PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
EPA Document# EPA-740-D-24-032
December 2024
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Draft Physical Chemistry, Fate, and Transport Assessment for
Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP)
Technical Support Document for the Draft Risk Evaluation
CASRN: 117-81-7
December 2024
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
28
29 TABLE OF CONTENTS
30 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6
31 Summary 7
32 1 INTRODUCTION 8
33 2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT OF DEHP 9
34 2.1 Evidence Integration for Physical and Chemical Properties 9
35 2.2 Final Selected Physical and Chemical Property Values for DEHP 9
36 2.3 Endpoint Assessments 9
37 2.3.1 Autoflammability 9
38 2.3.2 Melting Point 10
39 2.3.3 Boiling Point 10
40 2.3.4 Density 10
41 2.3.5 Vapor Pressure 10
42 2.3.6 Vapor Density 10
43 2.3,7 Water Solubility 11
44 2.3.8 Log Octanol/Water Partitioning Coefficient 11
45 2.3.9 Log Octanol/Air Partitioning Coefficient 11
46 2.3.10Henry's Law Constant 11
47 2.3,11 Flashpoint 11
48 2.3.12 Viscosity 12
49 2.4 Strengths, Limitations, Assumptions, and Key Sources of Uncertainty for the Physical and
50 Chemical Property Assessment 12
51 3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOR FATE AND TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 13
52 3.1 EPI Suite™ Model Inputs and Settings 14
53 4 TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES 15
54 4.1 Biodegradation 15
55 4,1.1 Biodegradation in Water 15
56 4.1.2 Biodegradation in Sediments 16
57 4.1.3 Biodegradation in Soils 16
58 4.2 Hydrolysis 19
59 4.3 Photolysis 19
60 5 PARTITIONING 21
61 5.1 Tier I Analysis 21
62 5.1.1 Soil, Sediment, and Biosolids 22
63 5.1.2 Air 22
64 5.1.3 Water 22
65 5.2 Tier II Analysis 22
66 6 MEDIA ASSESSMENTS 25
67 6.1 Air and Atmosphere 25
68 6.1.1 Indoor Air and Dust 25
69 6.2 Aquatic Environments 26
70 6.2.1 Surface Water 26
Page 2 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
71 6.2.2 Sediments 26
72 6.3 Terrestrial Environments 27
73 6.3.1 Soil 27
74 6.3.2 Biosolids 28
75 6.3.3 Landfills 29
76 6.3.4 Groundwater 30
77 7 PERSISTENCE POTENTIAL OF DEHP 31
78 7.1 Destruction and Removal Efficiency 31
79 7.2 Removal in Wastewater Treatment 31
80 7.3 Removal in Drinking Water Treatment 35
81 8 BIO ACCUMULATION POTENTIAL OF DEHP 36
82 9 OVERALL FATE AND TRANSPORT OF DEHP 43
83 10 WEIGHT OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CONCLUSIONS FOR FATE AND
84 TRANSPORT 44
85 10.1 Strengths, Limitations, Assumptions, and Key Sources of Uncertainty for the Fate and
86 Transport Assessment 44
87 11 REFERENCES 45
88
89 LIST OF TABLES
90 Table 1-1. Final Selected Physical and Chemical Property Values for DEHP 9
91 Table 4-1. Summary of DEHP's Biodegradation Data 17
92 Table 5-1. Partitioning Values for DEHP 21
93 Table 7-1. Summary of DEHP's WWTP Removal Data 33
94 Table 8-1. Summary of DEHP's Bioaccumulation Information 37
95
96 LIST OF FIGURES
97 Figure 5-1. EPI Suite™ Level III Fugacity Modeling Graphical Result for DEHP Assuming Ready
98 Biodegradability 24
99
ioo ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
101
A/O
Anaerobic/oxic
102
AS
Activated sludge
103
BAF
Bioaccumulation factor
104
BBP
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
105
BCF
Bioconcentration factor
106
BMF
Biomagnification factor
107
BOD
Biological oxygen demand
108
BSAF
Biota-sediment accumulation factor
109
CASRN
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
110
CDR
Chemical Data Reporting
111
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
112
CTD
Characteristic travel distance
113
DBP
Dibutyl phthalate
Page 3 of 55
-------
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
DCHP
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
DEHP
Di-ethylhexyl phthalate
DEP
Diethyl phthalate
DIBP
Di-isobutyl phthalate
DINP
Di-isononyl phthalate
DMP
Dimethyl phthalate
DMR
Discharge Monitoring Reports
DMSO
Dimethylsulfoxide
DPE
Diphthalate ester
DRE
Destruction and removal efficiency
dw
Dry weight
EC50
Effect concentration at which 50 percent of test organisms exhibit an effect
ECHA
European Chemicals Agency
ECJRC
European Commission, Joint Research Centre
EPI
Estimation Programs Interface
FR
Federal register
HC1
Hydrochloric acid
HPLC
High performance liquid chromatography
HLC
Henry's Law constant
HOAc
Acetic acid
JNU
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Km
Maximum specific uptake rate (Monod kinetics)
LC50
Lethal concentration at which 50 percent of test organisms die
LOD
Limit of detection
Log Kaw
Logarithmic air:water partition coefficient
Log Koa
Logarithmic octanokair partition coefficient
Log Koc
Logarithmic organic carbon:water partition coefficient
Log Kow
Logarithmic octanol:water partition coefficient
Log Ksw
Logarithmic soil:water partition coefficient
LOQ
Limit of quantification
LRTP
Long-range transport potential
MDL
Method detection limit
NaOAc
Sodium acetate
NaOH
Sodium hydroxide
ND
Non-detect/not detected
NITE
National Institute of Technology and Evaluation
OC
Organic carbon
OCSPP
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPPT
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
OH
Hydroxyl radical
PAE
Phthalate acid ester
POTW
Publicly owned treatment works
PVB
Polyvinyl butyral
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
QSPR
Quantitative structure-property relationship
SCAS
semi-continuous activated sludge system
SPM
Suspended particulate matter
SRC
Syracuse Research Corporation
Page 4 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
163
tl/2
Half-life
164
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
165
TMF
Trophic magnification factor
166
TOC
Total organic carbon
167
TRI
Toxics Release Inventory
168
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
169
UV
Ultraviolet
170
WW
Wet weight
171
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant
172
Page 5 of 55
-------
173
174
175
176
111
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or the
Agency), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT).
Acknowledgements
The Assessment Team gratefully acknowledges the participation, review, and input from EPA OPPT
and OSCPP senior managers and science advisors. The Agency is also grateful for assistance from the
following EPA contractors for the preparation of this draft technical support document: ICF (Contract
Nos. 68HERC19D000, 68HERD22A0001, and 68HERC23D0007), and SRC, Inc. (Contract No.
68HERH19D0022).
As part of an intra-agency review, this technical support document was provided to multiple EPA
Program Offices for review. Comments were submitted by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD).
Docket
Supporting information can be found in the public docket, Docket ID EPA-HQ-QPPT-2018-0433.
Disclaimer
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
by the United States Government.
Authors: Collin Beachum (Management Lead), Mark Myer (Assessment Lead), Jennifer Brennan
(Assessment Lead), Ryan Sullivan (Physical Chemistry and Fate Assessment Discipline Lead),
Aderonke Adebule, Andrew Middleton, Juan Bezares-Cruz (Physical Chemistry and Fate Assessors)
Contributors: Marcella Card, Maggie Clark, Daniel DePasquale, Patricia Fontenot, Lauren Gates,
Grant Goedjen, Roger Kim, Jason Wight
Technical Support: Hillary Hollinger, S. Xiah Kragie
This draft technical support document was reviewed and cleared for release by OPPT and OCSPP
leadership.
Page 6 of 55
-------
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) gathered and evaluated physical and
chemical property data and information according to the process described in the Draft Protocol for
Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations (U.S. EPA. 2021a). During the evaluation of di(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), EPA considered both measured and estimated physical and chemical
property data/information summarized in Table 2-1, as applicable. Draft Risk Evaluation for Di(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) - Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation and
Data Extraction Information for Physical and Chemical Properties (U.S. EPA. 2024a).
DEHP is liquid with a mild aromatic odor used as a plasticizer in the production of plastics, adhesives,
rubber, and resins (NLM. 2015a). DEHP is a medium-chained branched phthalate ester with the
chemical equation C24H38O4 and a molar mass of 390.56 g/mol (NLM. 2015a). It is liquid at standard
environmental temperatures and conditions and is insoluble in water with a water solubility of 0.003
mg/L in water (Elsevier. 2021). DEHP has a melting point of-55 °C, boiling point of 384 °C, and
Henry's Law constant of 9,87/10 6 atnrmVmol at 25 °C (Cousins and Mackav. 2000).
Page 7 of 55
-------
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
1 INTRODUCTION
DEHP is a member of the phthalate class of chemicals and is mainly used as a plasticizer of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) and other polymers. DEHP is typically formed via the esterification of phthalic
anhydride and 2-ethylhexanol. To be able to understand and predict the behaviors and effects of DEHP
in the environment, its physical and chemical properties, and environmental fate and transport
parameters are examined in the remainder of the technical support document.
DEHP is produced by the esterification of phthalic anhydride with 2-ethylhexanol. Typical technical
grade DEHP is at least 99.0 to 99.6 percent pure (by ester content), with 0.1 percent maximum moisture
content and 0.007 to 0.01 percent acidity (as acetic acid or phthalic acid) (NTP. 2021). Purity of DEHP
from commercial manufacture is greater than 99 percent, with the remaining fraction comprised of
isophthalic acid, terephthalic acid, and maleic acid as impurities (CPSC. 2010). The following sections
discuss the selection of the physical and chemical properties of DEHP.
Page 8 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
242 2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT OF
243 DEHP
244 2.1 Evidence Integration for Physical and Chemical Properties
245 Due to the relative availability of data, only studies with an overall data quality ranking of high were
246 selected for use in determining the representative physical and chemical properties of DEHP for the
247 purposes of the risk evaluation. Compared to other phthalate esters undergoing risk evaluations under
248 TSCA, DEHP is a relatively data rich chemical, and studies with an overall data quality ranking of high
249 were chosen to represent the best available data.
250 2.2 Final Selected Physical and Chemical Property Values for DEHP
251
Table 2-1. Final Seleci
ted Physical and Chemical Property Values for DEHP
Property
Selected Value
Reference
Overall Quality
Determination
Molecular formula
C24 Hs O4
Molecular weight
390.56 g/mol
Physical form
Liquid
Rumble (2018b)
High
Melting point
-55 °C
Rumble (2018b)
High
Boiling point
384 °C
Rumble (2018b)
High
Density
0.981 g/cm3
Rumble (2018b)
High
Vapor pressure
1.42E-07 mmHg
NLM (2015a)
High
Water solubility
0.003 mg/L
EC/HC (2017)
NTP (2000b)
Elsevier (2021)
High
Octanol: water partition
coefficient (log Kow)
7.60
NLM (2015a)
High
Octanol:air partition
coefficient (log Koa)
10.76 (EPI Suite™)
U.S. EPA (2017)
High
Henry's Law constant
9.87E-06 atm m3/mol at
25 °C
Cousins and Mackav (2000)
High
Flash point
206 °C
O'Neil (2013a)
High
Autoflammability
390 °C
NIOSH (1988)
High
Viscosity
57.94 cP
Mvlona et al. (2013)
High
253 2.3 Endpoint Assessments
254 2.3.1 Autoflammability
255 The EPA extracted and evaluated four sources containing DEHP flammability information. The selected
256 source was determined to be of high quality with a reported DEHP flammability of 390 °C (NIOSH
257 1988). Due to the limited number of high-quality data available, the EPA selected an autoflammability
258 value of 390 °C as the representative value for the available flammability information (NIOSH. 1988).
259 An autoflammability value was not selected in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S.
Page 9 of 55
-------
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
EPA. 2021b).
2.3.2 Melting Point
The EPA extracted and evaluated 24 sources containing DEHP melting point information. Fifteen of the
sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall high-quality
sources reported DEHP melting points ranging from -58 to -46 °C (NIOSH. 2019; U.S. EPA. 2019;
DOE. 2016; NLM. 2015a; ECHA. 2012; OEHHA. 2011; NIOSH. 2007; Mitsunobu and Takahashi.
2006; EFSA. 2005; Park and Sheehan. 2000; NTP. 1992). U.S. EPA selected a melting point value of-
55 °C (Rumble. 2018b) as a representative value of the available information obtained from the overall
high-quality data sources. In addition, the selected value is consistent with the value selected in the Final
Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
2.3.3 Boiling Point
The EPA extracted and evaluated 29 data sources containing DEHP boiling point information. Fifteen of
the sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall high-quality
sources reported DEHP boiling points ranging from 230 to 384 °C (NIOSH. 2019; U.S. EPA. 2019;
Rumble. 2018a; DOE. 2016; NLM. 2015a; ECHA. 2012; OEHHA. 2011; Rossol et al.. 2009; NIOSH
2007; EFSA. 2005; Park and Sheehan. 2000; NTP. 1992). EPA selected a boiling point value of 384 °C
(Rumble. 2018b) as a representative value under normal environmental conditions within the available
information obtained from the overall high-quality data sources, as these studies were conducted in a
manner which would accurately measure boiling point under normal environmental temperatures and
pressures. In addition, the selected value is consistent with the value selected in the Final Scope for the
Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
2.3.4 Density
The EPA extracted and evaluated 21 data sources containing DEHP density information. Ten of the
sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall high-quality
sources reported DEHP density values ranging from 0.97 to 0.986 g/cm3 (NCBI. 2020b; ECHA. 2016;
NLM. 2015b; O'Neil. 2013b; NTP. 2003; ExxonMobil. 2001; DeLorenzi et al.. 1998). EPA selected a
density of 0.981 g/cm3 (Rumble. 2018b) for the density of DEHP within the available information
obtained from the overall high-quality data sources. In addition, the selected value is consistent with the
value selected in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
2.3.5 Vapor Pressure
The EPA extracted and evaluated 28 data sources containing DEHP vapor pressure information.
Eighteen of the sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall
high-quality sources reported DEHP vapor density values ranging from 1.42x10 7 to less than 0.01
mmHg (Elsevier. 2021; NIOSH 2019; U.S. EPA. 2019; Rumble. 2018a; DOE. 2016; NLM. 2015a;
O'Neil. 2013a; ECHA. 2012; OEHHA. 2011; Lu. 2009; NIOSH 2007; Mitsunobu and Takahashi. 2006;
Price. 2001; NTP. 2000a; NIOSH. 1988; Howard et al.. 1985). EPA selected a vapor pressure value of
1,42/ 10 7 mmHg (NLM. 2015a) as a representative value of the available information obtained from the
overall high-quality data sources under normal environmental conditions. In addition, the selected value
is consistent with the value selected in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA.
2021b).
2.3.6 Vapor Density
The EPA extracted and evaluated two data sources containing DEHP vapor pressure information. Two
of the sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall high-
Page 10 of 55
-------
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
quality sources reported DEHP vapor density value of 16 in two high-quality studies (NLM. 2015a;
NIOSH. 1988). U.S. EPA selected a vapor density value of 16 (NLM. 2015a) as a representative value
of the available information obtained from the overall high-quality data sources. In addition, the selected
value is consistent with the value selected in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S.
EPA. 2021b).
2.3.7 Water Solubility
The EPA extracted and evaluated 44 data sources containing DEHP water solubility information.
Twenty-one of the sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The
overall high-quality data sources identified water solubility values for DEHP ranging from 0.00006
mg/L at 12 °C to 0.4 mg/L at 25 °C (Mitsunobu and Takahashi. 2006; Boese. 1984). The large range of
values available in the literature is likely due to the tendency of phthalate esters to form colloidal
suspensions in water, leading to erroneously high measurements of DEHPs aqueous solubility via
methods such as slow-stir, or shake flask water solubility tests. The EPA selected a representative non-
colloidal water solubility of 0.003 mg/L for DEHP (Elsevier. 2021) for use in the risk assessment. This
value was chosen to represent the range of non-colloidal water solubilities extracted from numerous data
sources and is also the most commonly cited representative value for the non-colloidal water solubility
of DEHP in all of the extracted primary and secondary data sources. This water solubility was chosen to
better represent the distribution of DEHP in the environment and aqueous media.
2.3.8 Log Octanol/Water Partitioning Coefficient
The EPA extracted and evaluated 13 data sources containing DEHP octanol-water partitioning
coefficient information from 30 studies. Eight of the sources were identified and evaluated as overall
high-quality data sources. The overall high-quality sources reported DEHP log Kow ranging from 6.69
to 8.66 (Elsevier. 2021; U.S. EPA. 2019; EC/HC.2017; NLM. 2015a; ECHA. 2012; NTP. 2000b;
Verbruggen et al.. 1999; Mueller and Klein. 1992). EPA selected a measured log Kow value of 7.60
(NLM. 2015a) for use in the risk evaluation, as it was the only measured value cited in the above
studies. The selected value is consistent with the value selected in the Final Scope for the Risk
Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
2.3.9 Log Octanol/Air Partitioning Coefficient
No data are available in the current literature pertaining to the octanol-air partitioning coefficient of
DEHP. With no available data, EPA estimated a representative octanol/air partitioning coefficient of
10.76 via EPI Suite™ for use as the representative log Koa value for DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2017).
2.3.10 Henry's Law Constant
The Henry's Law constant (HLC) selected in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S.
