Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.
The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 244-034-6 | CAS number: 20780-49-8
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Skin irritation
The dermal irritation potential of the given test chemical was determined in various studies conducted on rabbits and human. Based on the available studies, it can be concluded that the test chemical is unable to cause skin irritation and thus it cannot be classified as per CLP regulation.
Eye irritation
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not irritating to eyes. Thus, it cannot be classified as per CLP regulation.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Justification for type of information:
- data is from peer reviewed journal.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: as per mentioned below
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- To assess the dermal irritation potential of the given test chemical in humans.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Dihydrocitronellyl acetate
IUPAC name: 3,7-dimethyl-1-octyl acetate
Molecular formula: C12H24O2
Molecular weight: 200.32 g/mol
Smiles notation: C([C@@H](CCOC(C)=O)C)CCC(C)C
InChl: 1S/C12H24O2/c110(2)65711(3)891412(v4)13/h1011H,59H2,14H3
Substance Type: Organic
Physical State: Liquid - Species:
- other: humans
- Strain:
- not specified
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- No data available
- Type of coverage:
- occlusive
- Preparation of test site:
- not specified
- Vehicle:
- other: Petrolatum
- Controls:
- not specified
- Amount / concentration applied:
- TEST MATERIAL
- Concentration (if solution): 8% in Petrolatum - Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 48 hours
- Observation period:
- 48 hours
- Number of animals:
- No data available
- Details on study design:
- No data available
- Irritation parameter:
- overall irritation score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 48 h
- Reversibility:
- not specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of irritation
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- not irritating
- Other effects:
- No data available
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not irritating
- Conclusions:
- The given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to humans after 48 hours exposure.
- Executive summary:
A skin irritation study was performed by using the given test chemical in humans to assess the irritation potential. Test chemical was tested 8% in petrolatum on human volunteers in a 48 hours closed patch test. No indication of irritation was observed. Hence, the given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to humans after 48 hours exposure.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vivo
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Remarks:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Justification for type of information:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- WoE report is based on 2 studies as - WoE 2 and WoE 3.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Species:
- rabbit
- Strain:
- other: 2. not specified 3. New Zealand White
- Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
- 2. no data available
3. no data - Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- yes
- Amount / concentration applied:
- 2. 0.5 ml
3. 0.1 ml - Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 2. no data available
3. single instillation - Observation period (in vivo):
- 2. no data available
3. Observations were made after 1 hour, 4 hours and then 1,2,3 and 7 days after instillation of test chemical - Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):
- 2. no data available
3. No data available - Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- 2. no data available
3. 4 rabbits - Details on study design:
- 2. TEST SITE
Area of exposure: eye
% coverage: No data
Type of wrap if used: no wrap used
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
Washing (if done): no data
Time after start of exposure: no data
SCORING SYSTEM:
Grade 1 indicates at most a very small area of necrosis resulting from 0.5 ml of undiluted chemical in the eye. Grade 5 indicates a so-called severe burn from 0.005 ml, and Grade 10 indicates a severe burn from 0.5 ml of a 1% solution in water or propylene glycol
3. TEST SITE
- Area of exposure: conjunctival sac
SCORING SYSTEM: According to the Draize method
Grading Scale for Eye Irritation:
Cornea Grade
Opacity: degree of density (readings should be taken from most dense area)*
No ulceration or opacity = 0
Scattered or diffuse areas of opacity (other than slight dulling of normal lustre); details of iris slightly obscured = 1
Easily discernible translucent area; details of iris slightly obscured = 2
Opalescent area; no details of iris visible; size of pupil barely discernible = 3
Opaque cornea; iris not discernible through the opacity = 4
Iris
Normal = 0
Markedly deepened rugae, congestion, swelling, moderate circumcorneal hyperaemia; or injection; iris reactive to light (a sluggish reaction is considered to be an effect = 1
Hemorrhage, gross destruction, or no reaction to light = 2
Maximum possible: 2
Conjunctivae
Redness (refers to palpebral and bulbar conjunctivae; excluding cornea and iris)
Vessels Normal = 0
Vessels definitely injected above normal = 1
Diffuse, crimson colour; individual vessels not easily discernible = 2
Diffuse beefy red = 3
Chemosis
Swelling (refers to lids and/or nictating membranes)
Normal = 0
Any swelling above normal (includes nictating membrane)= 1
Obvious swelling, with partial eversion of lids = 2
Swelling, with lids about half closed = 3
Swelling, with lids more than half closed= 4
Overall Maximum Possible Score = 110 - Irritation parameter:
- overall irritation score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- other: no data available
- Score:
- 1
- Max. score:
- 10
- Reversibility:
- not specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of irritation
- Remarks:
- 2
- Irritation parameter:
- other: Modified Maximum Average Score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- other: 1 days
- Score:
- 7.5
- Max. score:
- 110
- Reversibility:
- fully reversible
- Remarks:
- 7 days
- Remarks on result:
- other: Conjunctival redness and chemosis was observed in all animals after 1 day of observation
- Remarks:
- 3
- Irritation parameter:
- other: Modified Maximum Average Score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- other: 7 days
- Score:
- 0
- Max. score:
- 110
- Reversibility:
- not specified
- Remarks on result:
- other: no effects observed
- Remarks:
- 3
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- 2. No irritation observed
3. Conjunctival redness and chemosis was observed in all animals after 1 day of observation - Interpretation of results:
- other: not irritating
- Conclusions:
- Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not irritating to eyes. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.
