This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Skip booklet index and go to page content

ARCHIVED - Draft Screening Assessment of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)

Tables

Table 1: Substance Identity for HBCD

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number3194-55-6 (contains, predominantly mixed isomers α, ß, γ)
DSL nameCyclododecane, 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromo-
National Chemical Inventories (NCI) names1Cyclododecane, 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromo- (TSCA, ENCS, AICS, PICCS, ASIA-PAC, NZIoC)
1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclodecane (EINECS)
1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane (ENCS, ECL, PICCS) Hexabromocyclododecane (ECL)
1,2,5,6,9,10- HEXABROMOCYCLODODECANE (PICCS) CYCLODODECANE,
12,5,6,9,10-HEXABROMO- (PICCS
Other namesHexabromocyclododecane (HBCD); 1,2,5,6,9,10-
Hexabromocyclododecane hbcd
Bromkal 73-6D
FR 1206
FR 1206HT
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
Pyroguard SR 104
SR 104
YM 88A
Chemical groupBrominated flame retardant
Chemical subgroupBrominated cyclic alkane
Chemical formulaC12H18Br6
Chemical structureschemical structure
SMILES1BrC(C(Br)CCC(Br)C(Br)CCC(Br)C(Br)C1)C1
Molecular mass641.69 g/mol (ACC 2002)
Physical stateWhite powder at 25°C

1 National Chemical Inventories (NCI). 2009: AICS (Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances); ASIA-PAC (Asia-Pacific
Substances Lists); ECL (Korean Existing Chemicals List); EINECS (European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical
Substances); ENCS (Japanese Existing and New Chemical Substances); NZIoC (New Zealand Inventory of Chemicals); PICCS (Philippine Inventory of Chemicals and Chemical Substances); and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory).

2 Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System

Table 2: Physical and Chemical Properties of HBCD

PropertyTypeValueTemperature (°C)Reference
Molecular mass (g/mol)Experimental641.7 Sigma Aldrich 2004
Melting point (ºC)Experimental167-168
(low melt)
195-196
(high melt)
 Buckingham 1982
180-185 Albemarle Corporation 2000a, 2000b
175-195 ACCBFRIP 2005
180-197 Great Lakes Chemical Corporation 2005a, 2005b
Modelled180
(weighted value)
 MPBPWIN 2000
Boiling point (ºC)ExperimentalDecomposition starts at 200 Albemarle Corporation 2000a
Decomposes at > 445 Great Lakes Chemical Corporation 2005a
Modelled462
(Adapted Stein and Brown method)
 MPBPWIN 2000
Density(g/mL)Experimental2.36-2.37Not providedAlbemarle Corporation 2000a, 2000b
2.125Great Lakes Chemical Corporation 2005a, 2005b
Vapour pressure (Pa)Experimental6.27 × 10-521CMABFRIP 1997b
Modelled2.24 × 10-6
(1.68 × 10-8 mm Hg; Modified Grain method)
25MPBPWIN 2000
Henry’s Law constant (Pa m3/mol)Modelled0.174
(1.72 × 10-6 atm-m3/mole; Bond method)
6.52 × 10-6
(6.43 × 10-11 atm-m3/mole; Group method)
11.8
(1.167 × 10-4 atm-m3/mole; VP/Wsol method)1
68.8
(6.79 × 10-4 atm-m3/mole; VP/Wsol method)2
25HENRYWIN 2000
Water solubility3(mg/L)Experimental3.4 × 10-325CMABFRIP 1997c
  4.88 × 10-2
(α-isomer)
1.47 × 10-2
(ß-isomer)
2.08 × 10-3
(γ-isomer)
20EBFRIP 2004a
 Modelled2.09 × 10-525WSKOWWIN 2000
  3.99 × 10-3 (calculated)25ECOSAR 2004
Log Kow(Octanol-water partition coefficient; dimensionless)Experimental5.8125Veith et al. 1979
  5.62525CMABFRIP 1997a
 Calculated5.07 ± 0.09
(α-isomer)
5.12 ± 0.09
(ß-isomer)
5.47 ± 0.10
(γ-isomer)
25Hayward et al. 2006
 Modelled7.7425KOWWIN 2000
Log Koc(Organic carbon-water partition coefficient; dimensionless)Modelled5.10 (corrected value)25PCKOCWIN 2000

1 Estimate was derived using user-entered values for water solubility of 0.0034 mg/L (for the gamma isomer) and vapour pressure of 6.27 × 10-5 Pa (for the commercial product).
Estimate was derived using model-entered values for water solubility of 2.089 × 10-5 mg/L (WSKOWWIN 2000) and vapour pressure of 2.24 × 10-6 Pa (MPBPWIN 2000).
3 Water solubility is a function of isomer content.

Table 3: Modelled Data for Degradation of HBCD

Fate processModel and model basisModel outputExpected half-life (days)1
AIR   
Atmospheric oxidationAOPWIN 2000 t 1/2 = 2.133 days> 2
Ozone reactionAOPWIN 2000n/a2n/a
WATER   
HydrolysisHYDROWIN 2000 t1/2  = 1.9 × 105 days (pH7) t 1/2 = 1.9 × 105 days (pH8)n/a
Biodegradation (aerobic)BIOWIN 2000
Sub-model 3: Expert Survey (ultimate biodegradation)
2.0> 182
Biodegradation (aerobic)BIOWIN 2000
Sub-model 4: Expert Survey (primary biodegradation)
3.1= 182
Biodegradation (aerobic)BIOWIN 2000
Sub-model 5: MITI linear probability
-0.4> 182
Biodegradation (aerobic)BIOWIN 2000
Sub-model 6: MITI non-linear probability
0.0> 182
Biodegradation (aerobic)CPOPs 2008;  
Mekenyan et al. 2005 % BOD (biological oxygen demand)
0.1> 182

1 Expected half-lives for BIOWIN and CPOPs models are determined based on Environment Canada 2009.
2 Model does not provide an estimate for this type of structure.

Table 4: Persistence and Bioaccumulation Criteria as Defined in CEPA 1999 Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations (Canada 2000)

Persistence1Bioaccumulation2
MediumHalf-life 
Air Water Sediment Soil= 2 days or is subject to atmospheric transport from its source to a remote area
= 182 days (= 6 months)
= 365 days (= 12 months)
= 182 days (= 6 months)
BAF= 5000;
BCF = 5000;
log Kow= 5

1 A substance is persistent when at least one criterion is met in any one medium.
2 When the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of a substance cannot be determined in accordance with generally recognized methods, then the bioconcentration factor (BCF) of a substance will be considered; however, if neither its BAF nor its BCF can be determined with recognized methods, then the log Kowwill be considered.