EPA. 2021b) was a value calculated in EPI Suite™ from the vapor pressure and water solubility of
DEHP and was 2.08x 10~5 atmm3/mole at 25 °C (U.S. EPA. 2012a). One overall high-quality data
source was identified during the systematic review process. This measured value was chosen to best
represent the HLC over the modeled values presented in the scoping document. The EPA selected a
HLC value of 9.87x 10~6 atmm3/mol at 25 °C (Cousins and Mackav. 2000) for this risk evaluation.
DEHP is considered a semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC).
2.3.11 Flashpoint
The EPA extracted and evaluated five data sources containing DEHP flashpoint information. Three of
the sources were identified and evaluated as overall high-quality data sources. The overall high-quality
sources reported DEHP flash points ranging from 206 to 218 °C (Elsevier. 2021; O'Neil. 2013a; NIOSH.
2007; Bonnevie and Wenning. 1995; NIOSH. 1988). EPA selected a flashpoint value of 206 °C (O'Neil.
Page 11 of 55
-------
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
2013a) as a representative value of the available information obtained from the overall high-quality data
sources under normal environmental conditions. The selected value is consistent with the value selected
in the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation of DEHP (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
2.3.12 Viscosity
The EPA extracted and evaluated two data sources containing DEHP viscosity information. The sources
identified and evaluated received an overall high-quality data ranking. The selected value for the
viscosity of DEHP is 57.94 cP at 25 °C (U.S. EPA. 2021b: Mvlona et al.. 2013).
2.4 Strengths, Limitations, Assumptions, and Key Sources of Uncertainty
for the Physical and Chemical Property Assessment
Due to the water solubility of DEHP and its tendency to form colloidal suspensions in water, certain
physical and chemical properties may be difficult to measure experimentally (water solubility,
octanol/water partitioning coefficient, organic carbon partitioning coefficients) with traditional guideline
tests. The representative physical and chemical values were selected based on professional judgement
and the overall data quality ranking of the associated references. In some instances where no data were
available, or there was a wide range of data that generally, but did not consistently agree with one
another, models such as EPI Suite™ were used to estimate the value for the endpoint (octanol-water
partitioning coefficient and organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient) and cross checked with
reported data from systematic review.
Page 12 of 55
-------
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOR FATE AND
TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
DEHP - Environmental Fate and Transport:
Key Points
EPA evaluated the reasonably available information to characterize the environmental fate and
transport of DEHP, the key points are summarized below.
Given the consistent results from numerous high-quality studies, there is robust evidence that DEHP:
• is expected to have environmental biodegradation half-life in aquatic aerobic environments
on the order of days to weeks (Section 0);
• is not expected to appreciably hydrolyze under environmental conditions (Section 4.2);
• is expected to degrade rapidly via direct and indirect photolysis (Section 4.3);
• is not expected to be subject to long range transport;
• is expected to show strong affinity and sorption potential for organic carbon in sediment and
soil (Sections 6.2.2 and 6.3.1);
• will be removed at rates greater than 85 percent in conventional wastewater treatment
systems (Section 7.2);
• will show strong affinity for adsorption to particulate matter and will not likely exist in
gaseous phase when released to air (Sections 5.1 and 6.1); and
• is likely to be found, and accumulate, in indoor dust (Section 6.1.1).
As a result of limited studies identified, there is moderate confidence that DEHP:
• is expected to be removed in conventional drinking water treatment systems both in the
treatment process, and via reduction by chlorination and chlorination byproducts in post
treatment storage and drinking water conveyance (Section 7.3); and
• is not expected to be bioaccumulative in fish in the water column or benthic organisms
exposed to sediment with elevated concentrations of DEHP (Section 8).
Reasonably available environmental fate and transport data—including biotic and abiotic biodegradation
rates, removal during wastewater treatment, volatilization from lakes and rivers, and organic carbon-
water partition coefficient (log Koc)—are the parameters used for the fate and transport assessment of
the current draft risk evaluation. Information on the full extracted data set is available in the
supplemental file Draft Risk Evaluation for Di-ethylhexyl Phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-
bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester) (DEHP) - Systematic Review of Data Quality Evaluation and Data Extraction
Information for Environmental Fate and Transport (U.S. EPA. 2024b). Supportive fate estimates were
based on modeling results from EPI Suite™ (U.S. EPA. 2012a). a predictive tool for physical and
chemical properties and environmental fate estimation. Information regarding the model inputs is
available in Section 3.1.
Page 13 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
382 These were updated with additional information identified through the systematic review process after
383 publication of the Final Scope for the Risk Evaluation for Di-ethylhexyl Phthalate (1,2-
384 Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester) (DEHP) CASRN: 117-81-7 (U.S. EPA. 2021b).
385 3.1 EPI Suite™ Model Inputs and Settings
386 The approach described by Mackay (1996) using the Level III Fugacity model in EPI Suite™
387 (LEV3EPI™) was used for this Tier II analysis. LEV3EPI™ is described as a steady-state, non-
388 equilibrium model that uses a chemical's physical and chemical properties and degradation rates to
389 predict partitioning of the chemical between environmental compartments and its persistence in a model
390 environment (U.S. EPA. 2012a). Environmental release information is useful for fugacity modeling
391 because the emission rates will refine the fugacity model to more accurately predict a real-time percent
392 mass distribution for each environmental medium. Environmental degradation half-lives were taken
393 from high- and medium-quality studies that were identified through systematic review to reduce levels
394 of uncertainties. The results of the Level III Fugacity modeling are presented and discussed in Section
395 5.2.
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
The following inputs parameters were used for the Level III Fugacity model in EPI Suite™:
• Melting point = -55 °C
• Vapor pressure = 1. ¦42 x 1Qr1 mmHg
• Water solubility = 0.003 mg/L
• Log Kow = 7.60
• SMILES: 0=C(OCC(CCCC)CC)c(c(cccl)C(=0)OCC(CCCC)CC)cl
Page 14 of 55
-------
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
4 TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES
Biodegradation pathways for the phthalates consist of primary biodegradation from phthalate diesters to
phthalate monoesters, then to phthalic acid, and ultimately biodegradation of phthalic acid to form
carbon dioxide (CO2) and/or methane (CH4) {Huang, 2012, 1597688}. The monoester phthalates are
also expected to undergo biodegradation more rapidly than the diester form. The transformation
products and degradants will not be considered in this fate and transport assessment as they are not
expected to be as persistent as DEHP in environmental media. Both biotic and abiotic routes of
degradation for DEHP are described in the following sections below.
4.1 Biodegradation
DEHP can be considered readily biodegradable under most aquatic and terrestrial environmental
conditions. To determine the biodegradation potential of DEHP, EPA evaluated 38 data sources with
overall quality determinations of high or medium containing biodegradation information in water, soil,
and sediments under aerobic and anaerobic conditions (Table 4-1).
4.1.1 Biodegradation in Water
The aerobic primary biodegradation of DEHP in water has reported to be greater than 90 percent over 2
to 5 days in activated sludge (EC/HC. 2015a). 68.1 to 73.5 percent over 7 days in river water
(Hashizume et al.. 2002). 70 to 78 percent over 28 days in activated sludge (Monsanto. 1976). and
greater than 99 percent over 28 days in acclimated activated sludge (SRC. 1983). Reported half4ives
range from less than 5 days in activated sludge to less than 7 days in river water (Fuiita et al.. 2005). An
additional study found no biodegredation over 20 days when using a microbial inoculum from a
petrochemical waste treatment plant (Union Carbide. 1974). It was also found that biodegradation of
DEHP in water using an activated sludge inoculum required gradual acclimation, with the unacclimated
inoculum degrading 0 percent and the fully acclimated inoculum degrading 93 to 95 percent over 28
days (Tabak et al.. 1981).
EPA identified seven studies that evaluated the ready biodegradability of DEHP in water using OECD
guideline methods. Five of those studies reported that it passed the 10-day ready biodegradability test
with losses of 55 to 86.16 percent over 28 to 29 days (NCBI. 2020a; EC/HC. 2015a; Scholz et al.. 1997).
Two studies using OECD guideline methods found that it did not pass the 10-day ready biodegradability
test, reporting loses of 4 to 5 percent (EC/HC. 2015a) and 58.7 percent (Stasinakis et al.. 2008) over 28
days. Additional non-OECD guideline die-away tests found that approximately 62 percent of DEHP was
biodegraded over 5 weeks using river water (Saeger and Tucker. 1976) and calculated a half-life of 0.46
days using an acclimated activated sludge inoculum (SRC. 1984). A non-OECD guideline study also
found that filtration of river water prior to a die-away test decreased biodegredation from 11 to 78
percent to 4 to 28 percent over 32 to 34 days (Wvlie et al.. 1982). The authors hypothesized that the
presence of suspended solids in the unfiltered samples helped to facilitate biodegradation.
The ultimate biodegradation rate of DEHP in aerobic water has been reported to be 85.5 percent over 28
days using an inoculum of soil, activated sludge, and raw wastewater (SRC. 1983); 34.9 to 71.2 percent
over 40 days using an inoculum of activated sludge (Subba-Rao et al.. 1982); 66 percent over 96 hours
using an activated sludge inoculum (Thomas et al.. 1986); 54 percent over 33 days using an unreported
inoculum (Union Carbide. 1974); and 73.81 to 86.16 percent over 27 days using an activated sludge
inoculum (Saeger and Tucker. 1976). The ultimate biodegradation half-life of DEHP has been reported
Page 15 of 55
-------
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
to be greater than 14 days with loses of 30 to 70 percent over 14 days when using an activated sludge
inoculum at a mixed liquor suspended solids concentration of approximately 100 mg/L and 15 to 35
percent over 14 days when using a river water inoculum with a suspended solids concentration of
approximately 25 mg/L (Fuiita et al.. 2005).
While biodegradation rates will depend on environmental conditions, such pre-conditioning of
microorganisms to the presence of DEHP (Tabak et al.. 1981; Price et al.. 1974; Union Carbide. 1974).
the data suggest that the half4ife of DEHP in aerobic waters will be on the order of days to weeks.
4.1.2 Biodegradation in Sediments
In aerobic sediments, rates of biodegradation of DEHP have been reported to be 5.9 to 19.79 percent
over 28 days in a microcosm study using sediment from a lake in Missouri (Johnson et al.. 1984). Half-
lives in aerobic sediments have been reported to be 347 days in a microcosm study using sediment from
a marine environment in Canada (Kickham et al.. 2012). 7.3 to 27.5 days in a microcosm study using
sediment from a river in Taiwan (Yuan et al.. 2002). and approximately 14 days in a microcosm study
using sediment from a river in Japan (Yuwatini et al.. 2006). Reported biodegradation rates of DEHP in
anaerobic sediments showed a high amount of variability, with rates of 0 percent over 365 days (Painter
and Jones. 1990). 13 percent over 30 days (Kao et al.. 2005). and up to 9.86 percent in 28 days (Johnson
et al.. 1984). Reported half4ives in anaerobic sediments show a similar level or variability with values
ranging from 22.8 days (Yuan et al.. 2002) to 279.5 days (Lertsirisopon et al.. 2006). Overall, the data
suggest that the half-life of DEHP in both aerobic and anaerobic sediments will be on the order of
months to years.
4.1.3 Biodegradation in Soils
In aerobic soils, the half-life of DEHP has been reported to be 8.7 days in soil from an agricultural field
(Yuan et al.. 2011). 54 to 170 days in a silty sand soil (Rtidel et al.. 1993). 20 to 31 days in silty loam
soil (Rtidel et al.. 1993). and 73 days in soil from an agricultural field (Lindequist Madsen et al.. 1999).
Additionally, there have been reported degradation rates of 98.9 percent over 49 days (Carrara et al..
2011). 10 percent over 10 days (Cartwright et al.. 2000). 8.5 to 21.8 percent over 60 days (Geilsbierg et
al.. 2001). 55.5 to 90.47 percent over 112 days (He et al.. 2018). 8.2 percent in 7 days (Schmitzer et al..
1988). 7 to 43 percent over 35 days (Zhu et al.. 2018). and 31 to 38 percent over 42 days (Zhu et al..
2019). Temperature was shown to be an important factor, with reported half-lives of 223, 187, and 73
days in experiments conducted at 5, 10, and 20 °C, respectively (Lindequist Madsen et al.. 1999).
Biodegredation rates in soils amended with biosolids were similar to those reported for unamended soils,
with reported rates of 84.1 percent in a freshly amended soil over 146 days (Fairbanks. 1984). 89 percent
in a preconditioned soil over 146 days (Fairbanks. 1984). 5.8 to 18.0 percent over 60 days in an
amended soil (Geilsbierg et al.. 2001). 95 to 96 percent in an amended soil in a 1-year field study
(Petersen et al.. 2003). approximately 40 percent over 84 days in an amended soil (Roslev et al.. 1998).
One study reported half-lives ranging from 5.8 to 9.9 days for a soil amended with biosolids at
soikbiosolids ratios ranging from 0:1 to 1:1 (Yuan et al.. 2011). The half-life for the unamended soil was
8.7 days and the shortest half-life was 5.8 days at a soild:biosolids ratio of 1:0.2. An additional study
reported a half-life of 64 days when sampling from the top 20 cm of an amended agricultural soil (Tran
et al.. 2015).
Page 16 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
497 Under anaerobic conditions, biodegredation rates in soils have been reported to be 34 percent over 30
498 days (Shanker et al.. 1985) and 35 to 38 percent over 42 days (Zhu et al.. 2019). Temperature was again
499 shown to be an important factor impacting biodegradation, with rates of 25, 30, and 50 percent at 5, 10,
500 and 20 °C, respectively, over 125 days in anaerobic soils amended with biosolids (Vavilin. 2007).
501
502 Overall, the data suggest that the half-life of DEHP in both aerobic and anerobic soils will be on the
503 order of weeks to months.
504
505 Table 4-1. Summary of DEHP's Biodegradation Data
Environmental
Conditions
Degradation
Value
Half-life (days)
Reference
Overall Quality
Determination
81.5%/24 hours,
91 %/4 8 hours,
>91 %/2—5 days
N.D.
EC/HC (2015a)
Medium
N.D.
<5 days with
activated sludge
inoculum, <7
days in river
water with no
inoculum
Fuiita et al. (2005)
High
68.1—73.5%/7 days
N.D.
Hashizume et al. (2002)
Medium
Aerobic primary
biodegradation in
water
50%/24 hours
(river die away
method), 70-
78%/28 days
(semi-continuous
activate sludge
method)
N.D.
Monsanto (1976)
Medium
N.D.
60-70 hours in
groundwater
impacted by
DEHP; no "
biodegredation
in waters not
impacted by
DEHP
NCBI (2020a)
Medium
>99%/28 days
N.D.
SRC (1983)
High
70-78%/24 hours
(semi-continuous
activated sludge
method)
N.D.
Saeeer and Tucker (1976)
High
Aerobic ready
biodegradation in
water
82%/29 days
N.D.
EC/HC (2015b)
Medium
63%/28 days
N.D.
Page 17 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Environmental
Conditions
Degradation
Value
Half-life (days)
Reference
Overall Quality
Determination
60-70%/28 days
N.D.
4-5%/28 days
N.D.
69%/28 days
N.D.
NCBI (2020a)
High
58.7%/28 days
6.9 days
Stasinakis et al. (2008)
High
81 -84%/29 days
N.D.
Scholz et al. (1997)
High
Aerobic ultimate
biodegradation in
water
85,5%/28 days
N.D.
SRC (1983)
High
3 0-70%/14 days
with activated
sludge inoculum,
14-35%/days in
river and pond
water
N.D.
Fuiita et al. (2005)
High
73.81-86.16%/27
days based on CO2
evolution
N.D.
Saeeer and Tucker (1976)
High
Aerobic
biodegradation in
sediment
5.9%/28 days,
9.98-19.79%/28
days (primary
degradation)
N.D.
Johnson et al. (1984)
High
13.79%/28 days
(ultimate)
N.D.
Johnson et al. (1984)
High
N.D.
347 days (ready)
Kickham et al. (2012)
High
N.D.
7.3-27.5 days
Yuan et al. (2002)
High
N.D.
Approximately
14 days
Yuwatini et al. (2006)
Medium
Anaerobic
biodegradation in
sediment
N.D.
27.5 days
Chans et al. (2005a)
High
9.86%/28 days
(ultimate)
N.D.
Johnson et al. (1984)
High
13%/30 days
N.D.
Kao et al. (2005)
High
N.D.
207.5-279.5
days
Lertsirisopon et al. (2006)
High
0%/365 days in
N.D.
Painter and Jones (1990)
Medium
Page 18 of 55
-------
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Environmental
Conditions
Degradation
Value
Half-life (days)
Reference
Overall Quality
Determination
freshwater
sediment, 18%/365
days in salt marsh
sediment
N.D.
22.8-39.1 days
Yuan et al. (2002)
High
98.8%/49 days
N.D.
Carrara etal. (2011)
High
10%/10 days
N.D.
Cartwrisht et al. (2000)
High
Aerobic
biodegradation in
soil
8.5—21,8%/60 days
N.D.
Geilsbiere et al. (2001)
High
55.5—90.47%/! 12
days
N.D.
He etal. (2018)
High
8.2%/7 days
N.D.
Schmitzer et al. (1988)
Medium
7-43 %/3 5 days
N.D.
Zhuetal. (2018)
High
31—3 8%/42 days
N.D.
Zhuetal. (2019)
High
N.D.
8.7 days
Yuan et al. (2011)
High
Anaerobic
biodegradation in
soil
N.D.
54-170 days in a
silty sand, 20-31
days in a silty
loam
Riidel et al. (1993)
High
N.D.
73 days
Lindeauist Madsen et al.