- Executive summary:
The ocular irritation potential was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.These studies have been summarized as below -
An eye irritation study was carried out by using the given test chemical to evaluate the irritation potential. 0.5 ml of undiluted chemical was instilled into the eye of rabbits. Observations were made after instillation of test chemical. Eye injury in rabbits was recorded in a 10- grade ordinal series and was based upon the degree of corneal necrosis that results from instillation of various volumes and concentrations of chemical. Primary Eye Irritation score after 24 hours for the given test chemical was Grade 1. Based on the grade, it was considered to be not irritating to eyes.
The above study is supported by the results of an eye irritation study conducted to evaluate the irritant nature of the test chemical in rabbits as per OECD 405 “EYE IRRITATION”. 0.1 ml of the test chemical was instilled into the conjunctival sac of 4 New Zealand White rabbits. Observations were made after 1 hour, 4 hours and then 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after instillation of test chemical. The scoring was done according to the Draize method. Conjunctival redness and chemosis was observed in all animals after 1 day of observation. The MMAS (Maximum Modified Average Score) of the given test chemical was 7.5 after 1 day of observation. The effects were recovered fully after 7 days and the MMAS scores were 0.0. Based on the classification of chemicals according to MMAS scores, test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to rabbit eyes.
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not irritating to eyes. Thus, it cannot be classified as per CLP regulation.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Skin Irritation:
In different studies, the given test chemical has been investigated for the dermal irritation potential to a greater or lesser extent. The studies are based on in-vivo experiments conducted in humans and rabbits that have been summarized as below -
A skin irritation study was performed by using the given test chemical in humans to assess the irritation potential. Test chemical was tested 8% in petrolatum on human volunteers in a 48 hours closed patch test. No indication of irritation was observed. Hence, the given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to humans after 48 hours exposure.
The above study is supported with another skin irritation study performed in rabbits to assess the irritation potential. Undiluted test chemical was applied under occlusion to the intact and abraded skin of rabbits for 24 hours. The rabbits were observed for signs of irritation. Slight to moderate irritation was observed to rabbit skin, Hence, the given test chemical was considered to be slightly to moderately irritating to rabbit skin after 24 hours exposure.
Skin irritation effects were estimated by four different models i.e, Battery, Leadscope, SciQSAR and CASE Ultra used within Danish QSAR database for the given test chemical. Based on estimation, no severe skin irritation effects were known when the given test chemical was exposed to rabbit skin. Hence, it can be considered as not irritating to skin.
The estimated data is supported by another skin irritation study performed in rabbits to assess the irritation potential. Undiluted test chemical was applied under occlusion to the intact and abraded skin in rabbits for 24 hours. The rabbits were observed for signs of irritation. No irritation was observed. Hence, the given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to rabbit skin after 24 hours exposure.
The above study is supported with the study performed in humans to assess the irritation potential by using the given test chemical. The chemical was applied as 2% in petrolatum and tested on human volunteers in a 48 hours closed patch test. The volunteers were observed for signs of irritation. No irritation observed. Hence, the given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to human skin after 48 hours exposure.
All the above results are further supported with the skin irritation study conducted on rabbits to determine the degree of skin irritancy of the given test chemical. Each rabbit received neat chemical on intact or abraded skin for 24 hours under occlusive condition and later observed for skin lesions. Since the treated rabbits showed no signs of irritation, the given test chemical was considered to be not irritating to the intact or abraded skin of rabbits.
Even though the results of study on rabbits indicate a possibility of the test chemical being irritating to skin, but the remaining studies suggest otherwise. Also, the estimation on skin irritation effects due to the test chemical indicates a negative effect. Taking into consideration, all these parameters, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the given test chemical cannot be classified for “Skin Irritation”.
Eye irritation
The ocular irritation potential was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.These studies have been summarized as below -
An eye irritation study was carried out by using the given test chemical to evaluate the irritation potential. 0.5 ml of undiluted chemical was instilled into the eye of rabbits. Observations were made after instillation of test chemical. Eye injury in rabbits was recorded in a 10- grade ordinal series and was based upon the degree of corneal necrosis that results from instillation of various volumes and concentrations of chemical. Primary Eye Irritation score after 24 hours for the given test chemical was Grade 1. Based on the grade, it was considered to be not irritating to eyes.
The above study is supported by the results of an eye irritation study conducted to evaluate the irritant nature of the test chemical in rabbits as per OECD 405 “EYE IRRITATION”. 0.1 ml of the test chemical was instilled into the conjunctival sac of 4 New Zealand White rabbits. Observations were made after 1 hour, 4 hours and then 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after instillation of test chemical. The scoring was done according to the Draize method. Conjunctival redness and chemosis was observed in all animals after 1 day of observation. The MMAS (Maximum Modified Average Score) of the given test chemical was 7.5 after 1 day of observation. The effects were recovered fully after 7 days and the MMAS scores were 0.0. Based on the classification of chemicals according to MMAS scores, test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to rabbit eyes.
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not irritating to eyes. Thus, it cannot be classified as per CLP regulation.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Even though the results of study on rabbits indicate a possibility of the test chemical being irritating to skin, but the remaining studies suggest otherwise. Also, the estimation on skin irritation effects due to the test chemical indicates a negative effect. Taking into consideration, all these parameters, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the given test chemical cannot be classified for “Skin Irritation”.
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not irritating to eyes. Thus, it cannot be classified as per CLP regulation.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.