Table 5: Modelled Bioaccumulation Data for HBCD

Test organismEndpointValue wet weight (L/kg)Reference
FishBAF(assuming no metabolic transformation)
6 456 5421; 275 4232
Gobas BAF/BCF Middle Trophic Level
(Arnot and Gobas 2003)
FishBCF(assuming no metabolic transformation)
20 4171; 23 9882
Gobas BAF/BCF Middle Trophic Level
(Arnot and Gobas 2003)
6211BCFWIN 2000

1 Log Kow 7.74 (KOWWIN 2000) used
2 Log Kow 5.625 (CMABFRIP 1997a), primarily for γ-isomer, used

Table 6: Concentrations Measured in the Ambient Environment and Waste Treatment Products

MediumLocation; yearConcentrationSamplesReference
AirCanadian and Russian Arctic; 1994-1995< 0.0018 ng/m312Alaee et al. 2003
AirUnited States; 2002-2003< 0.00007-0.011 ng/m3in 120 of 156Hoh and Hites 2005
AirThe Netherlands ; 1999280 ng/m3ns1Waindzioch 2000
AirSweden ; 1990-19910.0053-0.0061 ng/m32Bergander et al. 1995
AirSweden ; 2000-2001< 0.001-1070 ng/m311Remberger et al. 2004
AirFinland ; 2000-20010.002, 0.003 ng/m32Remberger et al. 2004
AirChina ; 20060.0012-0.0018 ng/m34Yu et al. 2008a
AirChina ; 20060.00069-0.00309 ng/m34Yu et al. 2008b
AirSweden urban and rural0.00002-0.00061 pg/m314Covaci et al. 2006
AirAlert, Tagish (Canadian Arctic), Dunai (Russian Arctic)< 0.0018 pg/m312PWGSC-INAC-NCP 2003
PrecipitationGreat Lakes; no yearnd2-35 ng/LnsBackus et al. 2005
PrecipitationThe Netherlands ; 20031835 ng/Lin 1 of 50Peters 2003
PrecipitationSweden ; 2000-20010.02-366 ng/m2·d4Remberger et al. 2004
PrecipitationFinland ; 2000-20015.1, 13 ng/m2·d2Remberger et al. 2004
WaterUnited Kingdom lakes0.08-2.7 ng/L27Harrad et al. 2009
WaterLake Winnipeg, Canada ; 2004α-HBCD: 0.006-0.013 ng/L

ß-HBCD: < 0.003 ng/L

γ-HBCD: < 0.003-0.005 ng/L
3Law et al. 2006a
WaterUnited Kingdom ; no year< 50-1520 ng/L6Deuchar 2002
WaterUnited Kingdom ; 19994810-15 800 ng/LnsDames and Moore 2000b
WaterThe Netherlands ; no year73.6-472 ng/g dw6 (solid phase)nsBouma et al. 2000
WaterJapan ; 1987< 200 ng/L75Watanabe and Tatsukawa 1990
Water (solid phase)Detroit River, Canada - United States ; 2001< 0.025-3.65 ng/g dw63Marvin et al. 2004, 2006
SedimentUnited Kingdom lakes0.88-4.80 ng/g dw9Harrad et al. 2009
SedimentLake Winnipeg, Canada ; 2003α-HBCD: < 0.08 ng/g dw

ß-HBCD: < 0.04 ng/g dw

γ-HBCD: < 0.04-0.10 ng/g dw
4Law et al. 2006a
SedimentNorwegian Arctic; 2001α-HBCD: 0.43 ng/g dw

ß-HBCD: < 0.06 ng/g dw

γ-HBCD: 3.88 ng/g dw
4Evenset et al. 2007
SedimentUnited Kingdom ; no year1131 ng/g dw1Deuchar 2002
SedimentEngland ; 2000-2002< 2.4-1680 ng/g dw22Morris et al. 2004
SedimentIreland ; 2000-2002< 1.7-12 ng/g dw8Morris et al. 2004
SedimentBelgium ; 2001< 0.2-950 ng/g dw20Morris et al. 2004
SedimentThe Netherlands ; no year25.4-151 ng/g dwnsBouma et al. 2000
SedimentThe Netherlands ; 2000< 0.6-99 ng/g dw28Morris et al. 2004
SedimentThe Netherlands ; 200114-71 ng/g dwnsVerslycke et al. 2005
SedimentDutch North Sea; 2000< 0.20-6.9 ng/g dwin 9 of 10Klamer et al. 2005
SedimentSwitzerland ; no year< 0.1-0.7ng/g dw31Kohler et al. 2007
SedimentSwitzerland ; 20030.40-2.5 ng/g dw1Kohler et al. 2008
SedimentSweden ; 1995nd-1600 ng/g dw18Sellström et al. 1998
SedimentSweden ; 1996-19990.2-2.1 ng/g dw9Remberger et al. 2004
SedimentSweden ; 2000< 0.1-25 ng/g dw6Remberger et al. 2004
SedimentNorway ; 2003α-HBCD: < 0.03-10.15 ng/g dw

ß-HBCD: < 0.08-7.91 ng/g dw

γ-HBCD: < 0.12-3.34 ng/g dw
26Schlabach et al. 2004a, 2004b
SedimentSpain ; 20020.006-513.6 ng/g dw4Eljarrat et al. 2004
SedimentSpain ; no year< 0.0003-2658 ng/g dw4Guerra et al. 2008
SedimentJapan ; 1987nd-90 ng/g dwin 3 of 69Watanabe and Tatsukawa 1990
SedimentJapan ; 20020.056-2.3 ng/g dwin 9 of 9Minh et al. 2007
SoilUnited Kingdom ; 199918 700-89 600 ng/g dw4Dames and Moore 2000a
SoilSweden ; 2000140-1300 ng/g dw3Remberger et al. 2004
SoilChina ; 20061.7-5.6 ng/g dw3Yu et al. 2008a
Landfill leachateEngland ; 2002Nd3Morris et al. 2004
Landfill leachateIreland ; 2002Nd3Morris et al. 2004
Landfill leachateThe Netherlands ; 20022.5-36 000 ng/g dw (solid phase)11Morris et al. 2004
Landfill leachateSweden ; 20003, 9 ng/L2Remberger et al. 2004
Landfill leachateNorway ; no yearα-HBCD: nd-0.0091 ng/g ww7