(1999)
High
4.2 Hydrolysis
The HYDRO WIN™ module in EPI Suite™ was used to estimate the hydrolysis half4ives of DEHP.
The estimated half-lives of DEHP were 195 days at pH 8 and 25 °C, and 5.36 years at pH 7 and 25 °C
(U.S. EPA. 20171 indicating that hydrolysis is a possible degradation pathway of DEHP under more
caustic conditions.
When compared to other degradation pathways, hydrolysis is not expected to be a significant
degradation pathway under standard environmental conditions. However, higher temperatures,
variations from standard environmental pH, and chemical catalysts present in the deeper anoxic zones of
landfills may favor the degradation of DEHP via hydrolysis (Huang et al.. 2013). This is discussed
further in Section 6.3.3.
4.3 Photolysis
DEHP contains chromophores that absorb light at greater than 290 nm wavelength (NCBI 2020bI and
will undergo direct photodegradation in air. Gaseous CO2 is the main product and 2-ethyl-l-hexene, 2-
ethylhexanol, and phthalic acid are the major byproducts. Modeled indirect photodegradation half4ives
indicated a slightly more rapid degradation rate, calculating a half4ife of 5.58 hours using an estimated
Page 19 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
522 rate constant of 2.39X1CT11 cm3/molecule-second at 25 °C, assuming a 12-hour day with 21.96xlCT12
523 OH/cm3 (U.S. EPA. 2017). Both of these rates indicate that DEHP degrades rapidly when released to
524 the atmosphere and is likely not subject to long range transport in the atmosphere. In addition, Yu
525 (2019) concluded that DEHP was readily photodegraded via direct exposure to direct sunlight in a
526 simulated natural water and had a median half-life of approximately 4 hours when starting with an
527 aqueous concentration of 50 |ag/m L DEHP. This study also concluded that the presence of other
528 natural reactive species (Fe3+, NO3", CI") increased the indirect photodegradation rates of DEHP under
529 simulated sunlight (Yu et al.. 2019).
530
Page 20 of 55
-------
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
5 PARTITIONING
DEHP - Partitioning Analysis:
Key Points
EPA considered all reasonably available information identified by the systematic review process
under TSCA to characterize the chemistry and fate and transport of DEHP. The following bullets
summarize the key points of this partitioning analysis:
• When primarily released to water, approximately 46 to 62 percent of DEHP will partition to
sediment, with the remaining fraction remaining in the water compartment.
• When released to air, approximately 85 percent of DEHP will partition to soil, with the
remaining 15 percent distributed to the air, water, and sediment compartments.
• When primarily released to soil, DEHP will remain in soil completely.
• When released equally to air, water, and soil, DEHP will predominantly partition to the soil
compartment (57-60%), with the remaining fractions partitioning to water (16-21%) or
sediment (18-26%).
5.1 Tier I Analysis
DEHP is a member of the phthalate class of chemicals and is mainly used as a plasticizer of PVC and
other polymers. To be able to understand and predict the behaviors and effects of DEHP in the
environment, a Tier I analysis will determine whether an environmental compartment (e.g., air, water,
etc.) will accumulate DEHP at concentrations that may lead to environmental exposure (i.e., major
compartment) or are unlikely to result in risk (i.e., minor compartment). The first step in identifying the
major and minor compartments for DEHP is to consider partitioning values (Table 5-1) which indicate
the potential for a substance to favor one compartment over another. DEHP does not naturally occur in
the environment; however, DEHP has been detected in water, soil, and sediment in environmental
monitoring studies indicating its ability to exist in those media (NLM. 2015a; ECJRC. 2008).
Table 5-1. Partitioning Values for DEHP
Parameter
Value(s)
Log Value(s)fl
Reference
Predominant
Phase
Octanol: water
(Kow)
3.98E07
7.60
(NLM. 2015a)
Organic Carbon
Organic
carbon: water
(Koc)
8.71E04-5.25E05
4.94-5.72
(NCBI. 2020a)
Organic Carbon
2.57E05, 3.02E05,
8.91E05
5.41, 5.48, 5.95
(Williams et al.. 1995)
5.62E03-1.91E04
3.75-4.28
(Heetal..2019)
Octanol: air
(Koa)
5.69E10
10.755 (estimated)6
KOAWIN™ (U.S. EPA.
2017). (user input)c
Organic Carbon
Air: water
(Kaw)
1.82E-03
-2.74 (estimated)
(Lu. 2009)
Water
Page 21 of 55
-------
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
1.58E-03
-2.80 (estimated)
(Cousins and Mackav.
2000)
11 Measured unless otherwise noted
h Information was estimated using EPI Suite™ (U.S. EPA. 2017)
c EPI Suite physical property inputs: MP = -55°C, BP = 384°C, VP = 1.42/ 10 7 mm Hg, WS
K0w= 7.60, HLC = 9.87E-06 atm m3/mole, SMILES:
0=C(OCC(CCCC)CC)c(c(cccl)C(=0)OCC(CCCC)CC)cl
= 0.003 mg/L, Log
5.1.1 Soil, Sediment, and Biosolids
Based on the partitioning values shown in Table 5-1, DEHP will favor organic carbon over water or air.
Because organic carbon is present in soil, biosolids, and sediment, they all are considered major
compartments for DEHP. This is consistent with monitoring data from the Mersey Estuary in the United
Kingdom, where high concentrations of DEHP were detected in sediment samples (1.220 |ig/g and
1.199 |ig/g at Speke and Runcorn, respectively) compared to water samples (0.125-0.693 ng/L and
279.78-637.96 ng/L in the dissolved and particulate phase, respectively) (Preston and Al-Omran. 1989).
5.1.2 Air
DEHP is a liquid at environmental temperatures with a melting point of-55 °C (NLM. 2015a) and a
vapor pressure of 1.42x10-7 mm Hg at 25 °C (NLM. 2015a). The octanol-air coefficient (Koa) indicates
that DEHP will favor the organic carbon present in airborne particles. Based on its physical and
chemical properties and short half-life in the atmosphere (ti/2 = 5.85 hours (U.S. EPA. 2017)). DEHP is
assumed not to be persistent in the air. The AEROWIN™ module in EPI Suite™ estimates that a large
fraction of DEHP may be sorbed to airborne particulates and these particulates may be resistant to
atmospheric oxidation. DEHP has been detected in both in ambient and indoor air as well as in settled
house dust (NLM. 2024; Kubwabo et al.. 2013; Wang et al.. 2013; ECJRC. 2008).
5.1.3 Water
The air-water partitioning coefficient (Kaw) indicates that DEHP will favor water over air. With a water
solubility of 0.001 to 0.003 mg/L at 25 °C, DEHP is considered to be insoluble in water (Elsevier.
2021). DEHP in water will partition to suspended organic material present in the water column based on
DEHP's low water solubility and partition coefficients indicating its strong preference for organic
matter. In addition, total seawater concentrations of DEHP measured in False Creek, British Columbia
ranged from 170 to 444 ng/L; the dissolved fraction concentrations ranged from 77 to 200 ng/L and the
suspended sediment fraction concentration ranged from 7,350 to 136,000 ng/g dry weight (dw)
(Mackintosh et al.. 2006). Although DEHP has low water solubility, surface water will be considered as
a major compartment for DEHP since DEHP was quantified in the ng/L range.
5.2 Tier II Analysis
A Tier II analysis involves reviewing environmental release information for DEHP to determine if a
specific media evaluation is needed. DEHP is used mainly as a plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
products (ECJRC. 2008). DEHP may be released to the environment during production, distribution,
processing in PVC and non-PVC polymers, use of products such as paints and sealants, disposal or
recycling, wastewater treatment, and disposal of solid and liquid waste. Environmental release data for
DEHP were not available from the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs); however, the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reported the total on-site releases for 2022 to be 7.2 thousand pounds with 6.9 thousand
Page 22 of 55
-------
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
pounds released to air, 24 pounds released to water, and 263 pounds released to land. According to
production data from the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 2020 reporting period, between 10,000,000
and 50,000,000 pounds of DEHP were produced annually from 2016 to 2019 for use in commercial
products, chemical substances or mixtures sold to consumers, or at industrial sites. Because DEHP is not
chemically bound to the polymer matrix, it can migrate from the surface of polymer products (EC/HC.
2015a; ECJRC. 2008). Therefore, DEHP can be released to the environment from polymer-based
products during their use and disposal. Additionally, DEHP may be released to the environment from
discharge of wastewater, and liquid and solid wastes. After undergoing wastewater treatment processes,
the discharge of wastewater or liquid wastes results in effluent discharge to water and land application of
biosolids.
Tier I analysis identified air as minor compartment where DEHP is not expected to result in
environmental exposure. The short lifetime of DEHP in the atmosphere reduces the potential for free
DEHP to undergo long range atmospheric transport. However, DEHP sorbed to particulates may be
resistant to atmospheric oxidation. In addition, DEHP bound to particulates in air and particle deposition
can be a significant pathway for DEHP to be transported to other environmental compartments. Particle-
bound DEHP is subject to wet and dry deposition and can subsequently enter soil and surface water
media.
The Level III Fugacity Model in EPI Suite™ (U.S. EPA. 2017) can be used to study and predict
DEHP's behavior in and between different environmental compartments. The LEV3EPI™ module uses
inputs on an organic chemical's physical and chemical characteristics and degradation rates to predict
partitioning and transport of chemicals between environmental compartments, as well as the persistence
of a chemical in a model environment (Figure 5-1). Four emission rates scenarios were used as inputs
into the Level III Fugacity Model: equal releases of DEHP to each compartment and 100 percent release
to each compartment, separately. Each iteration of the fugacity model was run assuming ready
biodegradability of DEHP. The fugacity results using half-lives consistent with ready biodegradability
(5, 10, and 45 days in water, soil, and sediment, respectively) are shown in Figure 5-1. A half-life in air
of 5.85 hours was used (U.S. EPA. 2017). as well as a user-entered Koc value of 262,000 (which
corresponds to a log Koc value of 5.418).
Page 23 of 55
-------
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
100
90
80
70
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
60
C
° 50
<
40
30
20
10
f
100% Soil Release
100% Air Release 100% Water Release
Air ¦ Water ¦Soil ¦Sediment
Equal release
Figure 5-1. EPI Suite™ Level III Fugacity Modeling Graphical Result for DEHP Assuming Ready
Biodegradability
The model predicts that DEHP will remain exclusively in soil when released primarily to soil. When
released primarily to air, the model predicted that approximately 85 percent of DEHP will partition to
soil, with the final 15 percent remaining in air or partitioning to the water and sediment compartments.
When primarily released to water, the model predicts that DEHP will remain in the water compartment
(54%) or partition into the sediment compartment. Under an equal release scenario, DEHP is expected to
predominantly partition into the soil compartment at approximately 57 to 60 percent, with the remaining
fractions partitioning to water (21%) or sediment (18%).
Page 24 of 55
-------
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
6 MEDIA ASSESSMENTS
DEHP has been reported to be present in the atmosphere, aquatic environments, and terrestrial
environments. Once in the air, DEHP will primarily partition to organic matter present in airborne
particles (see Section 6.1) and is expected to have a short half4ife in the atmosphere. Similarly, DEHP is
likely to partition to house dust and airborne particles in indoor air and is expected to have a longer half-
life as compared to ambient (outdoor) air. DEHP present in surface water is expected to partition readily
to aquatic sediments due its organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient, as measured in several EPA
standard sediment samples from large river basins in the central United States (Williams et al.. 1995).
DEHP is expected to have an aerobic biodegradation half-life between 14 and 28 days. In terrestrial
environments, DEHP may be present in soils and groundwater but is likely to be immobile in both media
types. In soils, DEHP is expected to be deposited via air deposition and land application of biosolids,
and is expected to have a half-life on the order of days to weeks. In addition, evidence suggests that
DEHP is not bioaccumulative and has a low biomagnification potential in terrestrial organisms. In
groundwater, DEHP is expected to be released via wastewater effluent and landfill leachates and to have
a half-life of 14 to 56 days; therefore, it not likely to be persistent in most groundwater/subsurface
environments.
6.1 Air and Atmosphere
DEHP is a liquid at environmental temperatures with a melting point of-55 °C (Rumble. 2018b) and a
vapor pressure of 1.42x10-7 mmHg at 25 °C (NLM. 2015a). Based on its physical and chemical
properties and short half-life in the atmosphere (ti/2 = 5.85 hours (U.S. EPA. 2017)). DEHP was
assumed to not be persistent in the air. The AEROWIN™ module in EPI Suite™ estimates that a large
fraction of DEHP will be sorbed to airborne particles and these particulates may be resistant to
atmospheric oxidation. Studies have detected DEHP in settled house dust, indoor air samples, and
indoor particulate phase air samples in Canada and the United States (Preece et al.. 2021; Kubwabo et
al.. 2013V
6.1.1 Indoor Air and Dust
In general, phthalate esters are ubiquitous in the atmosphere and indoor air. Their worldwide presence in
air has been documented in the gas phase, suspended particles, and dust (Net et al.. 2015). Most of the
studies reported DEHP to be the predominant phthalate ester in the environment. Limited studies have
reported the presence of particle-bound DEHP in indoor and outdoor settings (Gupta and Gadi. 2018;
Hasegawa. 2003; Helmig et al.. 1990). When indoors, DEHP is expected to partition to organic carbon
present on indoor airborne particles. DEHP is expected to be more persistent in indoor air than in
ambient (outdoor) air due to the lack of natural chemical removal processes, such as solar photochemical
degradation.
The available information suggests that the concentration of DEHP in indoor dust is greater than in
outdoor dust. The concentration on dust particles is also correlated to the presence of phthalate-
containing articles in the environment, and the proximity to facilities producing phthalates. Kubwabo
(2013) monitored the presence of 17 phthalate compounds in vacuum dust samples collected in 126
urban single-family homes in Canada. This study reported that DEHP was detected in all the collected
dust samples, accounting for 88 percent of the median total concentration of phthalates in dust
(Kubwabo et al.. 2013). Wang (2013) evaluated the presence of phthalates in dust samples collected
from indoor and outdoor settings in two major Chinese cities. This study reported the total phthalates
concentration of the collected indoor dust samples were 3.4 to 5.9 times higher than those collected
outdoors. The aggregate concentration of DEHP, DINP, and DIDP in indoor dust samples accounted for
91 to 94 percent of the total phthalate concentration. Additionally, Wang (2013) revealed that the
Page 25 of 55
-------
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
aggregate concentration of phthalates was higher in the commercial and industrial areas with heavy
production of textiles, costumes, and toys. Abb (2009) evaluated the presence of phthalates in indoor
dust samples collected from 30 households in Germany with a 100 percent detection frequency. Dust
samples containing a high percentage of plastic (>50%) contained greater aggregate concentrations of
phthalates. The aggregate concentration of DEHP, DIDP, and DINP accounted for 87 percent of the total
phthalate concentration in dust (Abb et al.. 2009).
Similarly, recent U.S. studies monitoring the presence of phthalates in dust from households have
revealed DEHP and DINP to be detected in 96 to 100 percent of the collected samples (Hammel et al..
2019; Dodson et al.. 2017). Hammel (2019) and Dodson (2017) reported the presence of phthalate esters
in indoor air and on dust samples collected in U.S. homes. Dodson (2017) evaluated the presence of
phthalate esters in air samples of U.S. homes before and after occupancy, reporting an increased
presence of DEHP after occupancy due to daily anthropogenic activities that might introduce phthalate-
containing products into indoor settings. Increasing trends could be expected for DEHP with its
increased uses in household construction materials or consumer products.
6.2 Aquatic Environments
6.2.1 Surface Water
DEHP is expected to enter surface waters via industrial and municipal wastewater treatment effluents,
surface water runoff, and, to a lesser degree, atmospheric deposition. A survey of phthalates conducted
in Washington in 2021 detected dissolved DEHP in lake and river surface waters in 10 out of 27
samples, with concentrations ranging from 0.558 to 3.38 |ig/L and a median concentration of 0.948 |ig/L
(WA DOE. 2022). Additionally, dissolved DEHP was detected in 2 out of 13 samples with detectable
concentrations ranging from 2.67 to 5.94 |ig/L in raw drinking water samples from California surface
waters (Loraine and Pettigrov. 2006). In U.S. marine waters, monitoring studies have detected dissolved
DEHP at concentrations up to approximately 1,000 ng/L in the Puget Sound (Keil et al.. 2011). 18,000
ng/L in Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana (Liu et al.. 2013). and 316 ng/L in the Mississippi River Delta
and Gulf of Mexico (Giam et al.. 1978).
The principal properties governing the fate and transport of DEHP in surface water are water solubility,
organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient, and volatility. Due to its Henry's Law constant (9,87/10 6
atmm3/mol at 25 °C), volatilization is not expected to be a significant source of loss of DEHP from
surface water. The Tier II partitioning analysis (see Section 5.2) estimates that 46 percent will partition
to suspended and benthic sediments when released to surface water bodies.
DEHP has a water solubility of 0.003 mg/L but is likely to form a colloidal suspension and may be
detected in surface water at higher concentrations (Elsevier. 2021). DEHP in water will partition to
suspended organic material present in the water column based on its water solubility and partitioning
coefficients to organic matter.
Biodegradation of DEHP in surface water is generally rapid and multiple studies have shown that it
passes a 10-day ready biodegradability test when using OECD guideline test methods (NCBI. 2020a;
EC/HC. 2015a; Scholz et al.. 1997). Based the results of multiple OECD guideline studies showing the
ready biodegradability of DEHP and the additional data discussed in Section 0, the biodegradation half-
life of DEHP in surface water is expected to be on the order of days to weeks.
