An official website of the United States government
Ethyl acrylate
May 1994
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH)
CAS number: 140–88–5
NIOSH REL: None established; NIOSH considers ethyl acrylate to be a potential occupational carcinogen as defined by the OSHA carcinogen policy [29 CFR 1990].
Current OSHA PEL: 25 ppm (100 mg/m3) TWA [skin]
1989 OSHA PEL: 5 ppm (20 mg/m3) TWA, 25 ppm (100 mg/m3) STEL [skin]
1993-1994 ACGIH TLV: 5 ppm (20 mg/m3) TWA, 15 ppm (61 mg/m3) STEL, A2
Description of Substance: Colorless liquid with an acrid odor.
LEL:. . 1.4% (10% LEL, 1,400 ppm)
Original (SCP) IDLH: 2,000 ppm
Basis for original (SCP) IDLH: The chosen IDLH is based on the statements by Pozzani et al. 1949 cited by Patty [1963], and UCC [1971] that 5 of 6 rats died following a 4-hour exposure to 2,000 ppm, and that 1,000 ppm for 4 hours killed 0 of 6 rats.
Short-term exposure guidelines: None developed
ACUTE TOXICITY DATA
Lethal concentration data:
| Species | Reference | LC50(ppm) | LCLo(ppm) | Time | Adjusted 0.5-hrLC (CF) | Derivedvalue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RatRabbit
G. pig Rat Mouse |
Oberly and Tansy 1985Pozzani et al. 1949
Pozzani et al. 1949 Pozzani et al. 1949 Sidorov and Timofievskaya 1979 |
2,180—–
—– LC83: 2,000 3,894 |
—–1,204
1,204 —– —– |
4 hr7 hr
7 hr 4 hr ? |
4,360 ppm (2.0)2,890 ppm (2.4)
2,890 ppm (2.4) 4,000 ppm (2.0) ? |
436 ppm289 ppm
289 ppm 400 ppm ? |
Other animal data: RD50 (mouse), 315 ppm [DeCeaurriz et al. 1981]. Thirty-day exposures of rats to 300 or 540 ppm resulted in mortality; while rats survived 30-day exposures to 70 ppm [Treon et al. 1949].
Human data: Prolonged inhalation exposures at 50 to 75 ppm produced drowsiness, headache, and nausea [Nemec and Bauer 1978].
| Revised IDLH: 300 ppmBasis for revised IDLH: The revised IDLH for ethyl acrylate is 300 ppm based on toxicity data in humans [Nemec and Bauer 1978] and animals [DeCeaurriz et al. 1981; Oberly and Tansy 1985; Pozzani et al. 1949; Treon et al. 1949]. [Note: NIOSH recommends as part of its carcinogen policy that the “most protective” respirators be worn for ethyl acrylate at any detectable concentration.] |
REFERENCES:
1. DeCeaurriz JC, Micillino JC, Bonnet P, Guenier JP [1981]. Sensory irritation caused by various industrial airborne chemicals. Toxicol Lett 9(4):137-143.
2. Nemec JW, Bauer W Jr [1978]. Acrylic acid and deviations. In: Encyclopedia of Chemical Toxicology. Vol. I. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 330-354.
3. Oberly R, Tansy MF [1985]. LC50 values for rats acutely exposed to vapors of acrylic and methacrylic acid esters. J Toxicol Environ Health 16:811-822.
4. Patty FA, ed. [1963]. Industrial hygiene and toxicology. 2nd rev. ed. Vol. II. Toxicology. New York, NY: Interscience Publishers, Inc., p. 1880.
5. Pozzani U, Weil CS, Carpenter CP [1949]. Subacute vapor toxicity and range-finding data for ethyl acrylate. J Ind Hyg Toxicol 31:311-316.
6. Sidorov KK, Timofievskaya LA [1979]. Data for use in salting the UAC for monoethanolamine in the working environment. Gig Tr Prof Zabol 23(9):55 (in Russian).
7. Treon JF, Sigmon H, Wright H, Kitzmiller KV [1949]. The toxicity of methyl and ethyl acrylate. J Ind Hyg Toxicol 31:317-326.
8. UCC [1971]. Toxicology studies: ethyl acrylate. New York, NY: Union Carbide Corporation.