ß-HBCD: nd-0.0038 ng/g ww

γ-HBCD: nd-0.079 ng/g ww
nsSchlabach et al. 2002
STP4 influent STP effluent Receiving waterUnited Kingdom ; 19997.91 x 107-8.61 x 107ng/L
8850-8.17 x 107 ng/L
528-744 ng/L
3 9 3Dames and Moore 2000b
STP influent STP effluent STP sludgeUnited Kingdom ; no year934 ng/L (dissolved phase)
216 000 ng/g dw (solid phase)
nd (dissolved phase)
1260 ng/g dw (solid phase)
9547 ng/g dw
nsDeuchar 2002
STP influent STP effluent STP sludgeEngland ; 2002nd-24 ng/L (dissolved phase)
< 0.4-29.4 ng/g dw (solid phase)
< 3.9 ng/L 531-2683 ng/g dw
5 5 5 5Morris et al. 2004
STP sludgeIreland ; 2002153-9120 ng/g dw6Morris et al. 2004
STP effluent Activated sludgeThe Netherlands ; 1999-200010 800-24 300 ng/L
728 000-942 000 ng/g dw
ns 3Institut Fresenius 2000a, 2000b
STP influent STP effluent STP sludgeThe Netherlands ; 2002< 330-3800 ng/g dw (solid phase)
< 1-18 ng/g dw (solid phase)
< 0.6-1300 ng/g dw
5 5 8Morris et al. 2004
STP sludgeSweden ; 1997-199811-120 ng/g dw4Sellström 1999; Sellström et al. 1999
STP sludgeSweden ; 200030, 33 ng/g dw2Remberger et al. 2004
STP primary sludge STP digested sludgeSweden ; 20006.9 ng/g dw < 1 ng/g dw1 3Remberger et al. 2004
STP sludgeSweden ; 20003.8-650 ng/g dwnsLaw et al. 2006c
Plant WWTP5 influent effluentUnited Kingdom ; 19991.72 x 105-1.89 x 106ng/L
3030-46 400 ng/L
3Dames and Moore 2000a
Laundry effluentSweden ; 200031 ng/L1Remberger et al. 2004
STP sludgeSwitzerland ; 2003 and 200539-597 ng/g dw19Kupper et al. 2008
CompostSwitzerland ; no year19-170 ng/g dwnsZennegg et al. 2005

1  Not specified
2  Not detected; detection limit not specified 
3  Values estimated from graphical representation of data
4  Sewage treatment plant
5  Wastewater treatment plant
6  Dry weight
7  Wet weight