6.2.2 Sediments
Based on its water solubility (0.003 mg/L) and tendency to sorb readily to organic matter (log Koc =
Page 26 of 55
-------
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
5.41-5.95), DEHP will partition to the organic matter present in sediment and suspended solids when
released into the aquatic environment. The Level III Fugacity Model in EPI Suite™ (U.S. EPA. 2017)
predicts that 46 percent of the DEHP present in water will partition to and remain in sediments when
assuming that DEHP is readily biodegradable (see Section 5.2). The available information suggests that
in sediments DEHP will have a half4ife on the order of months to years depending on the specific
environmental conditions (see Section 0).
Concentrations of DEHP in urban Californian tidal marsh sediments were reported to range from 235 to
32,000 ng/g. DEHP was also found in sediments from the San Francisco Estuary at concentrations
ranging from 124 to 332 mg/kg (I ARC, 2013). Concentrations of DEHP in sediments from the
Mississippi River Delta and Gulf of Mexico were reported as ranging from less than 0.1 to 248 ng/g,
with lower concentrations in the river delta (mean of 69 ng/g) than on the coast (mean of 6.6 ng/g) or in
the open gulf (mean of 2.0 ng/g) (Giam et al.. 1978).
6.3 Terrestrial Environments
6.3.1 Soil
DEHP is expected to be deposited to soil via two primary routes: (1) application of biosolids and sewage
sludge in agricultural applications or sludge drying applications; and (2) atmospheric deposition. No TRI
data have been reported showing the application of DEHP-containing biosolids or otherwise applied to
agricultural lands.
With a Henry's Law constant value of 9.87x 10~6 atmm3/mol at 25 °C, DEHP is not likely to volatilize
from soils. DEHP shows an affinity for sorption to soil and its organic constituents (log Kow = 7.60, log
Koc = 5.41-5.95). Given that these properties indicate the likelihood of strong sorption to organic
carbon present in soil, DEHP is expected to have low mobility in soil. For that reason, DEHP is unlikely
to leach from the uppermost layer of soil and reach groundwater due to its low water solubility (0.003
mg/L).
No studies reporting the concentration of DEHP in field surveys of agricultural land have been
identified. However, several experimental studies have demonstrated the ability of DEHP to degrade in
aerobic and anaerobic soils. DEHP does appear to have potential for biodegradation under aerobic
conditions, such that would exist in shallow soils. The half-life of DEHP in aerobic soils varies widely
depending on the soil characteristics and biological activity. Highly active, wet, aerated soils have
reported a half-life as short as 8 days, while dry, inactive, non-optimal soils have an environmental half-
life as long as 468 days, in-line with abiotic degradation pathways of DEHP (Zhu et al.. 2019; He et al..
2018; Zhu et al.. 2018; Carrara et al.. 2011; Geilsbierg et al.. 2001; Cartwright et al.. 2000; Schmitzer et
al.. 1988V
Anaerobic biodegradation of DEHP is also possible with half-lives ranging based on the soil
characteristics and biological activity. The half-life of DEHP in highly organic, moist anaerobic soils
have been reported as long as 9 days, while less optimal anaerobic soils extend to 170 days (Yuan et al..
2011; Lindequist Madsen et al.. 1999; Rtidel et al.. 1993). There is limited information available related
to the uptake and bioavailability of DEHP in land applied soils. DEHP's solubility and sorption
coefficients suggest that bioaccumulation and biomagnification will not be of significant concern for
exposed organisms. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification are discussed further in Section 8.
Hydrolysis is not expected to be a significant source of DEHP degradation in moist soils due to its long
half-life (see Section 4.2). Direct photolysis of DEHP may be a significant pathway for abiotic
Page 27 of 55
-------
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
degradation in the uppermost layer of soil which may be exposed to sunlight with a rapid half-life of less
than 6 hours (see Section 4.3). However, photolysis would not be a significant degradation pathway for
DEHP in deeper layers of soil extending beyond the penetrating power of the sunlight.
6.3.2 Biosolids
Sludge is defined as the solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated by wastewater treatment processes.
The term "biosolids" refers to treated sludge that meet the EPA pollutant and pathogen requirements for
land application and surface disposal and can be beneficially recycled (40 CFR part 503) (U.S. EPA.
1993). DEHP is expected to sorb largely to biosolids in wastewater treatment because of its high
potential for sorption to particulate and organic media (log Kow = 7.6, log Koc = 5.41-5.95) and limited
water solubility (0.003 mg/L). Like other phthalates, DEHP is expected to partition to biosolids during
wastewater treatment and subsequently removed by physical separation processes (e.g., sedimentation,
filtration, dewatering, sludge thickening). At least one study has reported significant partitioning to
sediment and particulate phases of sludge in wastewater treatment (Painter and Jones. 1990).
No wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) surveys monitoring DEHP in wastewater sludge or final
biosolids have been identified. Several laboratory studies have demonstrated the capacity of wastewater
treatment facilities to remove DEHP from sludge via aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation with half-
lives of approximately 5 to 6 days (aerobic) and 7 days (anaerobic) (Kotowska et al.. 2018; Chang et al..
2005b; Fuiita et al.. 2005). DEHP has been shown to be degraded to below the limits of detection in as
short as 10 days (Fuiita et al.. 2005). Aerobic degradation of DEHP in sludge may be hastened with the
use of select microbial strains with an aerobic half-life as short as 2 days in an inoculated sludge
(Kotowska et al.. 2018). However, there were mixed reports of DEHP removal during anaerobic
digestion has. A study showed no detectable anaerobic biodegradation of DEHP during solids treatment
but instead demonstrated significant removal via particulate sorption (Painter and Jones. 1990).
Aerobic biodegradation of DEHP in sludge is a two-step process. The first step consists of DEHP
conversion to 2-ethylhexanol and a monoester phthalate followed by an additional degradation of
monoester phthalate to phthalic acid and 2-ethylhexanol (Kotowska et al.. 2018). The degradation
products of aerobic and anaerobic degradation of DEHP were not further evaluated in this assessment.
No facilities reported off-site land application of land disposal of DEHP containing biosolids between
2017 to 2022. However, several facilities reported the disposal of DEHP-containing biosolids in
landfills, discussed further in Section 6.3.3.
When applied to land as biosolids, DEHP is expected to have low mobility due to its high affinity to
organic matter and particulates, and limited water solubility. Similarly, DEHP is not expected to be
readily bioavailable when present in biosolids or soils. Once incorporated, DEHP has the potential to
degrade under aerobic conditions, such that would exist in shallow soils. As discussed in Section 6.3.1,
the half-life of DEHP in aerobic soils varies widely depending on the soil characteristics and biological
activity. Highly active, wet, aerated soils have reported a half-life as short as 8 days while dry, inactive,
non-optimal soils have an environmental half-life as long as 468 days, in-line with abiotic degradation
pathways of DEHP (Zhu et al.. 2019; He et al.. 2018; Zhu et al.. 2018; Carrara et al.. 2011; Geilsbierg et
al.. 2001; Cartwright et al.. 2000; Schmitzer et al.. 1988).
Anaerobic biodegradation of DEHP is also possible with half-lives ranging based on the soil
characteristics and biological activity. The half-life of DEHP in highly organic, moist anaerobic soils
have been reported as rapid as 9 days while less optimal anaerobic soils extend to 170 days (Yuan et al..
2011; Lindequist Madsen et al.. 1999; Rtidel et al.. 1993).There is limited information available related
Page 28 of 55
-------
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
to the uptake and bioavailability of DEHP in land applied soils; DEHPs solubility and sorption
coefficients suggest that bioaccumulation and biomagnification will not be of significant concern for
exposed organisms. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification are discussed further in Section 8.
6.3.3 Landfills
For the purpose of this assessment, landfills will be considered to be divided into two zones: (1) an
"upper4andfill" zone, with normal environmental temperatures and pressures, where biotic processes
are the predominant route of degradation for DEHP; (2) and a "lower-landfill" zone where elevated
temperatures and pressures exist, and abiotic degradation is the predominant route of degradation are the
predominant route of degradation for DEHP. In the upper-landfill zone where oxygen may still be
present in the subsurface, conditions may still be favorable for aerobic biodegradation, however,
photolysis and hydrolysis are not considered to be significant sources of degradation in this zone. In the
lower-landfill zone, conditions are assumed to be anoxic, and temperatures present in this zone are likely
to inhibit anaerobic biodegradation of DEHP. Temperatures in lower landfills may be as high as 70 °C;
At temperatures at and above 60 °C, biotic processes are significantly inhibited, and are likely to be
completely irrelevant at 70 °C (Huang et al.. 2013).
DEHP is deposited into landfills from consumer products containing DEHP and as biosolids containing
DEHP from wastewater treatment. According to TRI data, ten WWTPs have reported the disposal of
DEHP containing sludge from 2017 to 2022 with a total of 160 kg of DEHP disposed of in landfills
(26.6 kg/year on average). Ten TRI facilities have reported disposal of DEHP-containing waste to
RCRA landfills at a rate of 6,705 kg from 2017 to 2022 (1,117 kg/year on average) and 403,776 pounds
of waste to other landfills over the same time frame (67,296 kg/year on average). No studies were
identified reporting the concentration or degradation of DEHP in landfills, landfill leachate, or in the
regions surrounding such landfills.
DEHP's water solubility (0.003 mg/L) and high tendency to sorb to particulate and organic media (log
Kow = 7.60, log Koc = 5.41-5.95) suggest that DEHP is unlikely to be present in landfill leachate. In the
event that DEHP does leach from the landfill, it is likely that DEHP will sorb strongly to the
surrounding soil and any clay liners, preventing percolation to deeper groundwater. Hydrolysis will
likely not be a major degradation pathway for degradation of DEHP in leachate with an estimated
hydrolysis half-life of 5.36 years at a pH of 7 and at 25 °C (U.S. EPA. 2017). Photolysis may be a
significant abiotic degradation for the portion of waste that is directly exposed to sunlight with a half-life
less than 6 hours. Photolysis would only be relevant in the shallow, uppermost layer of waste and would
not impact degradation beyond the penetrating power of the sunlight. Photolysis would also not occur
following the application of the daily cover, which, like deeper waste, would be shielded from sunlight.
DEHP may degrade biologically via aerobic degradation in the upper landfill where aerobic conditions
dominate. While literature is limited, some studies suggest DEHP is capable of being aerobically
degraded with an aerobic half-life ranging from 8 days in oxygenated, moist, active environments to as
long as 468 days in sub-optimal aerobic conditions (Zhu et al.. 2019; He et al.. 2018; Zhu et al.. 2018;
Carrara et al.. 2011; Geilsbierg et al.. 2001; Cartwright et al.. 2000; Schmitzer et al.. 1988). DEHP may
degrade at a similar rate in the anoxic lower landfill with a reported half-life of 9 days in warm, moist
environments but may be as long as 170 days in less optimal conditions (Yuan et al.. 2011; Lindequist
Madsen et al.. 1999; Rtidel et al.. 1993). However, as previously noted above, biological degradation
would be limited by high temperatures exceeding the habitable zone of bacteria (Huang et al.. 2013). In
the case of high-temperature biodegradation (<60 °C), DEHP would likely be persistent with very
limited abiotic degradation and no biological degradation.
Page 29 of 55
-------
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
6.3.4 Groundwater
There are several likely sources of DEHP in groundwater, including wastewater effluents and landfill
leachates, which are discussed in Sections 6.3.3 and 7.2. In environments where DEHP is found in
surface water, it may enter groundwater through surface water/groundwater interactions, especially in
aquifer-supplied bodies of water. Diffuse sources include stormwater runoff and runoff from biosolids
applied to agricultural land.
Given the strong affinity of DEHP to adsorb to organic matter present in soils and sediments (log Koc =
5.41) (Williams et al.. 19951 DEHP is expected to have low mobility in soil and groundwater
environments. Furthermore, due to the insoluble nature of DEHP (0.003 mg/L), high concentrations of
DEHP in groundwater are unlikely. In instances where DEHP could reasonably be expected to be
present in groundwater environments (e.g., proximal to landfills or agricultural land with a history of
land-applied biosolids), limited persistence is expected based on rates of biodegradation of DEHP in
aerobic environments; therefore, DEHP is not likely to be persistent in groundwater/subsurface
environments unless anoxic conditions exist.
Page 30 of 55
-------
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
7 PERSISTENCE POTENTIAL OF DEHP
DEHP is not expected to be persistent in the environment, as it is expected to degrade rapidly under
most environmental conditions, with delayed biodegradation in low-oxygen media. In the atmosphere,
DEHP is unlikely to remain for long periods of time as its expected to undergo photolytic degradation
through reaction with atmospheric hydroxyl radicals, with an estimated half-life of 5.5 hours. DEHP is
predicted to hydrolyze slowly at ambient temperatures, but it is not expected to persist in aquatic media
as it undergoes rapid aerobic biodegradation (see Section 6.2.1). DEHP has the potential to remain for
longer periods of time in soil and sediments, but due to the inherent hydrophobicity (log Kow = 7.60)
and sorption potential (log Koc = 5.51) DEHP is not expected to be bioavailable for uptake. Using the
Level III Fugacity model in EPI Suite™ (LEV3EPI™) (see Section 5), DEHP's overall environmental
half4ife was estimated to be on the order of days to weeks (U.S. EPA. 2017). Therefore, DEHP is not
expected to be persistent in the atmosphere, aquatic or terrestrial environments.
7.1 Destruction and Removal Efficiency
Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) is a percentage that represents the mass of a pollutant
removed or destroyed in a thermal incinerator relative to the mass that entered the system. EPA requires
that hazardous waste incineration systems destroy and remove at least 99.99 percent of each harmful
chemical in the waste, including treated hazardous waste (46 FR 7684) (Federal Register. 1981).
Currently there is limited available information on the DRE of DEHP. However, the DEHP annual
releases from a Danish waste incineration facility were estimated to be 9 percent to air and 91 percent to
a municipal landfill (ECJRC. 2008). These results suggest that DEHP present during incineration
processes will very likely be released to landfills and the remaining small fraction released to air.
Berardi (2019) reported greater than 99 percent removal of phthalate esters during incineration of solids
from the primary and secondary settling basins of a WWTP in Italy. Based on its inherent
hydrophobicity and high sorption potential, DEHP released to landfills is expected to partition to organic
matter present in the landfills. Similarly, DEHP released to air is expected to partition mostly to soil,
with the final fraction remaining in air or partitioning to the water and sediments as described in Section
5. In addition, DEHP in sediments and soils is expected to be rapidly sorbed to organic matter in these
compartments limiting DEHP uptake into biota (Kickham et al.. 2012). Lastly, DEHP released to air is
expected to react rapidly via indirect photochemical processes within hours (U.S. EPA. 2017).
7.2 Removal in Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment is performed to remove contaminants from wastewater using physical, biological,
and chemical processes. Municipal wastewater treatment facilities either treat the influent from
combined sewers (sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff) or separate sanitary sewers (sewage treatment
plant). Generally, municipal wastewater treatment facilities apply primary and secondary treatments.
During the primary treatment, screens, grit chambers, and settling tanks are used to remove solids from
wastewater. Secondary treatment processes can remove up to 90 percent of the organic matter in
wastewater using biological treatment processes such as trickling filters or activated sludge. Sometimes
an additional stage of treatment such as tertiary treatment is used to further clean water for additional
protection using advanced treatment techniques (e.g., ozonation, chlorination, disinfection).
Several high-quality studies were identified in the systematic review process related to the fate and
transport of DEHP in wastewater treatment systems. EPA selected 15 high-quality sources reporting the
removal of DEHP in wastewater treatment systems employing aerobic and anaerobic biological
treatment processes (Table 7-1). DEHP has been reported to have an estimated half-life of 23 days in
WWTPs, based on available DEHP half-lives in surface water (NCBI. 2020a). Multiple studies reported
Page 31 of 55
-------
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
WWTPs to been capable of achieving 94 to 97.3 percent removal of DEHP present in municipal
wastewater (Berardi et al.. 2019; Tran et al.. 2014; Shao and Ma. 2009; Fauser et al.. 2003; Marttinen et
al.. 2003). Berardi (2019) reported DEHP to strongly be sorbed to solids, negligible biodegradation, 8
percent removal during ozonation, and 96.7 percent overall removal of DEHP in a WWTP in Italy.
However, additional studies with similar removal efficiencies of DEHP have reported biodegradation to
partially remove DEHP from wastewater. Marttinen (2003) identified the main removal mechanism of
DEHP from wastewater to be sorption to sludge and partial removal by biodegradation processes. The
study reported an overall 97 percent removal efficiency of DEHP from wastewater and 14 percent
removal due to biodegradation. Similarly, Tran (2014) reported 94 percent removal efficiency of DEHP
by biodegradation (19.5%) and sorption to sludge (74.6%) in a WWTP in France. Shao (2009) reported
96.1 percent removal efficiency of DEHP by biological treatment processes (59%) and sorption to
sludge (41%) in a WWTP in China. Fauser (2003) reported 97.3 percent overall removal of DEHP in
WWTP based on measured influent and effluent concentrations of DEHP in Denmark. The model
results of this study reported that biodegradation accounted for 70.1 percent of the overall DEHP
removal. Salaudeen (2018) explored the occurrence of DEHP in three WWTPs in Nigeria. The study
reported 67 to 83 percent removal of DEHP in two WWTPs employing screening, grit removal,
sedimentation, activated sludge, secondary clarification, and chlorination. The same study reported 35
percent DEHP removal in a WWTP with a similar treatment train, though excluding the secondary
clarification step. The study attributes most of the removal to adsorption to settling particles and sludge,
apparent from the greater DEHP removal efficiency in the two WWTPs that employed secondary
clarification. Additionally, the authors attribute partial removal to biodegradation (Salaudeen et al..
