PARENT SESSION

2A - Mixture toxicity
Poster Hall
8:30 AM - Monday, 28 April 2003
Chair: Hermens, J.¹, ¹
Co-chair: Toy, R.², Backhaus, T.³, ^{2 3}

(MOP/70) Comparative ERA for three detergent products in a tiered approach within the OMNIITOX project.

Pant, Rana¹, Schowanek, Diederik², Van Hoof, Gert², Feijtel, Tom², ¹ Procter & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, UK² Procter & Gamble Eurocor, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium, Belgium

ABSTRACT- The comparative ERA was conducted for three detergent products in a tiered approach. The compared detergent products were: Regular Powder (RP), Compact Powder (CP) and Compact Liquid (CL). The applied ERA methods (EU Eco-label methodology, EUSES standard scenario, EUSES detergent scenario, GREAT-ER product mode) stretched from a relatively simple screening tool over a more complex representation of fate and exposure of the ingredients in a generic region of the EU up to a level where regional river catchments can be simulated. The Eco-label methodology is based on a mix of chronic and acute data for the effect side and was used as a screening tool for identifying the most relevant ingredients for each product form for further evaluation. All other results are based on a consistent data set using acute toxicity data with an application factor of 1000 even in cases where chronic toxicity data was available. This approach was followed to compare the ERA results with LCIA results for the impact category aquatic ecotoxicity at a later stage in the OMNIITOX project. According to the EUSES standard and the EUSES detergent scenario, the aggregation of all risk quotients shows that the RP lies in between the favourable CP and the CL. In all three product forms surfactants were the main contributors to the overall toxicity score, followed by some inorganic substances, whereas perfume ingredients were less relevant. The ERA results with the most spatially resolved tool GREAT-ER product mode will be compared with these EUSES results. For this detergent case study the additivity of toxicity seems to be reasonable as surfactants with a similar mode of action are dominating the results. This is in line with the findings of an ECETOC report, which states that for acute toxicity the additivity of effects is a reasonable working assumption. Due to the specific design of the ERA to compare products, neither the methodology nor the data used are suitable for a safety assessment of the products or the ingredients.

Key words: detergents, comparative ERA, EUSES, GREAT-ER