Table 7: Concentrations Measured in Biota

Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Canadian Arctic;
1976-2004
Ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea) egg2.1-3.824Braune et al. 2007
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDDγ-HBCD
Canadian Arctic;
1996-2002
Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas)< 0.63-2.08< 0.07-0.465Tomy et al. 2008
Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)nd-0.86< 0.12-1.865
Narwhal (Monodon monoceros)2.05-6.10< 0.11-1.275
Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida)nd-1.38nd-0.078
Redfish (Sebastes mentella)< 0.74-3.37< 0.28-1.035
Shrimp (Pandalus borealis, Hymenodoraglacialis)0.91-2.600.23-1.245
Clam (Mya truncate, Serripesgroenlandica)nd-1.03< 0.46-5.665
Zooplanktonnd-9.160.13-2.665
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Nunavut;
2007
Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)0.3810Morris et al. 2007
Alaska;
1994-2002
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)< 0.01-35.1in 2 of 15Muir et al. 2006
Greenland;
1999-2001
Polar bear
(Ursus maritimus)
32.4-58.611Muir et al. 2006
Greenland;
1999-2001
Polar bear
(Ursus maritimus)
41 ng/g wet weight20Gebbink et al. 2008
British Columbia, southern California;
2001-2003
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
< 0.01 ng/g29McKinney et al. 2006
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
Lake Winnipeg;
2000-2002
Whitefish (Coregonus commersoni)0.56-1.860.10-1.250.90-1.195Law et al. 2006a
Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum)2.02-13.070.66-2.361.65-6.595
Mussel (Lampsilis radiate)6.15-10.09< 0.04-2.376.69-23.045
Zooplankton1.40-17.54< 0.04-1.800.22-1.825 Pooled
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)4.51-6.53< 0.04-5.703.66-12.095
Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides)7.39-10.06< 0.04-2.083.23-6.955
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)2.30-5.980.27-0.901.53-10.345
Burbot (Lota lota)10.6-25.472.29-10.2924.4-47.905
Great Lakes;
1987-2004
(ng/g ww)
Herring gull (Larus argentatus) egg
nd-20nd1nd-0.6741Gauthier et al. 2006, 2007
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Lake Ontario;
no year
Whitefish (Coregonus commersoni)92ns2Tomy et al. 2004b
Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum)40
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCDΣHBCD
Lake Ontario;
1979-2004
Lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush)
15-270.16-0.941.4-6.516-3329Ismail et al. 2009
Location;
year
Organism
(ng/g ww)
Concentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
Lake Ontario;
2002
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)0.37-3.78< 0.0300.07-0.735Tomy et al. 2004a
Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)0.19-0.26< 0.0300.03-0.043
Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)0.15-0.46< 0.0300.02-0.173
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)0.08-0.15< 0.0300.01-0.023
Mysid (Mysis relicta)0.04, 0.07< 0.0300.01, 0.022
Amphipod (Diporeia hoyi)0.05, 0.06< 0.0300.02, 0.032
Plankton0.02, 0.04< 0.030< 0.030, 0.032
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Eastern U.S.;
1993-2004
Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)2.9-38073Peck et al. 2008
Chesapeake Bay, USA;
2003
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)2.2, 5.92Larsen et al. 2005
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)4.81
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)25.41
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)7.51
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)2.2-73.99
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)8.71
Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus)5.31
Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)4.5-9.14
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)1.7-6.03
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)7.1, 15.92
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)nd-59.19
White perch (Morone americana)1.0-21.011
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)3.9-19.13
Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)6.9, 18.92
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCDΣHBCD
Florida;
1991-2004
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates)1.29-7.870.337-2.490.582-5.182.21-15.515Johnson-Restrepo et al. 2008
Bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas)8.01-14.54.83-5.5752.3-71.371.6-84.913
Sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae)
113.7839.754.53
Location; yearOrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
California;
1993-2000
California sea lion (Zalopus californianus)0.71-11.8526Stapleton et al. 2006
United Kingdom;
no year
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)39.9-10 275 ng/g wet weightnsAllchin and Morris 2003
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)< 1.2-6758 ng/g wet weight
United Kingdom;
no year
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)nd-1200in 12 of 51de Boer et al. 2004
Sparrow hawk (Accipiter nisus)nd-19 000in 9 of 65
United Kingdom;
1998
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)< 5-10195Morris et al. 2004
United Kingdom;
1999-2000
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)138-13205
United Kingdom;
2001
Sea star (Asterias rubens)7691
Location;
year
Organism
(ng/g ww)
Concentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
United Kingdom;
1994-2003
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)10-19 200< 3-54< 4-2185Law et al. 2006d
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
United Kingdom;
2003-2006
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)nd-11 500 ng/g wet weightin 137 of 138Law et al. 2008
North Sea;
no year
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)393-259324Zegers et al. 2005
Scotland;
no year
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)1009-95905
Ireland;
no year
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)466-878611
Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)411-34166
France;
no year
Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)97-89831
Spain;
no year
Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)51-45427
North Sea; 1999Whelk (Buccinium undatum)29-473Morris et al. 2004
Sea star (Asterias rubens)< 30-843
Hermit crab (Pagurus bernhardus)< 309
Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)< 733
Cod (Gadus morhua)< 0.7-502
Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)63-20552
Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)440-68004
Belgium;
2000
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)< 1-26619
Belgium;
1998-2000
Little owl (Athene noctua)20, 40in 2 of 40Jaspers et al. 2005
The Netherlands;
no year
Mussel (species not known)125-177 ng/g dry weightnsBouma et al. 2000
Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)65.5 ng/g dry weight1
Bass (species not known)124 ng/g dry weight1
Tern (Sterna hirundo) egg533-844 ng/g dry weightns
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
The Netherlands;
2001
Shrimp (Crangon crangon)28, 38nd< 2, 182Janák et al. 2005
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)7, 27nd, 3.42, 72
Sole (Solea solea)100-1100nd< 1-174
Plaice (Pleuronectus platessa)21-38nd< 2-83
Bib (Trisopterus luscus)53-150nd-2.2< 3-433
Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)16-240nd< 3-383
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
The Netherlands;
1999-2001
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)6-69011Morris et al. 2004
Tern egg (Sterna hirundo)330-710010
The Netherlands;
2001
Mysid (Neomysis integer)562-727nsVerslycke et al. 2005
Location;
year
Organism
(Median, maximum;
ng/g wet weight)
Concentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
The Netherlands;
2003
Eel (species not known)12, 410.9, 1.63, 8.410Van Leeuwen et al. 2004
Location;yearOrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Switzerland;
no year
Whitefish (Coregonus sp.)25-210nsGerecke et al. 2003
Baltic Sea;
1969-2001
Guillemot (Uria algae) egg34-30010Sellström et al. 2003
Baltic Sea;
1980-2000
Grey seal (Halicoerus grypus)30-9020Roos et al. 2001
Sweden;
1995
Pike (Esox lucius)< 50-800015Sellström et al. 1998
Sweden;
1991-1999
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) egg< 4-240021Lindberg et al. 2004
Sweden;
1987-1999
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) eggnd-190044Johansson et al. 2009
Sweden;
2000
Pike (species not known)120-970Pooled: 20Remberger et al. 2004
Eel (species not known)65-180020
Sweden;
1999-2000
Herring (species not known)21-18060
Sweden;
1999
Salmon (Salmo salar)515
Sweden;
2002
Herring (Clupea harengus)1.5-31nsAsplund et al. 2004
Norwegian Arctic;
no year
Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)3.8-61.614Knudsen et al. 2007
Norwegian Arctic;
2002
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)18.2-10915Muir et al. 2006
Norwegian Arctic;
2002-2003
Amphipod (Gammarus wilkitzkii)nd5SØrmo et al. 2006
Polar cod (Boreogadus saida)1.38-2.877
Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)14.6-34.56
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)5.31-16.514
Norwegian Arctic;
2002
North Atlantic kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) yolk sac118 (Mean)18Murvoll et al. 2006a, 2006b
North Atlantic kittiwake yolk sac260 (Mean)19
Norway;
2002
European shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) yolk sac417 (Mean)30
Norwegian Arctic;
2002
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)< 0.03-0.85 ng/g wet weight15Verreault et al. 2005
Norwegian Arctic;
2004
Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus)0.07-1.24 ng/g wet weight27
Norwegian Arctic;
2002
Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus)0.51-29257Verreault et al. 2007b
Norwegian Arctic;
2006
Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus)< 0.59-63.980Verreault et al. 2007a
Norwegian Arctic;
2003
Polar cod (Boreogadus saida)7.67-23.46Bytingsvik et al. 2004
Norway;
1998-2003
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)nd-56.941
Location;
year
Organism
(ng/g ww)
Concentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCD
Norway;
no year
Perch (Perca fluviatilis)3.14-8.12< 0.04< 0.07-0.377-20 pooledSchlabach et al. 2004a, 2004b
Pike (Esox lucius)1.02-9.25< 0.020.03-0.92
Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)2.10.030.25
Vendace (Coregonus albula)3.150.40.62
Trout (Salmo trutta)2.28-13.30.06-1.120.24-3.73
Norway;
2003
Perch (Perca fluviatilis)22.3< 0.2< 0.25-20 pooled
Orfe (Leuciscus idus)14.8< 0.2< 0.2
Flounder (Platichthys flesus)7.2< 0.2< 0.2
Cod (Gadus morhua)9.3< 0.2< 0.2
Trout (Salmo trutta)< 1.9< 0.2< 0.2
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)4.7< 0.2< 0.2
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Northern Norway;
no year
Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)3.6-11nsFjeld et al. 2004
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)6.6, 7.7
Norway;
2003
Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)< 0.17-0.87 ng/g wet weight33Bethune et al. 2005
Herring (Clupea harengus)< 0.63-2.75 ng/g wet weight23
Mackerel (Species not known)< 0.89-1.19 ng/g wet weight24
Norway;
1986-2004
Tawny owl (Strix aluco) egg0.04-36.5in 34 of 139Bustnes et al. 2007
Spain;
2002
Barbell (Barbus graellsi)nd-1172 ng/g wet weight23Eljarrat et al. 2004, 2005
Bleak (Alburnus alburnus)nd-1643 ng/g wet weight22
South Africa;
2004-2005
African darter (Anhinga rufa) egg< 0.2-1114Polder et al. 2008
Reed cormorant (Phalacrocoraxafricanus) egg< 0.23
Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) egg< 0.220
Sacred ibis (Threskiornis aethiopicus) egg4.8, 712
Crowned plover (Vanellus coronatus) egg1.61
Little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis) egg< 0.21
White-fronted plover (Charadrius marginatus) egg< 0.21
Kelp gull (Larus dominicanus) egg< 0.21
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCDΣHBCD
Asia-Pacific;
1997-2001
Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)< 0.1-45< 0.1-0.75< 0.4-14nd-4565Ueno et al. 2006
South China Sea;
1990-2001
Finless porpoise (Neophocaena phacaenoides)4.4-55< 0.006-4.0< 0.006-214.7-5519Isobe et al. 2008
Humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis)31-370< 0.006-0.59< 0.006-4.631-380
China;
2006
Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthysmolitrix)15-29< 0.005-1.25.5-8.923-3817Xian et al. 2008
Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis)11-20< 0.005-0.691.7-2.813-24
Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)7.2-75< 0.005-2.84.3-1312-91
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)14-280.50-0.762.9-5.718-34
Crucian carp (Carassius auratus)12-1300.37-2.22.9-2616-160
Brass gudgeon (Coreius heterodon)20-57< 0.005-1.75.2-5.625-64
White amur bream (Parabramis pekinensis)8.1-740.32-6.72.0-5114-130
Mandarin fish (Siniperca chuatsi)80, 1202.8, 3.6150, 200240, 330
Snakehead (Channa argus)37< 0.0050.2637
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
Korea;
2005
Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)6.0-50017Ramu et al. 2007
Japan;
1987
Fish (species not provided)10-23 ng/g wet weightin 4 of 66Watanabe and Tatsukawa 1990
Japan;
1999
Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)571Marsh et al. 2004
Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)901
Location;
year
OrganismConcentration
(ng/g lipid
weight)
SamplesReference
α-HBCDß-HBCDγ-HBCDΣHBCD
Japan;
2001-2006
Racoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)< 0.005-10< 0.005-3.7< 0.005-20< 0.005-2939Kunisue et al. 2008