2018). Gao (2014) reported less than 40 percent DEHP removal in three full-scale WWTPs with
hydraulic retention times of 6 to 9.5 hours. Similar to other phthalate esters, DEHP has been reported to
be more persistent in anaerobic WWTP processes when compared to aerobic treatment processes
(Armstrong et al.. 2018; Balabanic et al.. 2012). EPA investigated the removal efficiencies of priority
pollutants within 50 wastewater treatment facilities in the U.S. The study reported a median DEHP
removal of 64 percent in WWTPs employing activated sludge systems (U.S. EPA. 1982). DEHP
removals of 61.7, 75, and 93 percent have been reported in WWTPs employing activated sludge systems
in Canada, Hong Kong, and Denmark, respectively (Wu et al.. 2017; Osachoff et al.. 2014; Roslev et al..
2007). Roslev (2007) reported an estimated 81 percent biodegradation of DEHP in an activated sludge
treatment process with a hydraulic retention time of one day. Like in conventional WWTPs, sorption to
sludge has been reported as the main removal mechanism of DEHP removal from wastewater (68%
sorbed to sludge) (Marttinen et al.. 2003). to be partially removed by biodegradation (14-70%) (Tran et
al.. 2014; Fauser et al.. 2003; Marttinen et al.. 2003). and to be more persistent under anaerobic
conditions (21.7-46.7% removal) (Benabdallah El-Hadi et al.. 2006).
Overall, DEHP has a high log Kow, remains in suspended solids, and is efficiently removed from
wastewater via accumulation in sewage sludge (Tran et al.. 2014). DEHP is expected to be partially
removed during aerobic solids digestion processes (Armstrong et al.. 2018) and biodegradation (Roslev
et al.. 2007). and ineffectively removed under anaerobic solids digestion conditions (Armstrong et al..
2018). Air stripping is not expected to be significant wastewater removal processes. Based on the
reported median removal of DEHP in U.S. POTWs, greater than 64 percent of the DEHP present in
wastewater is expected to be accumulated in sewage sludge and released with biosolids disposal or
application, with the remaining fraction sorbed to suspended solids in the wastewater treatment effluent
and discharged with surface water (U.S. EPA. 1982).
Page 32 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
966 Table 7-1. Summary of DEHP's WWTP Removal Data
Endpoint
Value
Additional Information
Reference
Half-life
ti/2 = 23 days
Half-life: 23 days in wastewater treatment plants
based on reported DEHP half-life in water.
NCBI (2020a)
96.1% removal
Average removal in STP in China. Treatment
processes included: grit removal, primary clarifier,
A/O activated sludge, and secondary clarifier.
Shao and Ma
(2009)
94% removal
94% removal efficiency by degradation and
decantation based on GC-MS analysis in Fontenay-
les-Briis (Essonne-France) WWTP
Tran et al. (2014)
97% removal
DEHP removal in STP in Finland. Overall removal
efficiency in primary and secondary treatment was
97%; volatilization was negligible; 14% was
biodegraded; 68% was sorbed to sludge; 3% was
discharged with effluent; 29% was removed via
activated sludge process, and 32% removed via
anaerobic digestion (assuming volatilization and
abiotic transformation were negligible).
Marttinen et al.
(2003)
Removal in
96.7% removal
Overall average DEHP removal efficiency in
WWTP in Italy, including ozonation: 96.7%;
overall average PAE removal efficiency with
ozonation: 97.3%; average PAE removal efficiency
without ozonation: 89.3%; average % DEHP in
influent: 80%; average % DEHP in effluent: 87%
Berardi et al. (2019)
wastewater
treatment
97.3% removal
Influent/effluent removal % (8-day mean): 97.3%.
Inlet total ((.ig/L): 35.4 ± 10.6; outlet total ((.ig/L):
0.96 ± 0.94; modelled value based on measured
concentrations in Denmark. DEHP removal =
70.1% (degradation) + 27.2% (sorption) = 97.3%
Fauser et al. (2003)
80% removal
(aerobic),
70% removal
(anaerobic)
Pilot scale: 70% anaerobic, 80% aerobic, 95%
ultrafiltration, 100% reverse osmosis, 95%
membrane bioreactor (approx.)
Balabanic et al.
(2012)
20-39%
removal
Approximate removal of DEHP in three full scale
WWTP in China with hydraulic retention times of
6 (WWTP1), 8 (WWTP2), and 9.5 h (WWTP3).
Removal efficiency WWTP1 ca. 30%; WWTP2 ca.
20%; WWTP3 ca. 39%; less than 40% of DEHP
removed from the aqueous phase by three different
treatment processes
Gao et al. (2014)
67-83% and
35% removal
Removal efficiency: 67.99% (Adelaide), 83.94%
(Alice), and 35.98% (Seymour); Adelaide and
Alice treatment processes include: screening, grit
removal, sedimentation, activated sludge,
secondary clarifier, and chlorination. Seymour
Salaudeen et al.
(2018)
Page 33 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Additional Information
Reference
plant had similar treatment processes except for a
secondary clarifier. Majority of the removal
attributed to adsorption to settling particles and
sludge than biodegradation. Treatment plant in
Nigeria.
Aerobic sludge
digestion: 35-
77.6%
Anaerobic
sludge
digestion: NS to
80.7% increase
in concentration
DEHP was monitored in the influent, effluent and
final solids of six WWTPs in Maryland and
Washington D.C. WWTPs #1-4 use anaerobic
digestion for sludge treatment; WWTPs #5-6 use
aerobic processes. The treatment processes varied,
and results varied, with some DEHP
concentrations increasing, decreasing, or having no
significant change.
The percent change in concentration at each stage
of treatment was calculated from the previous
treatment step: WWTP #1: NS (anaerobic
digestion effluent), +130% (final solids); WWTP
#2: NS (anaerobic digestion effluent), NS (final
solids); WWTP #3: NS (thermal hydrolysis
effluent), +80.7% (anaerobic digestion), NS (final
solids); WWTP #4: +107% (anaerobic digestion
Effluent), NS (final solids); WWTP #5: -35%
(aerobic digestion Effluent), NS (final solids);
WWTP #6: -77.6% (aerobic digestion Effluent),
NS (final solids)
NS = change in concentration not significant and,
thus, not calculated. Ultra-high performance liquid
chromatograph (UHPLC) analysis
Armstrong et al.
(2018)
Removal in
activated
sludge
64% removal
secondary with
activated sludge
U.S. Median % removal: primary (P): 0; activated
sludge (AS): 62; trickling filter (TF): 24; oxygen
activated sludge (OAS): 64; rotating biological
contactor (RBC): 86; aerated lagoon (AL): 23;
activated sludge and trickling filter (AS/TF):
87/72; tertiary (T): 65; 10-90% removal of DEHP
within the 50 POTWs, 54% of POTWs reported
>50% DEHP removal.
U.S. EPA (1982)
61.7% removal
Removal efficiency: 61.7%, measured initial
concentration: 40,609 ng/L, measured effluent
concentration: 15,565 ng/L; experimental lab scale
conventional activated sludge reactors in Canada.
Osachoff et al.
(2014)
93% removal
Activated sludge wastewater treatment plant in
Denmark: 93% DEHP removal from effluent, 81%
estimated overall microbial degradation of DEHP
of 81%.
Roslev et al. (2007)
Page 34 of 55
-------
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Additional Information
Reference
75%
DEHP was monitored in the influent and effluent
of four sewage treatment plants in Hong Kong.
Removal efficiency: Primary sedimentation ca. -
10%; chemical enhanced primary treatment: ca.
65%; activated sludge: ca. 75%; sand filtration: ca.
-50%; chlorination disinfection: ca. -25%; UV
disinfection: ca. -15%; reverse osmosis: ca. -99%
Wu et al. (2017)
Removal
(WWTP
Anaerobic
Sewage)
31.7-46.7%
removal at 55
°C, 21.7-37.8%
removal at 35
°C
Anaerobic sludge digestion in Spain. Removal
efficiency: 31.7-46.7% under thermophilic
conditions (55 °C). Removal efficiency: 21.7-
37.8% under mesophilic conditions (35 °C)
Benabdallah El-
Hadi et al. (2006)
7.3 Removal in Drinking Water Treatment
Drinking water in the United States typically comes from surface water (i.e., lakes, rivers, reservoirs)
and groundwater. Source water is pumped to drinking water treatment plants where it undergoes a series
of water treatment steps before being distributed to homes and communities. In the United States, public
water systems often use conventional treatment processes that include coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection, as required by law.
Limited information is available on the removal of DEHP in drinking water treatment plants. Based on
its water solubility and log Kow, DEHP in water it is expected to partition mainly to suspended solids
present in 45 percent of DEHP released to water partitioning to sediments (U.S. EPA. 2012a). Based on
the available information on the DEHP removal efficiency of flocculants and filtering media, DEHP is
likely to be removed during drinking water treatment by sorption to suspended organic matter. Data
sources reported 58.7 percent reduction in drinking water DEHP concentration from a conventional
drinking water treatment effluent in China using chlorine for disinfection prior to distribution (Kong et
al.. 2017; Yang et al.. 2014). These findings suggest that conventional drinking water treatment systems
may have the potential to partially remove DEHP present in drinking water sources via sorption to
suspended organic matter and filtering media and the use of disinfection technologies.
Page 35 of 55
-------
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
8 BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL OF DEHP
The presence of DEHP in several marine aquatic species in North America suggest that the substance is
bioavailable in aquatic environments (Mackintosh et al.. 2004). However, DEHP's water solubility of
0.003 mg/L and log Koc of 5.41 to 5.95 suggest that DEHP has limited bioavailability, and therefore
low bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential. EPA selected 25 overall high-quality data sources
and one overall medium-quality data source reporting the aquatic bioconcentration, aquatic
bioaccumulation, aquatic trophic magnification, terrestrial biota-sediment accumulation, and terrestrial
bioconcentration of DEHP (Table 8-1). The available data sources discussed below, suggest that DEHP
has low bioaccumulation potential in aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Adeogun et al.. 2015b; Adeogun
et al.. 2015a; ECJRC. 2003b; Wofford et al.. 1981). and no apparent biomagnification across trophic
levels in aquatic food webs (Burkhard et al.. 2012; Mackintosh et al.. 2004).
Several studies have investigated the aquatic bioconcentration of DEHP in several aquatic species. The
available data suggest that DEHP is expected to have a low bioaccumulation potential in aquatic species.
Adeogun (2015a) evaluated the presence of phthalate esters in two lakes in Nigeria. The study reported
DEHP fish bioconcentration (BCF) values of 0.60 to 15.18, 0.09 to 3.47, 0.66 to 9.25, 0.07 to 0.60, and
0.05 to 0.89 for tilapia, catfish, rume, snakehead, and odoe, respectively. In a similar study, Adeogun
(2015b) explored the presence of phthalate esters in two lagoons in Nigeria, reporting DEHP BCFs
values of 0.17 to 0.94, 0.17 to 4.31, and 0.14 to 1.61 in tilapia, catfish, and shrimp, respectively. Hayton
(1990) reported DEHP BCF values of 1.6 to 51.5 in rainbow trout samples obtained from the Spokane
Hatchery in Washington. The authors reported DEHP accumulation potential to decrease with an
increase in trout size (BCF = 1.6 (441 ± 58 g trout), 8.9 (61 ± 5.7 g trout), and 51.5 (2.9 ± 0.6 g trout))
that could be associated with the physiological and anatomical changes during trout development (size
increase). Barrows (1980) evaluated the bioconcentration and elimination of water pollutants in bluegill
sunfish populations from Connecticut and Nebraska. The study reported a DEHP BCF value of 114 and
a tissue half-life of 3 days. Karara (1984) developed a DEHP pharmacokinetic model for sheepshead
minnow, reporting a DEHP BCF value of 637 and a depuration half-life of 38 days at 20 °C, after a 96-
hour exposure period. In a separate study, the authors reported an apparent increase in DEHP
accumulation as the temperature increased. The BCF values were 45, 131, and 637 at 10, 16, and 23 °C,
respectively (Karara and Hayton. 1989). Wofford (1981) reported BCF values of 10.7 and 13.5 in
Sheepshead Minnow after a two-hour exposure period at initial DEHP concentrations of 100 and 500
parts per billion (ppb). The same study reported BCF values of 6.9 to 11.2 and 10.2 to 16.6 for oysters
and shrimp, respectively. Streufert (1980) reported BCF values of 292 and 408 in midge larvae after a
DEHP exposure of 2 and 7 days, respectively. The same study reported 70 percent decrease in larval
DEHP concentration after a five-day depuration period. Brown (1982) reported BCF values of 166, 140,
261, and 268 in Daphnia magna exposed to 3.2, 10, 32 and 100 |ig/L of DEHP, respectively.
The available data sources suggest that DEHP is expected to have low bioaccumulation and food web
magnification potential in marine species. Lee (2019) reported DEHP bioaccumulation factors (BAF) of
63.1, 316.2, and 1,258.93 L/kg dw for bluegill, bass, and carp/skygager, respectively. The same study
reported biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) of 7.94><10~4 to 1,58/10 3 kg/kg dw for bluegill,
bass, and carp/skygager. Hobson (1984) explored the toxicity of DEHP in shrimp during a 14-day
dietary exposure resulting in DEHP whole-body residues of 0.249 to 18.25 parts per million (ppm).
From the study, an average BAF of 0.00283 was calculated as DEHP whole-body residue per DEHP
concentration in diet. Teil (2012) reported BSAF values of 1.3 ± 0.7 (49 g perch), 1.0 ± 2.7 (153 g
roach), and 0.5 ± 0.7 (299 g chub) in fish samples collected from the Orge River in France. Adeogun
(2015a) reported BSAF values of 0.02 to 0.8 in fish samples (tilapia, catfish, rume, snakehead, and
odoe) collected from two lakes in Nigeria containing DEHP sediment concentrations of 0.95 to 1.2
mg/kg. Huang (2008) reported BSAF values of 13.8 to 40.9 (mullet), 2.4 to 28.5 (tilapia), 0.1
Page 36 of 55
-------
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
(seabream), and 0.9 (chub) in fish samples collected from Taiwanese rivers containing a mean sediment
concentration of DEHP in of 4.1 mg/kg. Overall, the findings suggest low bioaccumulation potential in
aquatic environments, but higher accumulation are expected to be seen in smaller organisms and those
exposed to higher DEHP concentration in sediments. Additionally, the reported trophic magnification
factors (TMF) of 0.34 and 0.4 indicate trophic dilution of DEHP from lower to higher trophic levels
within the food-web (Burkhard et al.. 2012; Mackintosh et al.. 2004).
There is limited information on the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of DEHP in terrestrial
environments. Based on DEHP's log Koc range of 5.41 to 5.95 (Williams et al.. 1995) and water
solubility (0.003 mg/L) (EC/HC. 2017). DEHP is expected to have low bioavailability in soils. This is
supported by the reported low BCF value of 0.2 in earthworms (Eiseniafoetida) (ECJRC. 2003b) and
low BAF values of 0.073 to 0.244 and 0.97 to 1.1 in earthworms and moorfrog eggs (Hu et al.. 2005;
Larson and Thuren. 1987). Therefore, DEHP is expected to have low bioaccumulation and
biomagnification potential in terrestrial organisms.
Sablayrolles (2013) evaluated the uptake of DEHP by tomato plants from soils amended with biosolids.
The study reported BCF values of 0.006 to 0.07, 0 to 1.67, and 0 to 0.28 in tomato plant roots, leaves,
and fruits, respectively. Cai (2008) evaluated the uptake of phthalic acid esters in radishes cultivated on
a soil system with sewage sludge application. The study reported BCF values of 0.08 and 0.40 in the
radish root and shoot, respectively. Li (2018) evaluated the uptake of phthalate esters on crops irrigated
with treated sewage effluent in China. The study reported BCF values of 1.18 to 1.63 for wheat and 1.16
to 2.21 for maize, and a DEHP soil concentration of 0.64 to 1.06 mg/kg. Ma (2012) evaluated the use of
alfalfa for the removal of phthatic esters from contaminated soils. The study reported BCF values of 65
to 100 in alfalfa crops growing in soil that had DEHP concentrations ranging from 0.15 to 0.25 mg/kg.
The available information suggests that terrestrial plants have the potential to uptake DEHP from soil,
but that DEHP is not likely to bioaccumulate (BCF <1,000) (U.S. EPA. 2012b).
Table 8-1. Summary of DEHP's Bioaccumulation Information
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Aquatic
Bioconcentration
factor (BCF)
Tilapia: 0.60-15.18
Catfish: 0.09-3.47
Rume: 0.66-9.25
Snakehead: 0.07-0.60
Odoe: 0.05-0.89
Fish from Asejire Lake: muscle = 0.45
(C. nigrodigitatus), 0.66 (M. rume), 0.60
(T. zilli); gill = 0.57 (C. nigrodigitatus),
1.25 (M. rume), 6.66 (T. zilli); liver =
3.47 (C. nigrodigitatus), 1.05 (M. rume),
15.18 (T. zilli); kidney = 0.09 (C.
nigrodigitatus), 9.25 (M. rume), 1.22 (T.
zilli)
Fish from Eleyele Lake: muscle = 0.05
(H odoe), 0.60 (P. obscura), 0.48 (T.
zilli); gill = 0.32 (H. odoe), 0.07 (P.
obscura), 0.10 (T. zilli); liver = 0.48 (H.
odoe), 0.20 (P. obscura), 0.24 (T. zilli);
kidney = 0.89 (H. odoe), 0.50 (P.
obscura), 1.62 (T. zilli)
Adeoaun et al.
