutagenicity and
carcinogenicity it is not
possible to identify a
threshold level of exposure
below which there would be no
risk to human health and, thus,
it is not possible to derive a
toxicologically valid margin of
safety.
The CSTEE agrees with
the conclusions reached for
workers, consumers, and
indirect exposure via the
environment and combined
exposure.
References
Vogel EW and Nivard MJ
(1998): Genotoxic effects of
inhaled ethylene oxide,
propylene oxide and butylene
oxide on germ cells:
sensitivity of genetic
endpoints in relation to dose
and repair status: Mutat Res
20;405(2):259-71
Morris AD et al. (1998):
Allergic Contact Dermatitis
from Epoxy Propane: Contact
Dermatitis, Vol. 38, No. 1,
page 57, 2 references.
ENVIRONMENT
General comments
The environmental part
of the RAR is in general of
good quality, however, the
conclusions related to the
environment are not well
supported enough on the basis
of the available information.
The assessment of the
soil and atmospheric
compartment is conducted
without considering the
biocidal activity of this
chemical. The chemical is of
low acute toxicity for fish,
daphnia and algae, but, as
stated in the report, is
biologically active against
other organisms. The conclusion
of low risk on the basis of
extrapolation from aquatic
organisms (soil compartment) or
considerations of low
concentrations (atmospheric
compartment) cannot be accepted
for a chemical which is
biologically active and used as
a biocide. Therefore, the CSTEE
considers that conclusion ii)
is not acceptable for the
terrestrial (soil) and
atmospheric compartments.
Conclusion i) should be
considered and specific
toxicity data on terrestrial
organisms should be requested.
Specific comments
Emissions and exposure
assessment
Taking into account the
main use and emission patterns
in Europe and the
physical-chemical properties of
propylene oxide, water and air
are the potentially exposed
compartments.
It must be highlighted
that experimental data are very
few for the aquatic environment
and completely lacking for
other compartments. It is not
satisfactory that for such a
high production volume
chemical, monitoring data are
inadequate and assessment
should be based only on
predicted exposure data.
Effects assessment
Aquatic environment
The effects assessment
on the aquatic environment is
based on a few reliable
toxicity data (mainly short
term) on fish, Daphnia and
algae. Therefore, a high
assessment factor has been used
for deriving a PNEC for water.
No data are available on
aquatic micro-organisms, but
there is evidence for effects
on soil bacteria. A PNEC for
aquatic micro-organisms has not
be calculated.
Terrestrial environment
The report properly
states that propylene oxide is
used as a fumigant (biocide),
and therefore should be
considered as a biologically
active molecule. Potential
targets include micro-organisms
and some invertebrates. An
specific mode of action must be
assumed.
The RAR presents the
available information on the
fumigant activity and concludes
that the information is not
enough for PNEC derivation. The
CSTEE agrees that the presented
information does not allow a
proper risk assessment.
Then, the RAR report
applies the equilibrium
partitioning method for
deriving the PNECsoil
organisms. The chemical showed
low acute toxicity in a set of
standard (aquatic) organisms,
and these values are
extrapolated to the soil. The
data set does not include
information on taxonomic groups
which can be target by the
biocidal activity. Therefore,
this extrapolation cannot be
supported.
Similarly the RAR
suggests a low risk for
atmospheric exposures of
organisms, on the basis of the
air concentrations but without
toxicity data.
The physical-chemical
properties suggests that
propylene oxide can reach
terrestrial environments on the
basis of atmospheric
deposition. The potential for
volatilisation increase the
risk of this phenomena on the
basis of repeated processes of
volatilisation-deposition
during rain
events-volatilisation-deposition.
Toxicity data on plants,
soil micro-organisms and
sensitive soil fauna are
required. The CSTEE suggests to
request tests mimicking the
deposition process (spraying
with contaminated water), and
perform the risk
characterisation on the basis
of doses expressed as amount
per surface (ug/m2).
Risk characterisation
It is opinion of the
CSTEE that for such a high
production volume chemical the
data available are not enough
to exclude the need for more
information.
The CSTEE supports
conclusion ii) for sediment and
secondary poisoning
----------------------------------------
1 Regulation 793/93
provides a systematic framework
for the evaluation of the risks
to human health and the
environment of those substances
if they are produced or
imported into the Community in
volumes above 10 tonnes per
year. The methods for carrying
out an in-depth Risk Assessment
at Community level are laid
down in Commission Regulation
(EC) 1488/94, which is
supported by a technical
guidance document.