1 Not detected; detection limit not specified
2 Not specified

Table 8: Human Milk Lipid Concentrations of Individual HBCD Isomers and Total (Σ) HBCD

LocationHuman milk (µg /kg lipid weight)N=Reference
Canada , Province of Ontario 2003,
2005 United States of America ,
Austin, State of Texas 2002, 2004
Median α-HBCD 0.41 Range α-HBCD 0.2-8.8n=27 (+13)Ryan et al. 2006a
Median α-HBCD 0.54 Range α-HBCD 0.2-28n=35 (+23)
Median α-HBCD 0.40 Range α-HBCD 0.2-0.9n=24 (+21)
Median α-HBCD 0.49  Range α-HBCD 0.2-1.2n=25 (+20)
Sweden 2000-2001Median α-HBCD 0.30 Range α-HBCD 0.2-2.4n=30 (+24)
Sweden 2002-2003Median α-HBDD 0.35  Range α-HBCD 0.2-1.5n=30 (+24)
Norway 2003-2004Median α-HBCD 0.60 Range α-HBCD 0.4-20n=85 (+49)
Norway 1993-2001Median 0.6 Range 0.3-20n=85 (+49)
Belgium 2006ΣHBCD 1.5n=197 women between 18 and 30 years old distributed over all Belgian provinces.   n=178 pooledColes et al. 2008
A Corûna (northwestern Spain ) 2006, 2007Median 27 Range 3-188n= 33 (+30) Diastereoisomer levels were determined and body burden of mothers and infant exposure reported. Nursing infant dietary intake of 0.175 µg/kg-bw per day.Eljarrat et al. 2009


Table 9: Human Blood Serum and Cord Plasma for Individual Isomers and ΣHBCD

LocationHuman blood serum
(µg /kg lipid weight)
N=Cord plasmaN=Reference
Canada , Arctic
Nunavut and NWT regions
1994-1999
Median α-HBCD 0.7
Range α-HBCD 0.5-0.9
n=10 (+3)Median α-HBCD 2.4
Range α-HBCD 2.4-2.4
n=10 (+1)Walker et al.2003 as cited in Ryan et al. 2005
Canada , ArcticHBCD at quantities < 1 Median 0.7
Range 0.5-0.9
n=10 (+3)
Lipid 0.63%  
Non-detect
Lipid 0.17%
n=10 (0)Muckle et al. 2001
NetherlandsMean 1.1
Range < 0.16-4.2
n=78
weeks 20 and 35 of pregnancy
  Weiss et al. 2004 as cited in Antignac et al. 2008
NetherlandsRange n.d-7n=90Means of 1.1 and 1.7 at weeks 20 and 35 of pregnancy Weiss et al. 2004
NetherlandsMedian 0.7
Range nd-7.4 
n=69 (+68)Median 0.2
Range 0.2-4.3
n=12 (+5)Meijer et al. 2008
NetherlandsMedian of 1.1
Range  < 0.2-7.0
n=78  Meijer et al. 2008
NorwayΣHBCDs
Median 4.1
Range < 1.0-52
ΣHBCDs
Median 2.6
Range < 1.0-18
n=41 (men)
n=25 (women)
  Thomsen et al. 2008
NorwayΣHBCDs
Median 101
Range 6-856
n=2 (workers) Gamma-HBCD was high at 39%
nd > 1  in a control group having no work-related exposure
  Thomsen et al. 2007
SwedenΣHBCDs
Median 0.5
Range < 0.24-3.4
n=50
Gamma at 13%
  Weiss et al. 2006a
BelgiumΣHBCDs
Median of 1.7
Range of < 0.5-11.3
n=16(+7)  Roosens et al. 2009


Table 10: Human Tissue Data for HBCD

LocationTissueResultReference
FranceAdipose tissue1-12 µg/kg lipid weight (l.d) in 50% of samples from n=26 mother-infant pairsAntignac et al. 2008
Czech RepublicAdipose tissuen=98
Mean 1.2 ng/g l.d.
Relative standard deviation (RSD)% 150
Median < 0.5 ng/g l.d.
5-95th percentile range
0.5-7.5 ng/g l.d.
Pulkrabova et al. 2009
-SkinHBCD remained on surface of skin and stratum corneum was an efficient barrier to 14C -HBCD penetration.Roper et al. 2007

Note: In Europe, the calculated margin of safety (MOS) for HBCD was 5.1 x 10+3 to 2.0 x 10+5, exceeding the MOS reference of 5.3 x 10+2 (Weiss and Bergman 2006b). The 2006 level of HBCD in European humans was not considered to be of concern. It was also determined that the HBCD data were too weak for any assessment in the U.S. at that time.