(2015a)
Page 37 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Tilapia: 0.17-0.94
Catfish: 0.17-4.31
Shrimp: 0.14-1.61
Tilapia (T. giiineensis) BCF: muscle =
0.46 (L) and 0.41 (E); gill = 0.21 (L) and
0.52 (E); liver =0.50 (L) and 0.17 (E);
kidney = 0.94 (L) and 0.17 (E)
Catfish (C. nigrodigitatus) BCF:
muscle = 0.41 (L) and 1.06 (E); gill =
0.27 (L) and 0.66 (E); liver = 0.73 (L)
and 0.17 (E); kidney = 4.31 (L) and 0.32
(E); shrimp (M vollenhovenii); BCF =
whole body =1.61 (L) and 0.14 (E)
L = Lagos and E = Epe
Adcoeun et al.
(2015b)
Midge larvae: 292-
408
Midge larvae (Chironomiis plumosus)
BCF after 2 days (wet weight): 292,
BCF after 7 days (wet weight): 408
Elimination: 30% decrease after 1 day,
50% decrease after 3.4 days, 70%
decrease after 5 days
Streufert et al.
(1980)
Bluegill sunfish (L.
meter ochirus): 114
ti/2 = 3 days; following the apparent
equilibrium or 28-day exposure period
fish were transferred to pollutant free
aquarium; sample days 1, 2, 4, and 7
Barrows et al.
(1980)
Daphnia magna: 140—
268
BCF = 166, 140, 261, and 268 attest
substance concentration of 3.2, 10, 32
and 100 (ig/L, respectively
Brown and
Thompson
(1982)
Rainbow trout (S.
gairdneri): 1.6, 8.9,
and 51.5
Use of fry or minnows to predict
bioconcentration may not accurately
reflect accumulation in larger fish.
BCF = 1.6 (441 ±58 g trout), 8.9 (61±5.7
g trout), and 51.5 (2.9±0.6 g trout)
Havton et al.
(1990)
Sheepshead minnow:
45-637
Model-predicted BCF of 45, 131, and
637 at 10, 16, and 23 °C, respectively,
for sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus)
Karara and
Havton (1989)
Karara and
Havton (1984)
Oyster: 6.9-11.2
Shrimp: 10.2- 16.6
Sheepshead
minnow: 10.7-13.5
American oyster: BCF = 11.2 ± 3.3 (100
ppb) and 6.9 ± 2.2 (500 ppb); brown
shrimp: BCF = 10.2 ± 0.5 (100 ppb) and
16.6 ± 12.9 (500 ppb); sheepshead
minnow: BCF = 10.7 (100 ppb) and 13.5
(500 ppb)
Wofford et al.
(1981)
Page 38 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Biodegradability index (ratio of
metabolites to unmetabolized diester,
average of exposures): 0.29 (oyster),
0.86 (shrimp), 13.67 (fish)
Shrimp (P. vannamei):
0.00283 (Mean)
Bioaccumulation factor calculated as
whole-body residue/analytical test
substance concentration in diet.
Hobson et al.
(1984)
Bioaccumulation
factor
(BAF)
BAF = 0.00566, 0.00209, 0.00742,
0.000934, 0.000487, and 0.000363;
mean BAF = 0.00283
Bluegill: 63.1
Bass: 316.2
Carp: 1259
Skygager: 1259
Bluegill: 63.1 L/kg dw; bass: 316.2 L/kg
dw; crucian carp and skygager: 1258.93
L/kg dw
Lee et al. (2019)
Bluegill: 1.26E-03
Bass: 7.94E-04
Carp: 1.58E-03
Skygager: 1.58E-03
Bass: 7.94E-04 kg/kg dw; bluegill:
1.26E-03 kg/kg dw; crucian carp and
skygager: 1.58E-03 kg/kg dw
Lee et al. (2019)
Biota-Sediment
accumulation factor
(BSAF)
Tilapia: 0.03-0.8
Catfish: 0.02-0.20
Rume: 0.06-0.53
Snakehead: 0.02-0.22
Odoe: 0.02-0.34
Fish From Asejire Lake: muscle = 0.02
(C. nigrodigitatus), 0.03 (M. rume), 0.03
(T. zilli); gill = 0.03 (C. nigrodigitatus),
0.07 (M. rume), 0.38 (T. zilli); Liver =
0.20 (C. nigrodigitatus), 0.06 (M. rume),
0.88 (T. zilli); kidney = 0.05 (C.
nigrodigitatus), 0.53 (M rume), 0.07 (T.
zilli); DEHP concentration in sediment =
1.2 mg/kg
Fish From Eleyele Lake:
Muscle = 0.02 (H odoe), 0.22 (P.
obscura), 0.18 (T. zilli); gill = 0.12 (H
odoe), 0.02 (P. obscura), 0.04 (T. zilli);
liver = 0.18 (H odoe), 0.07 (P. obscura),
0.09 (T. zilli); kidney = 0.34 (H. odoe),
0.19 (P. obscura), 0.62 (T. zilli);
concentration of DEHP in sediment =
0.95 mg/kg
Adcoeun et al.
(2015a)
Chironomus riparius
larvae: 1.46 (mean)
BSAF based on the concentration in
animal tissue dry weight
(mg/kg)/concentration in sediment dry
weight (mg/kg):
Treatment 1: 160/100 = 1.6
Treatment 2: 1,400/1,000= 1.4
Treatment 2: 14,000/10,000= 1.4
Brown et al.
(1996)
Page 39 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Mean BSAF = 1.46 ~ 1.5
Greenback mullet (L.
subviridis): 13.8-40.9
Tilapia: 2.4-28.5
Seabream: 0.1
Chub: 0.9
Greenback mullet (L. subviridis): 13.8—
40.9; Tilapia (O. niloticus): 2.4-28.5;
Black seabream (A. schlegeli): 0.1; Pale
chub (Z. platypus): 0.9; mean
concentration of DEHP in sediment =
4.1 mg/kg
Huang et al.
(2008)
Fish: 0.5-1.3
Roach: 1.0 ± 2.7, Chub: 0.5 ± 0.7, and
Perch: 1.3 ± 0.7
Teil et al. (2012)
Trophic
magnification
factor
0.4
Moderate biotransformation rate with a
reported half-life of 2.8 days. TMF
determined from measured
biomonitoring data in 171 reports.
Reported TMF (<1.0) indicates trophic
dilution, substantial biotransformation.
Burkhard et al.
(2012)
(TMF)
0.34
18 marine species, lower-upper 95%
interval (0.18-0.64). Reported TMF
(food-web magnification factor < 1.0)
indicates trophic dilution, 66% loss of
DEHP moving up one trophic level.
Mackintosh et al.
(2004)
Terrestrial
Wheat: 1.18-1.63
Maize: 1.16-2.21
Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)\
1.42 and 1.55 (reclaimed water), 1.43
and 1.63 (mixed water), 1.18 and 1.30
(groundwater); DEHP Soil concentration
of 1.01-2.39 mg/kg
Li et al. (2018)
Bioconcentration
factor (BCF)
Summer maize (Zect mays L.)\ 1.16
(reclaimed water), 1.90 (mixed water),
2.21 (ground water); DEHP Soil
concentration of 0.64-1.06 mg/kg
Earthworm: 0.2
Earthworm (Eisenia foetida): 0.2 (dw),
0.034 (wet weight, converted from 0.15
conversion factor). Assuming atypical
dry to wet weight conversion factor of
0.15 for earthworms and of 0.88 for
soil, a BCF of 0.034 based on wet
weights can be derived.
ECJRC (2003b)
Page 40 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Radish: 0.08-0.40
Radish (Raphanus sativus): 0.40 (shoot),
0.08 (root); Control (100% soil),
application rates of 10, 20, and 40 g/kg
soil of sewage sludge (4.4 mg/kg
DEHP), and application rate of 10 g/kg
soil sludge compost (16 mg/kg DEHP)
Cai et al. (2008)
Pondweed: 67.4-
157.6 L/kg (plant
concentration factor)
Pondweed Plant- uptake: 0.762/d, plant
release: 0.572/d, microbial degradation
in water: 0.082/d, plant degradation:
0.012/d
Chi and Gao
(2015)
Alfalfa: 65-100
BCF - approximation from bar graph
(treatment condition) = 100 (A), 90 (AS-
S), 100 (AS-A), 90 (AE-E), 100 (AE-A),
50 (AES-S), 65 (AES-E), 95 (AES-A)
Phytoremediation of phthalates with
alfalfa monoculture (A); alfalfa and E.
splendors intercropping (AE); alfalfa
and S. plumbizincicola intercropping
(AS); and alfalfa, E. splendors, and S.
plumbizincicola intercropping (AES);
approximated DEHP soil concentration
of 0.15-0.25 mg/kg.
Ma et al. (2012)
Tomato plant:
0.006-0.07 (root)
0-1.67 (leaves)
0-0.28 (fruit)
Tomato plant (Lycopersicon esciilentiim
cv): BCF data - Aquiculture - pure
substances experiment BCF = root: 0.02,
leaves: 0, fruits: 0; sludge filtrate
experiment BCF = root: 0.006, leaves:
0.0007, fruits: 0.0003; soil culture -
Biosolids A experiment BCF = root:
0.002, leaves: 0.03, fruits: 0.05;
Biosolids B experiment BCF = root:
0.07, leaves: 1.67, fruits: 0.28; Biosolids
C experiment BCF = root: 0.003, leaves:
0.16, fruits: 0.04
Sablavrolles et
al. (2013)
Lettuce: 1.31-1.75
Strawberry: 1.3 8-1.95
Carrot: 2.42-2.74
Lettuce leaf 1.31 ±0.41; strawberry leaf
1.38 ± 0.19; carrot leaf 2.42 ± 0.46;
lettuce root 1.75 ± 0.45; strawberry root
1.95 ± 0.41; carrot root 2.74 ± 0.19; 28-
day exposure to DEHP nominal
concentration of 500 (ig/kg dry weight.
Sun et al. (2015)
Terrestrial biota-
soil accumulation
factor
(BSAF)
Earthworms: 0.073-
0.244
Earthworms (E. fetida) BSAF = 0.244
(soil 1); 0.073 (soil 2); organic matter:
Soil 1 = 1.35%, Soil 2 = 4.53%; pH: Soil
1 =7.58; Soil 2 = 8.28
Hu et al. (2005)
Page 41 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Endpoint
Value
Details
Reference
Moorfrog: 0.97-1.1
Moorfrog (Rcma arvalis) eggs:
0.97 (partitioning coefficient between
sediment and tadpoles), 1.1 (partitioning
coefficient based on uptake from water)
Larson and
Thuren (1987)
1062
1063
Page 42 of 55
-------
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
9 OVERALL FATE AND TRANSPORT OF DEHP
The inherent physical and chemical properties of DEHP govern its environmental fate and transport.
Based on DEHP's aqueous solubility, slight tendency to volatilize, and strong affinity for organic
carbon, this chemical substance will preferentially partition to sediments, soils, and suspended solids in
wastewater treatment processes. Soil, sediment, and sludge/biosolids are predicted to be the major
compartments for DEHP as indicated by its physical and chemical and fate properties, and partitioning
analysis. The designation of these major compartments is supported by monitoring studies that confirm
the presence of DEHP. Surface water is expected to be a minor compartment despite it being the main
receiving media for phthalates remaining in effluent discharged from wastewater treatment plants. In
addition, phthalates in surface water will sorb strongly to suspended and benthic sediments. In areas
where continuous releases of phthalates occur, higher levels of phthalates in surface water can be
expected, trending downward distally from the point of releases. This concentration gradient also occurs
for suspended and benthic sediments. Furthermore, biodegradation of DEHP is inhibited in anoxic
environments (i.e., sediments and landfills), and like other phthalates, it is expected to hydrolyze slowly
and be very persistent in anaerobic environments.
If DEHP is released directly to the atmosphere, it is expected to adsorb to particulate matter. DEHP is
not expected to undergo long-range transport facilitated by particulate matter due to the relatively rapid
rates of both direct and indirect photolysis. Atmospheric concentrations of DEHP may be elevated
proximal to sites of releases. However, off-gassing from landfills and volatilization from wastewater
treatment processes are expected to be negligible sources of atmospheric DEHP due to its low vapor
pressure and rapid photodegradation rates. Thus, DEHP is not expected to be a candidate chemical for
long-range transport.
In indoor environments, DEHP released to air is expected to partition to airborne particles at
concentrations three times higher than in vapor phase (ECJRC. 2003a) and is expected to have longer
lifetime than in the atmosphere. The available information suggests that DEHP's indoor dust
concentrations are correlated with the presence of phthalate-containing articles and the proximity to the
facilities producing them (Kubwabo et al.. 2013; Wang et al.. 2013; Abb et al.. 2009) as well as daily
anthropogenic activities that might introduce DEHP-containing products indoors (Dodson et al.. 2017).
In situations where aerobic conditions persist, DEHP is expected to degrade rapidly. In environments
where anoxic conditions persist, such as sediments, landfills, and some soils, DEHP may be persistent
since it is resistant to anaerobic biodegradation. In anaerobic environments, such as deep landfill zones,
DEHP may be degraded by catalyzed hydrolysis.
Page 43 of 55
-------
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
10 WEIGHT OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CONCLUSIONS FOR
FATE AND TRANSPORT
10.1 Strengths, Limitations, Assumptions, and Key Sources of Uncertainty
for the Fate and Transport Assessment
Given the consistent results from numerous high-quality studies, there is a robust confidence that DEHP:
• is expected to undergo significant direct photolysis (Section 4.3);
• will partition to organic carbon and particulate matter in air (Sections 5 and 6.1);
• will biodegrade in aerobic surface water, soil, and wastewater treatment processes (Sections 0,
6.2.1,6.3.2, and 7.2);
• does not biodegrade in anaerobic environments (Sections 0, 6.2, and 6.3);
• will be removed after undergoing wastewater treatment primarily via sorption to sludge at high
fractions, with a small fraction being present in effluent (Section 7.2);
• is not bioaccumulative (Section 8);
• is not expected to biodegrade under anoxic conditions and may have high persistence in
anaerobic soils and sediments (Sections 0, 6.2.2, and 6.3.2); and
• may show persistence in surface water and sediment proximal to continuous points of release
(Sections 0, 6.2.2, and 6.3.2).
As a result of limited studies identified, there is a moderate confidence that DEHP:
• showed no significant degradation via hydrolysis under standard environmental conditions, but
hydrolysis rate was seen to increase with increasing pH and temperature in deep-landfill
environments (Section 6.3.3); and
• is expected to be removed in conventional drinking water treatment systems by standard
treatment process, and via reduction by chlorination and chlorination byproducts in post-
treatment storage and drinking water conveyance (Section 7.3).
The findings that were found to have a robust weight of evidence supporting them had one or more high-
quality studies that were largely in agreement with each other. The findings that were said to have a
moderate weight of evidence were based on a mix of high- and medium-quality studies that were largely
in agreement, but varied in sample size and consistency of findings.
Page 44 of 55
-------
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
11 REFERENCES
Abb. M; Heinrich. T; Sorkau. E; Lorenz. W. (2009). Phthalates in house dust. Environ Int 35: 965-970.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2009.04.007
Adeogun. AO: Ibor. OR: Omiwole. RA; Hassan. T; Adegbola. RA; Adewuvi. GO: Arukwe. A. (2015a).
Occurrence, species, and organ differences in bioaccumulation patterns of phthalate esters in
municipal domestic water supply lakes in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Toxicol Environ Health A 78: 761 -
777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2015.103Q487
Adeogun. AO: Ibor. OR: Omogbemi. ED: Chukwuka. AY: Adegbola. RA: Adewuvi. GA; Arukwe. A.
(2015b). Environmental occurrence and biota concentration of phthalate esters in Epe and Lagos
Lagoons, Nigeria. Mar Environ Res 108: 24-32.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/i. marenvres.2015.04.002
Armstrong. PL: Rice. CP: Ramirez. M: Torrents. A. (2018). Fate of four phthalate plasticizers under
various wastewater treatment processes. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng
53: 1075-1082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.147458Q
Balabanic. D: Hermosilla. D: Meravo. N: Klemencic. AK: Blanco. A. (2012). Comparison of different
wastewater treatments for removal of selected endocrine-disruptors from paper mill wastewaters.
J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 47: 1350-1363.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2Q12.672301
Barrows. ME: Petrocelli. SR: Macek. KJ: Carroll. JJ. (1980). Bioconcentration and elimination of
selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In R Haque (Ed.),
Dynamics, Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals (pp. 379-392). Ann Arbor, MI:
Ann Arbor Science.
Benabdallah El-Hadi. T; Dosta. J: Mata-Alvarez. J. (2006). Biodegradation of PAH and DEHP micro-
pollutants in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic sewage sludge digestion. Water Sci Technol
53: 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.240
Berardi. C: Fibbi. D: Coppini. E: Renai. L: Caprini. C: Scordo. CYA: Checchini. L: Orlandini. S:
Bruzzoniti. MC: Del Bubba. M. (2019). Removal efficiency and mass balance of poly cyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, ethoxylated alkylphenols and alkylphenols in a mixed textile-
domestic wastewater treatment plant. Sci Total Environ 674: 36-48.
http: //dx. doi. or g/10.1016/i. scitotenv .2019.04.096
Boese. BL. (1984). Uptake efficiency of the gills of english sole (parophrys vetulus) for 4 phthalate
esters. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41: 1713-1718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f84-210
Bonnevie. NL: Wenning. RJ. (1995). Sources of pollution and sediment contamination in Newark Bay,
New Jersey. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 30: 85-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1995.101Q
Brown. D: Thompson. RS. (1982). Phthalates and the aquatic environment: Part 1. The effect of di-2-
ethylhexyl phthalate and diisodecyl phthalate on the reproduction of Daphnia magna and
observations on their bioconcentration. Chemosphere 11: 417-426.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(82)90045-5
Brown. D: Thompson. RS: Stewart. KM: Croudace. CP: Gillings. E. (1996). The effect of phthalate ester
plasticisers on the emergence of the midge (Chironomus riparius) from treated sediments.
