|
| Front page | | Contents | | Back | | Printing instructions |
Inclusion of HBCDD, DEHP, BBP, DBP and additive use of TBBPA in annex IV of the Commission's recast proposal of the RoHS Directive
Table 6.5
Summary of persistence, bioaccumulation potential and toxicity information for selected potential alternatives (Based on Washington State, 2006)
| Substance |
Human health |
A/M
ecotox-
icity.
Acute or
chronic |
Persis-
tence |
Bioacc. |
PBT |
| |
Cancer
hazard |
Non-
cancer
effects |
Muta-
genity |
Amount
of tox info |
Inf on
poten-
tial
routes
of expo-
sure |
| TBBPA |
L |
M |
L |
M |
Yes |
M-H |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Antimony trioxide (used together with TBBPA) |
L-M |
L |
M-H |
M-H |
Yes |
L-M |
NI |
NI |
Maybe
(NI |
| Bis(tribromophenoxy)ethane |
L |
L |
L |
L |
NI |
L-M |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| 1,2-bis(tetra-bromophthalimido) ethane |
L |
L |
L |
L |
NI |
L |
NI (likely) |
No |
No |
| Resorcinol bis (diphenylphosphate) (RDP) |
NI |
L |
L |
L |
NI |
M-H |
No |
No |
No |
| Bisphenol A diphosphate (BAPP, BPADP) or Bisphenol A bis(diphenyl phosphate) (BDP) |
NI |
L |
L |
L |
NI |
L-M |
Yes |
NI |
NI |
| Diphenyl cresyl phosphate (DCP) |
NI |
M |
L |
L-M |
Yes |
M-H |
Yes |
Yes |
Maybe
(NI) |
| Triphenyl phosphate (TPP |
L |
L-M |
L |
L-M |
Yes |
M-H |
No |
No |
No |
NI : No Information/insufficient information
A/M : Aquatic and microbial
PBT: whether the alternative meets Washington State Department of Health’s PBT criteria,
Ranking: H = high, M = medium, L = low concern based on available information: Ranking is based on US EPA, 2005.
Assessent of alternatives to deca-BDE for the Danish EPA (2006)
An assessment of key toxicological and environmental properties of selected alternatives to deca-BDE, among these TBBPA, was undertaken by Stuer-Lauridsen et al. (2006) for the Danish EPA. The summary results of the substances relevant for the present assessment are shown in Table 6.6.
A number of potential alternatives were included in a screening on data availability, and were deselected for the further assessment because of limited data available. Among these were RDP and BAPP (or BDP). The better data availability was the reason for selecting triphenyl phosphate (TPP) as representative for the phosphate flame retardants for the assessment.
| Front page | | Contents | | Back | | Printing instructions |
Version 1.0 March 2010, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency
|