Table 11: Food Concentrations and Dietary Intakes for ΣHBCD

LocationFood (ng/g wet weight) and dietary intakes (ng/day)Reference
United Statesn=31 food commodities, 310 samples
 Intake mainly from meat 16 ng/day
(n.d. at 60 pg/g wet weight; measured values from 23 to 192 pg/g wet weight)
Dairy and Eggs (n.d. range from 4 to 128 pg/g wet weight)
Fats (n.d. range from 35 to 393 pg/g wet weight; measured value for peanut butter of 300 pg/g wet weight)
Cereals (n.d. of 180 pg/g wet weight)
Fruit (apples) (n.d. of 22 pg/g wet weight)
Potatoes (n.d. of 18 pg/g wet weight)
Fish (n.d. range from 29 to 59; measured values from 113 to 593 pg/g wet weight)
Schecter et al. 2009
Belgiumn=165(+13)
Median 0.10 
Mean 0.13 ± 0.11
Range < 0.01-0.35  (duplicate diets)
Intake median 5.5
Intake mean 7.2+/-5.2
Intake range 1.2-20
Roosens et al. 2009
SwedenRange < 0.8-4.9 (various items)Remberger et al. 2004
United KingdomRange 0.02-0.30   (market basket survey)         Intake Range 354-474Driffield et al. 2008
NorwayRange 0.12-5 (fish) 
Range 0.03-0.15 (meat)
Range 0.2-6 (egg)
Intake median 16
Intake mean 18
Intake range 4-81
Knutsen et al. 2008
Netherlands(Market basket survey)
Intake range 174
De Winter-Sorkina et al. 2003

Note: Roosens et al.’s (2009) dietary estimates of 0-20 ng ΣHBCD/day are lower than those previously reported. They are based on a short snapshot of time of exposure for a small number of individuals; the diets consumed consisted of lean meats and vegetables with low or no HBCD content; there were low detection frequencies of HBCD in the market survey; and LOQ or half LOQ concentrations were used.

Table 12: Dust Concentrations for Individual Isomers and ΣHBCD (Roosens et al. 2009)

LocationLevel ng/g dry weightn=Reference
CanadaΣHBCD  
Median 640
Mean 670+/- 390
Range 64-1300
n=8Abdallah et al. 2008b
United StatesΣHBCD  
Median 390
Mean 810+/- 1100
Range 110-4000
n=13Abdallah et al. 2008b
United StatesΣHBCD   Median 230
 Mean (geo) 354 
Range <4.5-130 200
n=16Stapleton et al. 2008
BelgiumΣHBCD   Median 114
Mean 160+/- 169
Range 33-758
n=16Roosens et al. 2009
United KingdomΣHBCD   Median 1300
Mean 8300+/- 26 000
 Range 140-140 000
n=45Abdallah et al. 2008a
United KingdomΣHBCD   Median 730
Mean 6000+/- 20 000 
Range 140-110 000
n=31Abdallah et al. 2008b


Table 13: Mean +/- SD Exposure Factors of α, ß, γ-HBCD in Food, Dust, Serum (Roosens et al. 2009)

CompoundFood (n=12)Dust (n=9)Serum (n=9)
α-HBCD0.49 ± 0.040.52 ± 0.020.28 ± 0.02
ß-HBCD0.52 ± 0.020.48 ± 0.03ND
γ-HBCD0.51 ± 0.030.50 ± 0.02ND

Note: Chiral signature of all detected isomers in food and dust was racemic or close to it in all samples above LOQ. The (-)α-HBCD was the dominating enantiomer in human serum. Comparison of exposure factors with other studies is not possible as this is the first study to suggest a racemic chiral signature of HBCD in duplicate diets (Roosens et al. 2009).

Table 14: Measured Total HBCDs Environmental Media Levels

MediaLevelReference
Indoor air (occupational)

Median 2.1 µg/m3

Range 2-150 µg/m3

Thomsen et al. 2007

n=33 homes

Median=180 pg/m3

n=25 offices

Median=170 pg/m3

n=4 micro-environments

Median=900 pg/m3

Abdallah et al. 2008a
1.8 pg/m3 for Alert, Tagish (Canadian Arctic) and Dunai, (Russian Arctic)PWGSC-INAC-NCP 2003

n=9

Range 880-4800 pg/g dry weight

Harrad et al. (pending)
Dust

n=45 homes

Median 1300 ng/g

n=28 offices

Median 760 ng/g

n=20 cars

Median 13 000 ng/g

n=4 public micro-environments

Median 2700 ng/g

p< 0.05 total cars >>> total HBCDs in homes and offices

Abdallah et al. 2008a

n=31 homes

Median 730 ng/g United Kingdom , Birmingham

n=13 homes

Median 390 ng/g

Amarillo/Austin Texas

n=8 homes

Median 640 ng/g Toronto, Canada

n=6 offices

United Kingdom , Birmingham

Median 650 ng/g

Highest U.K. house dust level was 110 000 ng/g

Abdallah et al. 2008b

Median 230 ng/g

Range <4.5-130 200 ng/g dry weight

Stapleton et al. 2008


Table 15: European Union Risk Assessment on HBCD

Exposure estimates of the HBCD EU Risk Assessment Report 1,2 (EU RAR 2008)

Exposure scenarioEU RAR exposure estimateReference
Consumer products
Oral exposure of children to HBCD from sucking a fabric (50 cm2), one back-coated with HBCD daily for 2 years at 1 hr/dayExposure estimate = 26 µg/kg-bw/dayUS NRC 2000 as cited in EU RAR 2008
Dermal exposure that assumed exposure from furniture upholstery, back-coated with HBCD

Exposure estimated = 1.3 x 10-3 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Inhalation exposure in a room, caused by wear of and evaporation of HBCD from fabric upholstery treated with HBCD

Cindoors of 3.9µg/m3

Assume 60 kg adult , 24 hour exposure, inhalation rate of 20 m3/day , 100% absorption

Exposure estimate= 1.3 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Textile in furniture and curtainsConcentration of HBCD in debris during wear testing (UV-aging and non-aging) was 0.47% HBCD by debris weightEU RAR 2008
Sub-scenario: oral exposure to dust

Assume 10 kg child eating all dust generated from 2 sofas, 4 m2 textile area, pica behaviour thus 2.5 mg/day    

Exposure estimate = 1.2 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Sub-scenario: inhalation exposure

Cindoors= 4.4 µg/m3

Assume 60 kg adult , 24 hour exposure, inhalation rate of 20 m3/day , 100% absorption

Exposure estimate= 1.5 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and scenario construction was unrealistic so it was not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Sub-scenario: oral exposure by mouthing of textile

Assume daily mouthing of 50 cm2 fabric back-coated with HBCD (2mg/cm2), 0.9% release during 0.5 hours, 100% absorption, one mouthing every three days

Exposure estimate= 30 µg/kg-bw/day

If the back side is not available, exposure becomes 3 µg/kg-bw/day

This sub-scenario estimate was carried forward for risk characterization.