Chemosphere 32: 2177-2187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(W)00128-2
Burkhard. LP: Arnot. JA: Embry. MR: Farley. KJ: Hoke. RA: Kitano. M: Leslie. HA: Lotufo. GR:
Parkerton. TF: Sappington. KG: Tomy. GT: Woodburn. KB. (2012). Comparing laboratory and
field measured bioaccumulation endpoints. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8: 17-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.260
Cai. O: Mo. C: Wu. O: Zeng. O. (2008). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phthalic acid esters in
the soil-radish (Raphanus sativus) system with sewage sludge and compost application.
Bioresour Technol 99: 1830-1836. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.biortech.2007.03.035
Carrara. SM: Morita. DM: Boscov. ME. (2011). Biodegradation of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in a typical
Page 45 of 55
-------
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
tropical soil. J Hazard Mater 197: 40-48. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ihazmat.2011.09.058
Cartwright. CD: Thompson. IP: Burns. RG. (2000). Degradation and impact of phthalate plasticizers on
soil microbial communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 19: 1253-1261.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.56201905Q6
Chang. BY: Liao. CS: Yuan. SY. (2005a). Anaerobic degradation of diethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate, and di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate from river sediment in Taiwan. Chemosphere 58:
1601-1607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2004.11.031
Chang. BY: Liao. GS: Yuan. SY. (2005b). Anaerobic degradation of di-n-butyl phthalate and di-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate in sludge. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 75: 775-782.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-005-Q818-5
Chi. J: Gao. J. (2015). Effects of Potamogeton crispus L.-bacteria interactions on the removal of
phthalate acid esters from surface water. Chemosphere 119: 59-64.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2014.05.058
Cousins. I: Mackav. D. (2000). Correlating the physical-chemical properties of phthalate esters using
the 'three solubility' approach. Chemosphere 41: 1389-1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0Q45-
6535(00)00005-9
CPSC. (2010). Toxicity review of Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP). Bethesda, MD.
http://www.cpsc.gOv//PageFiles/126533/toxicitvDEHP.pdf
De Lorenzi. L; Fermeglia. M; Torriano. G. (1998). Density, kinematic viscosity, and refractive index for
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, tris(2-ethylhexyl) trimellitate, and diisononyl phthalate. Journal of
Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie970200z
Dodson. RE: Udesky. JO: Colton. MP: Mccaulev. M; Camann. DE: Yau. AY: Adamkiewicz. G: Rudel.
RA. (2017). Chemical exposures in recently renovated low-income housing: Influence of
building materials and occupant activities. Environ Int 109: 114-127.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2017.07.007
DOE. (2016). Table 1: Chemicals of concern and associated chemical information. PACs. Washington,
" D C.
EC/HC. (2015a). State of the science report: Phthalate substance grouping: Medium-chain phthalate
esters: Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers: 84-61-7; 84-64-0; 84-69-5; 523-31-9;
5334-09-8; 16883-83-3; 27215-22-1; 27987-25-3; 68515-40-2; 71888-89-6. Gatineau, Quebec:
Environment Canada, Health Canada. https://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/4D845198-761D-428B-
A519-7548 !B25B3E5/SoS Phthalates%20%28Medium-chain%29 EN.pdf
EC/HC. (2015b). State of the science report: Phthalates substance grouping: Long-chain phthalate esters.
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diisodecyl ester (diisodecyl phthalate; DIDP) and 1,2-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diundecyl ester (diundecyl phthalate; DUP). Chemical Abstracts
Service Registry Numbers: 26761-40-0, 68515-49-1; 3648-20-2. Gatineau, Quebec:
Environment Canada, Health Canada, https://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-
ees/default.asp?lang=En&n=D3FB0F30-l
EC/HC. (2017). Draft screening assessment: Phthalate substance grouping. Ottawa, Ontario:
Government of Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-
ees/default. asp?lang=En&n=516 A5 04A-1
ECHA. (2012). Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) Committee for Socio-economic Analysis
(SEAC): Background document to the Opinion on the Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions
on four phthalates: Annexes. Helsinki, Finland.
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/rest four phthalates axvreport annex en.pdf/92
a98820-0a66-4a2c-fabe-84bf64e45af4
ECHA. (2016). Committee for Risk Assessment RAC - Annex 1 - Background document to the Opinion
proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
di-C8-10-branched alkylesters, C9- rich; [1] di-"isononyl" phthalate; [2] [DINP] EC Number:
Page 46 of 55
-------
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
271-090-9 [1] 249-079-5 [2] CAS Number: 68515-48-0 [1] 28553-12-0 [2], Helsinki, Finland.
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/clh bd dinp 7397 en.pdf/28ab9b6c-d3f4-
31f0-8be3-clald4cf61d3
ECJRC. (2003a). European Union risk assessment report, vol 36: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, Di-C9-
11-Branched alkyl esters, ClO-Rich and Di-"isodecyl"phthalate (DIDP). (EUR 20785 EN).
Luxembourg, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
http://publications.irc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC25825/EUR%2020785%20EN.pdf
ECJRC. (2003b). European Union risk assessment report: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-
branched alkyl esters, C9-rich - and di-"isononyl" phthalate (DINP). (EUR 20784 EN).
Luxembourg, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/european-union-risk-assessment-report-pbEUNA20784/
ECJRC. (2008). European Union risk assessment report: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) [Standard],
(EUR 23384 EN). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/80eaeafa-5985-4481-9b83-
7b5d39241d52
EFSA. (2005). Scientific opinion on flavouring group evaluation 5: Esters of 23 branched- and straight-
chain aliphatic saturated primary alcohols and of one secondary alcohol, and 24 branched- and
straight-chain unsaturated carboxylic acids from chemical groups 1, 2, and 5 (Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000). 3(7): 204.
http://dx.doi.Org/doi.org/10.2903/i.efsa.2005.204
Elsevier. (2021). Reaxys: physical-chemical property data for Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. CAS Registry
Number: 117-81-7. Available online at
https://www.reaxys.eom/#/results/substances/0/H004 7097356288839155950/SDAwNDlTIQgw
MP Y 9QvNIMD A1P VI=/li st/ 1 Ob 6b 0 8 a-3 b cc-4ec9- 8 317-
34flle5c6600/l/desc/IDE.NUMREF///limit (accessed January 20, 2021).
ExxonMobil. (2001). JAYFLEX® Plasticizers: Jayflex DINP Plasticizer: Diisononyl Phthalate.
Available online at http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-
English/Files/Resources/OXO Jayflex DINP NA en-FPS.pdf
Fairbanks. BC. (1984). Toxic organic behaviour in sludge amended soils. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Environmental Contamination. Edinburgh, UK: CEP Consultants.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/13828947?accountid=171501
Fauser. P; Vikelsoe. J: Sorensen. PB; Carl sen. L. (2003). Phthalates, nonylphenols and LAS in an
alternately operated wastewater treatment plant—fate modelling based on measured
concentrations in wastewater and sludge. Water Res 37: 1288-1295.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0043 -13 54(02)00482-7
Federal Register. (1981). Federal Register: January 23, 1981, Part 4. Incinerator Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Interim Final Rule and Proposed
Rule. (OSWFR81027). http://nepis.epa.gov/exe/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=10003NQR.txt
Fuiita. M; Ike. M; Ishigaki. T; Sei. K; Jeong. JS: Makihira. N: Lertsirisopon. R. (2005). Biodegradation
of Three Phthalic Acid Esters by Microorganisms from Aquatic Environment. Nihon Mizushori
Seibutsu Gakkaishi 41: 193-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2521/iswtb.41.193
Gao. D; Li. Z; Wen. Z; Ren. N. (2014). Occurrence and fate of phthalate esters in full-scale domestic
wastewater treatment plants and their impact on receiving waters along the Songhua River in
China. Chemosphere 95: 24-32. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2013.08.009
Geilsbierg. B; Klinge. C: Madsen. T. (2001). Mineralization of organic contaminants in sludge-soil
mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 20: 698-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.56202004Q2
Giam. CS: Chan. HS: Neff. GS: Atlas. EL. (1978). Phthalate ester plasticizers: a new class of marine
pollutant. Science 199: 419-421. http://dx.doi.Org/10.l 126/science.413194
Gupta. S: Gadi. R. (2018). Temporal variation of phthalic acid esters (PAEs) in ambient atmosphere of
Page 47 of 55
-------
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Delhi. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 101: 153-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sQ0128-018-2337-l
Hammel. SC: Levasseur. JL; Hoffman. K; Phillips. AL; Lorenzo. AM: Calafat AM: Webster. TF;
Stapleton. HM. (2019). Children's exposure to phthalates and non-phthalate plasticizers in the
home: The TESIE study. Environ Int 132: 105061.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2019.105061
Hasegawa. A. (2003). Determination of Phthalate Esters in the Atmosphere by LC/MS/MS. Bunseki
Kagaku 52: 15-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2116/bunsekikagaku.52.15
Hashizume. K; Nanya. J: Toda. C: Yasui. T; Nagano. H; Koiima. N. (2002). Phthalate esters detected in
various water samples and biodegradation of the phthalates by microbes isolated from river
water. Biol Pharm Bull 25: 209-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1248/bpb.25.209
Havton. WL; Barron. MG: Tarr. BP. (1990). Effect of Body Size on the Uptake and Bioconcentration of
Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate in Rainbow Trout. Environ Toxicol Chem 9: 989-996.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/1552-8618(1990)9r989:EOBSOT12.Q.CO:2
He. L; Fan. S: Mtiller. K; Wang. H; Che. L; Xu. S: Song. Z; Yuan. G: Rinklebe. J: Tsang. DCW: Ok.
YS: Bolan. NS. (2018). Comparative analysis biochar and compost-induced degradation of di-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate in soils. Sci Total Environ 625: 987-993.
http: //dx. doi. or g/10.1016/i. scitotenv .2018.01.002
He. Y; Wang. O; He. W: Xu. F. (2019). The occurrence, composition and partitioning of phthalate esters
(PAEs) in the water-suspended particulate matter (SPM) system of Lake Chaohu, China. Sci
Total Environ 661: 285-293. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2019.01.161
Helmig. D; Bauer. A: Mueller. J: Klein. W. (1990). Analysis of particulate organics in a forest
atmosphere by thermodesorption GC/MS. Atmos Environ A 24: 179-184.
http ://dx. doi. org/10.1016/0960-1686(90)90454-U
Hobson. JF; Carter. DE; Lightner. DV. (1984). Toxicity of a phthalate ester in the diet of a penaied
shrimp. J Toxicol Environ Health 13: 959-968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528739840953Q553
Howard. PH; Baneriee. S: Robillard. KH. (1985). Measurement of water solubilities octanol-water
partition coefficients and vapor pressures of commercial phthalate esters. Environ Toxicol Chem
4: 653-662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.56200405Q9
Hu. XY; Wen. B; Zhang. S: Shan. XQ. (2005). Bioavailability of phthalate congeners to earthworms
(Eisenia fetida) in artificially contaminated soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 62: 26-34.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ecoenv.2005.02.012
Huang. J: Nkrumah. PN: Li. Y; Appiah-Sefah. G. (2013). Chemical behavior of phthalates under abiotic
conditions in landfills [Review], Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 224: 39-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-l-4614-5882-l 2
Huang. PC: Tien. CJ: Sun. YM; Hsieh. CY; Lee. CC. (2008). Occurrence of phthalates in sediment and
biota: Relationship to aquatic factors and the biota-sediment accumulation factor. Chemosphere
73: 539-544. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2008.06.019
I ARC. (2013). Some chemicals present in industrial and consumer products, food and drinking-water
[Review], In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (pp. 9-
549). Lyon, France: World Health Organization.
http ://monographs. iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol 101/mono 101 .pdf
Johnson. BT; Heitkamp. MA: Jones. JR. (1984). Environmental and chemical factors influencing the
biodegradation of phthalic-acid esters in freshwater sediments. Environ Pollut Ser B 8: 101-118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0143-148X(84)90021-1
Kao. PH: Lee. FY: Hseu. ZY. (2005). Sorption and biodegradation of phthalic acid esters in freshwater
sediments. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 40: 103-115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-2000336Q5
Karara. AH: Havton. WL. (1984). Pharmacokinetic model for the uptake and disposition of di-2-
ethylhexyl phthalate in sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus. Aquat Toxicol 5: 181-195.
Page 48 of 55
-------
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0166-445X(84)90019-5
Karara. AH; Hay ton. WL. (1989). A pharmacokinetic analysis of the effect of temperature on the
accumulation of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) in sheepshead minnow. Aquat Toxicol 15:
27-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-445X(89)90003-9
Keil. R; Salemme. K; Forrest. B; Neibauer. J: Logsdon. M. (2011). Differential presence of
anthropogenic compounds dissolved in the marine waters of Puget Sound, WA and Barkley
Sound, BC. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 2404-2411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.marpolbul.2011.08.029
Kick ham. P; Otton. SV: Moore. MM: Ikonomou. MG: Gobas. FAP. C. (2012). Relationship between
biodegradation and sorption of phthalate esters and their metabolites in natural sediments.
Environ Toxicol Chem 31: 1730-1737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.1903
Kong. YL; Shen. JM; Chen. ZL: Kang. J: Li. TP: Wu. XF: Kong. XZ: Fan. LT. (2017). Profiles and risk
assessment of phthalate acid esters (PAEs) in drinking water sources and treatment plants, East
China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24: 23646-23657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-Q17-9783-
x
Kotowska. U: Karpinska. J: Kapelewska. J: Koweisza. EM: Piotrowska-Niczyporuk. A: Piekutin. J:
Kotowski. A. (2018). Removal of phthalates and other contaminants from municipal wastewater
during cultivation of Wolffia arrhiza. Process Saf Environ Prot 120: 268.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.psep.2018.09.019
Kubwabo. C: Rasmussen. PE; Fan. X: Kosarac. I: Wu. F; Zidek. A: Kuchta. SL. (2013). Analysis of
selected phthalates in Canadian indoor dust collected using a household vacuum and a
standardized sampling techniques. Indoor Air 23: 506-514. http://dx.doi.org/10. Ill 1/ina. 12048
Larson. P; Thuren. A. (1987). D-2-ethylhexylphthlalate inhibits the hatching of frog eggs and is
bioaccumulated by tadpoles. Environ Toxicol Chem 6: 417-422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.56200606Q2
Lee. YM: Lee. JE: Choe. W: Kim. T: Lee. JY: Kho. Y: Choi. K: Zoh. KD. (2019). Distribution of
phthalate esters in air, water, sediments, and fish in the Asan Lake of Korea. Environ Int 126:
635-643. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2019.02.059
Lertsirisopon. R; Soda. S: Sei. K; Ike. M; Fuiita. M. (2006). Biodegradability of four phthalic acid esters
under anaerobic condition assessed using natural sediment. J Environ Sci 18: 793-796.
Li. Y. an: Huang. G: Gu. H. ua: Huang. O; Lou. C: Zhang. L. ei; Liu. H. (2018). Assessing the Risk of
Phthalate Ester (PAE) Contamination in Soils and Crops Irrigated with Treated Sewage Effluent.
Water 10: 999. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/wlQ080999
Lindequist Madsen. P; Bandsholm Thyme. J: Henriksen. K; Moldrup. P; Roslev. P. (1999). Kinetics of
di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mineralization in sludge-amended soil. Environ Sci Technol 33: 2601-
2606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es981015o
Liu. P; Tian. T; Barreto. J: Chou. J. (2013). Assessment and analysis of phthalate esters, in Lake
Pontchartrain, by SPME combining with GC-MS. Environ Technol 34: 453-462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2Q12.698653
Loraine. GA; Pettigrov. ME. (2006). Seasonal Variations in Concentrations of Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products in Drinking Water and Reclaimed Wastewater in Southern California.
Environ Sci Technol 40: 687-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es051380x
Lu. C. (2009). Prediction of environmental properties in water-soil-air systems for phthalates. Bull
Environ Contam Toxicol 83: 168-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sQ0128-009-9728-2
Ma. T; Luo. Y; Christie. P; Teng. Y; Liu. W. (2012). Removal of phthalic esters from contaminated soil
using different cropping systems: A field study. European Journal of Soil Biology 50: 76-82.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ei sobi.2011.12.001
Mackav. D; Di Guardo. A: Paterson. S: Cowan. CE. (1996). Evaluating the environmental fate of a
variety of types of chemicals using the EQC model. Environ Toxicol Chem 15: 1627-1637.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.562015Q929
Page 49 of 55
-------
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Mackintosh. CE; Maldonado. J: Hongwu. J; Hoover. N; Chong. A; Ikonomou. MG; Gobas. FA. (2004).
