Acrylic acid ethyl ester
MAK Value Documentation, addendum – Translation of the German version from 2016
Andrea Hartwig1 (Chair of the Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)MAK Commission2
1 Institute of Applied Biosciences, Department of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Adenauerring 20a, Building 50.41, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
2 Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Kennedyallee 40, 53175 Bonn, Germany
Abstract
The German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area has re‐evaluated the maximum concentration at the workplace (MAK value) of ethyl acrylate [140‐88‐5] of 5 ml/m3, considering all toxicity endpoints. Available unpublished study reports and publications are described in detail. The critical effect of ethyl acrylate is irritation of eye and nose in humans and the olfactory mucosa in rats and mice. The chronic NOAEC in rats is 5 ml/m3. Since 2014 the Commission uses an empirical approach to set MAK values for substances with critical effects on the upper respiratory tract or the eyes. Accordingly, the MAK value has to be lowered to 2 ml/m3, which is confirmed in a recent volunteer study with a NOAEC of 2.5 and a LOAEC of 5 ml ethyl acrylate/m3. As local effects are critical, the assignment to Peak Limitation Category I and the excursion factor of 2 are confirmed. Developmental toxicity studies with ethyl acrylate show no risk for the embryo or foetus if the MAK value is observed, and the assignment to Pregnancy Risk Group C is retained. Ethyl acrylate is not genotoxic in vivo and not carcinogenic. Skin contact may contribute significantly to systemic toxicity and ethyl acrylate is designated with an “H” notation. The available data confirm that the substance is a skin sensitizer and the designation with “Sh” is retained. There are no data concerning the potential for respiratory sensitization.