Indoor air exposure from XPS construction boards

Exposure estimate= 0.19 or 0.002 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Mattress ticking - lying down in a bed on a mattress with flame-retarded ticking

Exposure estimate of 0.01 µg/kg-bw/day

Exposure level was insignificant and not brought forward in the EU RAR risk characterization.

Indirect exposure - regional intakeEUSES model prediction of ~ 5 µg/kg-bw/day
Regional exposure of humans via the environmentExposure estimate= 20 ng/kg-bw/day was derived from food basket studies.

1 The EU RAR concluded that humans are primarily exposed to HBCD mainly by inhalation or ingestion of airborne dust or from direct contact with treated textiles and materials. Inhalation exposure to HBCD vapour is negligible due to HBCD’s low vapour pressure. All these scenarios were found to typically result in insignificant exposures. Indirect exposure via the environment was estimated using EUSES modelling based on measured levels in biota and food. These estimates of exposures were attributed to food basket study data and the ingestion of fish and root crops contaminated with HBCD. Human exposures to HBCD from usage of consumer products or via the environment were concluded to be much lower than occupational exposures. Prenatal and neonatal exposures in utero or via breast feeding were also found to occur.
2 The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) adopted an opinion on the final Human Health Part of the EU Risk Assessment Report (EU RAR) on HBCD. SCHER members felt that the health part of the EU RAR is of good quality, comprehensive and that the exposure and effects assessment adhere to the EU’s Technical Guidance Document. 

Table 16: Summary of Key Toxicity Studies Used in the Assessment of HBCD

Species, life stageTest material compo-
sition
Study designEffect levelReference

Daphnia magna,

water flea

< 24 hours old at test initiation

93.6% purity
  • 21-day flow-through using well water
  • measured concentrations: 0, 0.87, 1.6, 3.1, 5.6 and 11 µg/L
  • 40 per treatment
  • 19.0-20.5°C, pH 8.1-8.4, dissolved oxygen 7.2-8.7 mg/L, hardness 128-132 mg/L as CaCO3,
  • USEPA 1994; OECD 1984a; ASTM 1991
  • 21-day NOEC (survival) = 11 µg/L1
  • 21-day NOEC (reproduction) = 5.6 µg/L
  • 21-day LOEC (reproduction) = 11 µg/L
  • 21-day NOEC (growth) = 3.1 µg/L
  • 21-day LOEC (growth) = 5.6 µg/L
CMABFRIP 1998

Skeletonema costatum

and

Thalassiosira pseudonana,

marine algae

compo-
sition and purity not provided
  • 72-hour static test
  • concentration series not specified
  • six different nutrient media
  • pH 7.6-8.2, 30 ppt.
  • population density estimated by cell counts using a haemocytometer endpoint: survival (cell density)
  • 72-hour EC50 = 9.3-12.0 µg/L for S. costatum
  • 72-hour EC50 = 50-370 µg/L for T. pseudonana
Walsh et al. 1987

Oncorhynchus mykiss,

rainbow trout

juvenile

compo-
sition and purity not provided
  • 5- and 28-day flow-through tests using filtered fresh water
  • intraperitoneal injection using 0, 50 and “< 500” 2 mg/kg-bw doses
  • 1 replicate of 6-7 fish/treatment
  • 10°C
  • endpoints: hepatic detoxification and antioxidant enzymes, liver somatic index (LSI), blood plasma vitellogenin
  • catalase activity significantly increased after 5 days at doses of 50 and “< 500” mg/kg-bw
  • EROD activity significantly inhibited after 28 days at “< 500” mg/kg-bw
  • LSI significantly increased after 28 days at “< 500” mg/kg-bw
  • no observed effects on blood plasma vitellogenin levels
  • no observed effect on formation of DNA adducts
Ronisz et al. 2004
Lumbriculus variegates, oligochaete95% purity
  • 28-day static test using dechlorinated tap water
  • measured concentrations: 0, nd3, 0.25, 3.25, 29.25 and 311.35 mg/kg sediment dry weight (dw)
  • 40 per treatment
  • artificial sediment: 1.8% organic carbon, grain size 100-2000 µm
  • 20°C, pH 8.7 ± 0.15, dissolved oxygen. 7.5 ± 0.81 mg/L, conductivity 1026 ± 199 µs/cm
  • modified OECD 2004b
  • 28-day NOEC (total number of worms) = 3.25 mg/kg sediment dw
  • 28-day LOEC (total number of worms) = 29.25 mg/kg sediment dw
  • 28-day NOEC (large vs. small worms, mean biomass) = 29.25 mg/kg sediment dw
  • 28-day LOEC (large vs. small worms, mean biomass) = 311.35 mg/kg sediment dw
  • no deformations observed
Oetken et al. 2001

Hyalella azteca,

amphipod

Chironomus riparius, chironomid

Lumbriculus variegates, oligochaete

99.99% purity
  • non-GLP (good laboratory practice) rangefinder testing with all three species using nominal test concentrations: 0, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 mg/kg sediment dw and 2% or 5% organic carbon (OC)
  • definitive 28-day flow-through test with H. azteca only using nominal concentrations: 0, 31, 63, 125, 250, 500 and 1000mg/kg sediment dw
  • definitive testing: 80 per treatment
  • two definitive trials using artificial sediment: (i) 2.3% OC; 22.4-23.5°C; pH 7.8-8.6, dissolved oxygen 5.6-8.6 mg/L (ii) 4.7% OC; 21.0-23.0°C, pH 7.8-8.4, D.O. 4.5-8.5 mg/L; aeration added to all test chambers on Day 22
  • US EPA 1996a, 2000; ASTM 1995
  • Lumbriculus and Chironomusrangefinder results not dose-responsive, statistical analyses not conducted on resulting data

Results for definitive Hyalella test:

  • 28-day EC50 > 1000 mg/kg dw
  • 28-day NOEC = 1000 mg/kg dw
ACCBFRIP 2003d, 2003e

Eisenia fetida,

earthworm

adult

99.99% purity
  • 28-day survival and 56-day reproduction test using artificial soil with 4.3% OC
  • measured concentrations at 28 days: 0, 61.2, 145, 244, 578, 1150, 2180 and 4190 mg/kg soil dw
  • measured concentrations at 56 days: 0, 51.5, 128, 235, 543, 1070, 2020 and 3990 mg/kg soil dw
  • 80 per control, 40 per treatment
  • 19.4-22.7°C, pH 5.50-6.67, soil moisture 18.9-42.3%, 573.4-595.5 lux 
  • USEPA 1996d; OECD 1984b  2000
  • 28-day NOEC (survival) = 4190 mg/kg soil dw
  • 28-day EC10, EC50(survival) > 4190 mg/kg soil dw
  • 56-day NOEC (reproduction) = 128 mg/kg soil dw
  • 56-day LOEC (reproduction) = 235 mg/kg soil dw
  • 56-day EC10 (reproduction) = 21.6 mg/kg soil dw4
  • 56-day EC50 (reproduction) = 771 mg/kg soil dw
ACCBFRIP 2003a