Distribution of phthalate esters in a marine aquatic food web: Comparison to poly chlorinated
biphenyls. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2011-2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034745r
Mackintosh. CE: Maldonado. JA; Ikonomou. MG: Gobas. FA. (2006). Sorption of phthalate esters and
PCBs in a marine ecosystem. Environ Sci Technol 40: 3481-3488.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0519637
Marttinen. SK; Kettunen. RH: Sormunen. KM: Rintala. JA. (2003). Removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate at a sewage treatment plant. Water Res 37: 1385-1393.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0043 -13 54(02)00486-4
Mitsunobu. S: Takahashi. Y. (2006). Study of the water solubility and sorption on particulate matters of
phthalate in the presence of humic acid using C-14 labelled di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Water
Air Soil Pollut 175:99-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl 1270-006-9115-0
Monsanto. (1976). Biodegradabilty of plasticizers [TSCA Submission], (EPA/OTS Doc #87-7800296S).
https://ntrl.ntis. gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults.xhtml?searchQuery=OTS0200240
Mueller. M; Klein. W. (1992). Comparative evaluation of methods predicting water solubility for
organic compounds. Chemosphere 25: 769-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(92)90067-
2
Mylona. SK: Assael. MJ; Antoniadis. KD; Polymatidou. SK: Karagiannidis. L. (2013). Measurements of
the Viscosity of Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Sebacate, Squalane, and Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate between
(283 and 363) K at 0.1 MPa. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 2805-2808.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie4005245
NCBI. (2020a). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 8343, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/8343
NCBI. (2020b). PubChem database: compound summary: diisononyl phthalate. Available online at
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Diisononyl-phthalate
Net. S: Sempere. R; Delmont. A: Paluselli. A: Ouddane. B. (2015). Occurrence, fate, behavior and
ecotoxicological state of phthalates in different environmental matrices [Review], Environ Sci
Technol 49: 4019-4035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es505233b
NIOSH. (1988). Occupational safety and health guideline for di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
potential human carcinogen. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
NIOSH. (2007). NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. (DHHS Publication No. (NIOSH) 2005-149;
CBRNIAC-CB-112149). Cincinnati, OH. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-149/
NIOSH. (2019). NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards: Di-sec octyl phthalate. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0236.html
NLM. (2015a). PubChem: Hazardous Substance Data Bank: Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 117-81-7.
Available online at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/8343#source=HSDB
NLM. (2015b). PubChem: Hazardous Substance Data Bank: Di-isononyl phthalate, 28553-12-0.
Available online at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/590836#source=HSDB
NLM. (2024). PubChem: Hazardous Substance Data Bank: Dibutyl phthalate, 84-74-2. Available online
at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3026
NTP. (1992). Toxicity studies of cresols (CAS Nos 95-48-7 108-39-4 106-44-5) in F344/N rats and
B6C3F1 mice (feed studies). (TR 9). Research Triangle Park, NC: Department of Health and
Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/st rpts/tox009.pdf?utm source=direct&utm medium=prod&
utm campaign=ntpgolinks&utm term=tox009
NTP. (2000a). Center For The Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction: NTP-CERHR Expert Panel
Report on Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (pp. 120). (NTPCERHRDEHPOO). National Toxicology
Page 50 of 55
-------
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Program Research Triangle Park(HHSNTP).
NTP. (2000b). NTP-CERHR expert panel report on di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. (NTP-CERHR-DEHP-
00). Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
https://web.archive.org/web/20011117125457/http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/DEHP-final.pdf
NTP. (2003). NTP-CERHR monograph on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects
of di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (pp. i-III90). (NIH Publication No. 03-4484). Research Triangle
Park, NC: National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/phthalates/dinp/dinp monograph final.pdf
NTP. (2021). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate administered in feed
to Sprague Dawley (HSD:Sprague Dawley SD) rats. (NTP TR 601). Research Triangle Park,
NC. http://dx.doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-601
O'Neil. MJ. (2013a). DEHP. 117-81-7. [Bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester] [Encyclopedia], InMJ O'Neill; PE
Heckelman; PH Dobbelaar; KJ Roman; CM Kenney; LS Karaffa (Eds.), The Merck index: An
encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals (15th ed., pp. 517). Cambridge, UK: The
Royal Society of Chemistry.
O'Neil. MJ. (2013b). Diisononyl phthalate. In MJ O'Neil; PE Heckelman; PH Dobbelaar; KJ Roman;
CM Kenney; LS Karaffa (Eds.), The Merck index (15th ed., pp. 517). Cambridge, UK: Royal
Society of Chemistry.
OEHHA. (2011). Appendix B: Chemical-specific summaries of the information used to derive unit risk
and cancer potency values. California: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixb.pdf
Osachoff HL; Mohammadali. M; Skirrow. RC; Hall. ER; Brown. LL; van Aggelen. GC; Kennedy. CJ;
Helbing. CC. (2014). Evaluating the treatment of a synthetic wastewater containing a
pharmaceutical and personal care product chemical cocktail: Compound removal efficiency and
effects on juvenile rainbow trout. Water Res 62C: 271-280.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2014.05.057
Painter. SE; Jones. WJ. (1990). Anaerobic bioconversion of phthalic acid esters by natural inocula.
Environ Technol 11: 1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095933390Q9384956
Park. C; Sheehan. RJ. (2000). Phthalic acids and other benzenepolycarboxylic acids. In Kirk-Othmer
encyclopedia of chemical toxicology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/0471238961.1608200816011811
Petersen. SO; Henriksen. K; Mortensen. GK; Krogh. PH; Brandt. KK; Sorensen. J; Madsen. T; Petersen.
J; Gron. C. (2003). Recycling of sewage sludge and household compost to arable land: Fate and
effects of organic contaminants, and impact on soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res 72: 139-152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/50167-1987(03)00084-9
Preece. AS; Shu. H; Knutz. M; Krais. AM; Wikstrom. S; Bornehag. CG. (2021). Phthalate levels in
indoor dust and associations to croup in the SELMA study. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 31:
257-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41370-020-00264-7
Preston. MR; Al-Omran. LA. (1989). Phthalate ester speciation in estuarine water, suspended
particulates and sediments. Environ Pollut 62: 183-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/Q269-
7491(89)90186-3
Price. DM. (2001). Volatilisation, evaporation and vapour pressure studies using a thermobalance. J
Therm Anal Calorim 64: 315-322. http ://dx. doi .org/10.1023/A: 1011522020908
Price. KS; Waggy. GT; Conway. RA. (1974). Brine shrimp bioassay and seawater BOD of
petrochemicals. Water Environment and Technology 46: 63-77.
Roslev. P; Madsen. PL; Thyme. JB; Henriksen. K. (1998). Degradation of phthalate and Di-(2-
Ethylhexyl)phthalate by indigenous and inoculated microorganisms in sludge-amended soil.
Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 4711-4719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.64.12.4711-4719.1998
Page 51 of 55
-------
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Roslev. P; Vorkamp. K; Aarup. J; Frederiksen. K; Nielsen. PH. (2007). Degradation of phthalate esters
in an activated sludge wastewater treatment plant. Water Res 41: 969-976.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2006.ll.04
Rossol. M; Pierer. M; Arnold. S; Kevsser. G; Burkhardt H; Baerwald. C; Wagner. U. (2009). Negative
association of the chemokine receptor CCR5 d32 polymorphism with systemic inflammatory
response, extra-articular symptoms and joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar2733
Rtidel. H; Schmidt. S: Kordel. W: Klein. W. (1993). Degradation of pesticides in soil: comparison of
laboratory experiments in a biometer system and outdoor lysimeter experiments. Sci Total
Environ 132: 181-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(93)90131 -O
Rumble. JR. (2018a). Flammability of chemical substances. In CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics (99 ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group.
Rumble. JR. (Ed.). (2018b). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. In CRC handbook of chemistry and physics (99
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group.
Sablavrolles. C: Silvestre. J: Lhoutellier. C: Montreiaud-Vignoles. M. (2013). Phthalates uptake by
tomatoes after biosolids application: worst case and operational practice in greenhouse
conditions. Fresen Environ Bull 22: 1064-1074.
Saeger. VW; Tucker. ES. (1976). Biodegradation of phthalic acid esters in river water and activated
sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 31: 29-34. http://dx.doi.Org/10.l 128/AEM.31.1.29-34.1976
Salaudeen. T; Okoh. O; Agunbiade. F; Okoh. A. (2018). Fate and impact of phthalates in activated
sludge treated municipal wastewater on the water bodies in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Chemosphere 203: 336-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2018.03.176
Schmitzer. JL; Scheunert. I: Korte. F. (1988). Fate of bis(2-ethylhexyl) ( super(14)C)phthalate in
laboratory and outdoor soil-plant systems. J Agric Food Chem 36: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/if00Q79a053
Scholz. N: Diefenbach. R; Rademacher. I; Linnemann. D. (1997). Biodegradation of DEHP, DBP, and
DINP: poorly water soluble and widely used phthalate plasticizers. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
58: 527-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sQ01289900367
Shanker. R; Ramakrishna. C: Seth. PK. (1985). Degradation of some phthalic-acid esters in soil. Environ
Pollut Ser A 39: 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0143-1471(85)90057-1
Shao. XL: Ma. J. (2009). Fate and mass balance of 13 kinds of endocrine disrupting chemicals in a
sewage treatment plant. In 2009 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical
Engineering, Vols 1-11. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICBBE.2009.516285Q
SRC. (1983). Exhibit I shake flask biodegradation of 14 commercial phthalate esters [TSCA
Submission], (SRC L1543-05. OTS0508481. 42005 G5-2. 40-8326129. TSCATS/038111).
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/QTS0508481.xhtml
SRC. (1984). Activated sludge biodegradation of 12 commercial phthalate esters contract No. PE-17.0-
ET-SRC [TSCA Submission], (SRC-TR-84-643. OTS0508490. 42005 G9-2. 40-8426080.
TSCATS/038162). Chemical Manufacturers Association.
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/OTS050849Q.xhtml
Stasinakis. A: Petalas. A: Mamais. D; Thomaidis. N. (2008). Application of the OECD 301F
respirometric test for the biodegradability assessment of various potential endocrine disrupting
chemicals. Bioresour Technol 99: 3458-3467. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.biortech.2007.08.002
Streufert. JM; Jones. JR; Sanders. HO. (1980). Toxicity and biological effects of phthalate esters on
midges (Chironomus plumosus). Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science 14: 33-40.
Subba-Rao. RV: Rubin. HE: Alexander. M. (1982). Kinetics and extent of mineralization of organic
chemicals at trace levels in freshwater and sewage. Appl Environ Microbiol 43: 1139-1150.
Page 52 of 55
-------
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/aem.43.5.1139-1150.1982
Sun. J; Wu, X; Gan. J. (2015). Uptake and metabolism of phthalate esters by edible plants. Environ Sci
Technol 49: 8471-8478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01233
Tabak. HH; Quave. SA; Mashni. CI: Barth. EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority
pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53: 1503-1518.
Teil. MJ: Tlili. K; Blanchard. M; Chevreuil. M; Alliot F; Labadie. P. (2012). Occurrence of
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Phthalates in Freshwater Fish
From the Orge River (Ile-de France). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 63: 101-113.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00244-011 -9746-z
Thomas. JM; Yordv. JR; Amador. JA; Alexander. M. (1986). Rates of dissolution and biodegradation of
water-insoluble organic compounds. Appl Environ Microbiol 52: 290-296.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1128/AEM.52.2.290-296.1986
Tran. BC: Teil. MJ: Blanchard. M; Alliot. F; Chevreuil. M. (2014). BPA and phthalate fate in a sewage
network and an elementary river of France. Influence of hydroclimatic conditions. Chemosphere
119C: 43-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2014.04.036
Tran. BC: Teil. MJ: Blanchard. M; Alliot. F; Chevreuil. M. (2015). Fate of phthalates and BPA in
agricultural and non-agricultural soils of the Paris area (France). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:
11118-11126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl 1356-015-4178-3
U.S. EPA. (1982). Fate of priority pollutants in publicly owned treatment works, Volume i. (EPA 440/1-
82/303). Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines Division.
http://nepis.epa. gov/exe/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=000012HL.txt
U.S. EPA. (1993). Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge: Final rules [EPA Report], (EPA
822/Z-93-001). Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (2012a). Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer
Program], Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-
suitetm-estimation-program-interface
U.S. EPA. (2012b). Sustainable futures: P2 framework manual [EPA Report], (EPA/748/B-12/001).
Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-futures/sustainable-futures-p2-framework-
manual
U.S. EPA. (2017). Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ v.4.11. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention Toxics. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/download-epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface-
v411
U.S. EPA. (2019). Comptox Chemicals Dashboard: Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CASRN 117-81-7).
Available online at
https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?search=DTXSID5020607 (accessed January
24, 2022).
U.S. EPA. (2021a). Draft systematic review protocol supporting TSCA risk evaluations for chemical
substances, Version 1.0: A generic TSCA systematic review protocol with chemical-specific
methodologies. (EPA Document #EPA-D-20-031). Washington, DC: Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention, https://www.regulations. gov/document/EPA-HQ-QPPT-2021 -0414-
0005
U.S. EPA. (2021b). Final scope of the risk evaluation for di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (1,2-benzene-
dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-diisononyl ester, and 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched
alkyl esters, C9-rich); CASRNs 28553-12-0 and 68515-48-0 [EPA Report], (EPA-740-R-21-
002). Washington, DC: Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/casrn-28553-12-0-di-isononvl-phthalate-
final-scope.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2024a). Draft Data Quality Evaluation and Data Extraction Information for Physical and
Page 53 of 55
-------
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
Chemical Properties for Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP). Washington, DC: Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
U.S. EPA. (2024b). Risk Evaluation for Tris(2-Chloroethyl) Phosphate (TCEP) - Systematic Review
Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation and Data Extraction Information for Environmental
Fate and Transport. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2023-0265-0029
Union Carbide. (1974). Environmental impact analysis product biodegradability testing [TSCA
Submission], (Project No. 910F44. File 19751. OTS0206066. 878212060. TSCATS/017096).
Union Carbide Corp.
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/OTS0206Q66.xhtml
Vavilin. V. (2007). Corrected first-order model of DEHP degradation. Chemosphere 68: 1992-1995.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2007.02.040
Verbruggen. EM: Klamer. HJC: Villerius. L; Brinkman. UAT; Hermens. JL. (1999). Gradient elution
reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography for fractionation of complex mixtures
of organic micropollutants according to hydrophobicity using isocratic retention parameters. J
Chromatogr A 835: 19-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(97)90065-0
WA DOE. (2022). Survey of phthalates in Washington State waterbodies, 2021. (Publication 22-03-
027). Olympia, WA. https://apps.ecologv.wa.gov/publications/documents/2203027.pdf
Wang. W: Wu, FY: Huang. MJ; Kang. Y; Cheung. KC: Wong. MH. (2013). Size fraction effect on
phthalate esters accumulation, bioaccessibility and in vitro cytotoxicity of indoor/outdoor dust,
and risk assessment of human exposure. J Hazard Mater 261: 753-762.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ihazmat.2013.04.039
Williams. MP: Adams. WJ: Parkerton. TF; Biddinger. GR; Robillard. KA. (1995). Sediment sorption
coefficient measurements for four phthalate esters: Experimental results and model theory.
Environ Toxicol Chem 14: 1477-1486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.56201409Q6
Wofford. HW: Wilsev. CD: Neff. GS: Giam. CS: Neff. JM. (1981). Bioaccumulation and metabolism of
phthalate esters by oysters, brown shrimp, and sheepshead minnows. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 5:
202-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-6513(81)90035-x
Wu. O: Lam. JCW: Kwok. KY; Tsui. MMP; Lam. PKS. (2017). Occurrence and fate of endogenous
steroid hormones, alkylphenol ethoxylates, bisphenol A and phthalates in municipal sewage
treatment systems. J Environ Sci 61: 49-58. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ies.2017.02.021
Wvlie. GD; Jones. JR; Johnson. BT. (1982). Evaluation of the river die-away biodegradation test. J
Water Pollut Control Fed 54: 1231-1236.
Yang. GCC: Liou. SH; Wang. CL. (2014). The Influences of Storage and Further Purification on
Residual Concentrations of Pharmaceuticals and Phthalate Esters in Drinking Water. Water Air
Soil Pollut 225: 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll270-Q14-1968-z
Yu. O: Xiong. X: He. J: Zuo. Y; Chen. Y; Wang. C. (2019). Photolysis of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
aqueous solutions at the presence of natural water photoreactive constituents under simulated
sunlight irradiation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 26: 26797-26806.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-019-Q5913-5
Yuan. SY; Lin. YY; Chang. BY. (2011). Biodegradation of phthalate esters in polluted soil by using
organic amendment. J Environ Sci Health B 46: 419-425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/036Q1234.2011.572512
Yuan. SY: Liu. C: Liao. CS: Chang. BY. (2002). Occurrence and microbial degradation of phthalate
esters in Taiwan river sediments. Chemosphere 49: 1295-1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/sQ045-
6535(02)00495-2
Yuwatini. E; Hata. N: Taguchi. S. (2006). Behavior of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate discharged from
domestic waste water into aquatic environment. J Environ Monit 8: 191-196.
Page 54 of 55
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT
December 2024
1621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b509767c
1622 Zhu. F; Zhu. C; Doyle. E; Liu. H; Zhou. D; Gao. J. (2018). Fate of di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
1623 different soils and associated bacterial community changes. Sci Total Environ 637-638: 460-469.
1624 http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2018.05.055
1625 Zhu. F; Zhu. C: Zhou. D; Gao. J. (2019). Fate of di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and its impact on soil
1626 bacterial community under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Chemosphere 216: 84-93.
1627 http: //dx. doi. or g/10.1016/i. chemosphere .2018.10.078
1628
Page 55 of 55
------- |