Zea mays,

corn

Cucumis sativa,

cucumber

Allium cepa,

onion

Lolium perenne,

ryegrass

Glycine max,

soybean

Lycopersicon esculentum,

tomato

99.99% purity
  • 21-day test using artificial soil with 1.9% organic matter
  • nominal concentrations: 0, 40, 105, 276, 725, 1904 and 5000 mg/kg dw of soil
  • 40 seeds per treatment
  • 18.0-34.7°C, relative humidity 19-82%, 14:10 light:dark
  • US EPA 1996b, 1996c; OECD 1998a
  • no apparent treatment-related effects on emergence, survival or growth
  • 21-day NOEC = 5000 mg/kg soil dw
ACCBFRIP 2002
Rat99.99% purity
  • 90-day treatment period, 28-day recovery period
  • nominal doses: 0, 100, 300 and 1000 mg/kg-bw per day by gavage
  • 15 female and 15 male rats per treatment
  • Endpoints measured: survival, clinical observations, functional operational battery, locomotor activity, clinical pathology, ophthalmic examination, reproductive function, anatomic pathology
  • US EPA 1998; OECD 1998b
  • 90-day LOEL (decreased serum thyroid hormone) = 100 mg/kg bw per day
  • 90-day NOEL < 100 mg/kg bw per day
CMABFRIP 2001

1 Study identified that the highest concentration tested did not result in statistically significant results. Since the NOEC could be higher, the NOEC is described as being greater than or equal to the highest concentration tested.
2 500 mg/kg-bw dose could not be dissolved completely in peanut oil carrier, and residue was measured in the stomach cavity of test fish during analysis. Analysis confirmed that the fish had taken up most of the test substance; however, dose was considered to probably be less than 500 mg/kg-bw (i.e., < 500 mg/kg-bw).
3 Not detected
4 Value is less than the lowest test concentration used and is therefore considered to be an estimate only.

Table 17: Summary of Data Used in the Risk Quotient Analysis of HBCD

 Pelagic organismsBenthic organismsSoil organismsWildlife consumers
PEC0.00004-0.015 mg/L10.33-108.2 mg/kg dry weight (dw)10.021-0.041 mg/kg soil dw64.51 mg/kg wet weight (ww)9
CTV0.0056 mg/L229.25 mg/kg sediment dw4235 mg/kg soil dw7395 mg/kg food ww10
Assessment factor1031031031011
PNEC0.00056 mg/L6.5 mg/kg sediment dw510.9 mg/kg soil dw839.5 mg/kg food ww
Risk quotient (PEC/PNEC)0.071-10.70.05-7.110.002-0.0040.114

1 Due to the lack of adequate measured data, PECs were estimated using a fugacity Level III (steady-state) box model described in Appendix B, and in Environment Canada (2009).
2 CMABFRIP 1998.
3 An assessment factor of 10 was applied to account for extrapolation from laboratory to field conditions and interspecies and intraspecies variations in sensitivity.
4 Oetken et al. 2001.
5 The critical toxicity value (CTV) of 29.25 mg/kg dw was obtained using sediments containing 1.8% organic carbon (OC). To allow comparison between the predicted no effects concentration (PNEC) and predicted environmental concentrations ( PECs), the PNEC was standardized to represent sediment with 4% OC.
6 Due to the lack of measured soil data, PECs were calculated for tilled agricultural soil and pastureland based on Equation 60 of the European Commission Technical Guidance Document (TGD; European Communities 2003) and the approach by Bonnell Environmental Consulting (2001):
PECsoil = (Csludge x ARsludge) / (Dsoil x BDsoil)
where:
                PECsoil      = PEC for soil (mg/kg)
                Csludge       = concentration in sludge (mg/kg)
                ARsludge    = application rate to sludge amended soils (kg/m2/yr); default = 0.5 from Table 11 of TGD
                Dsoil          = depth of soil tillage (m); default = 0.2 m in agricultural soil and 0.1 m in pastureland from Table 11 of TGD
                BDsoil        = bulk density of soil (kg/m3); default = 1700 kg/m3 from Section 2.3.4 of TGD
The equation assumes no losses from transformation, degradation, volatilization, erosion or leaching to lower soil layers. Additionally, it is assumed there is no input of HBCD from atmospheric deposition and there are no background HBCD accumulations in the soil. To examine potential impacts from long-term application, an application time period of 10 consecutive years was considered. A sludge concentration of 1.401 mg/kg dw reported by Morris et al. (2004) was used as Csludge in the calculation. As the organic carbon content of the sludge was not specified, a standard OC level of 2% (European Communities 2003) was assumed.
7 ACCBFRIP 2003a.
8 The CTV of 235 mg/kg dw was obtained using a soil with 4.3% OC. To allow comparison between the PNEC and PECs, the PNEC was standardized to represent a soil with 2% OC.
9 Tomy et al. 2004a.
10 Due to the lack of data for wildlife species, a lowest observed effect level (LOEL) of 100 mg/kg-bw per day, based on significantly reduced levels of circulating thyroid hormones in rats (CMABFRIP 2001), was selected as the CTV for the evaluation of potential effects in wildlife. This endpoint was considered relevant as disruptions in thyroid hormone homeostasis may alter critical metabolic processes such as development of the central nervous system and cell metabolic rates. Interspecies scaling was applied to extrapolate the total daily intake (TDI) in rats to a concentration of food in mink, Mustela vison, a surrogate wildlife species. The calculation used the typical adult body weight (bw; 0.6 kg) and daily food ingestion rate (DFI; 0.143 kg/d ww) of a female mink to estimate a CTV in mink based on exposure through food (CCME 1998). That is, CTVfood = (CTVTDI in rats x bwmink) / DFImink This equation assumes that all of the substance is exposed via food and that the substance is completely bioavailable for uptake by the organism. An allometric scaling factor of 0.94 (Sample and Arenal 1999) was then applied to this CTV value in order to account for observed higher sensitivities in larger animals (i.e., mink) when compared with smaller ones (i.e., rat). The final CTV, incorporating both interspecies and allometric scaling, is therefore 395 mg/kg food ww.
11 An assessment factor of 10 was applied to account for extrapolation from laboratory to field conditions and from a rodent to a wildlife species.

Date modified: