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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 947-940-6 | CAS number: -
- 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
There is no study on skin sensitisation available with the target substance. In a Local Lymph Node Assay performed with the structural analogue substance Reaction mass of calcium 2,6-bis(3-carboxylatopropanamido)hexanoate and isomers of calcium amino-(3-carboxylatopropanamido)hexanoate no skin sensitising potential was reported.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- October 10, 2016 - February 2, 2017
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- 22 July 2010
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- 30 May 2008, amendment L193/3 20 July 2012
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- March 2003
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA/Ca
- Remarks:
- Ola Hsd
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: TOXI-COOP ZRT. H-1103, Budapest, Cserkesz u. 90. Hungary
- Females nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Age at study initiation: 11-12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 18.7 – 22.3 g
- Housing: Type II polypropylene/polycarbonate, grouped caging
- Diet: ad libitum, ssniff® Rat/Souris-Elevage E complete diet for rats and mice produced by ssniff Spezialdiäten GmbH, D-59494 Soest Germany
- Water: ad libitum, tap water
- Acclimation period: 14 days
- Indication of any skin lesions: none
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 ± 3
- Humidity (%): 30 – 70
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 - Vehicle:
- other: 1 % (w/v) Pluronic®PE 9200 (Plu)
- Concentration:
- The test item was formulated in Plu and evaluated at concentrations of 50 %, 25 % or 10 % (w/v). Due to its viscosity the test item was not suitable for application on the ears of animals at 100 % (w/v) concentration (i.e. as the undiluted form).
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TEST:
The pre-experiment on formulation evaluation and the Dose Range Finding test were not performed in compliance with the GLP-Regulations.
- Compound solubility: Due to its viscosity the test item was not suitable for application on the ears of animals at 100 % (w/v) concentration (i.e. as the undiluted form). The test item was appropriately miscible with the vehicle 1% (w/v) Pluronic®PE 9200 (Plu).
- Irritation: none
- Systemic toxicity: none
- Ear thickness measurements: no changes compared to results prior first treatment
- Erythema scores: 0
MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: LLNA
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: Exposure to at least one concentration (non-irritating, non-toxic) of the test item resulted in an incorporation of 3HTdR at least 3-fold or greater than recorded in control mice, as indicated by the stimulation index (SI ≥ 3). However, the strength of the dose-response, the statistical significance and the consistency of the solvent/vehicle and PC responses may also be used when determining whether a borderline result is declared positive.
TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Each mouse was topically treated with 25 μL of the appropriate formulations of the test item, of the positive control substance or of the negative controls. The formulations were applied, with a pipette, on the dorsal surface of each ear. Each animal was dosed once a day for three consecutive days (Days 1, 2 and 3). There were no treatments on Days 4, 5 and 6. On Day 6 each mouse was intravenously injected via the tail vein with 250 μL of sterile PBS containing 20 μCi of 3H-methyl-thymidine using a hypodermic needle with 1 mL sterile syringe.
Five hours (± 30 minutes) after intravenous injection the mice were sacrificed by cervical dislocation. The draining auricular lymph nodes were excised. A single cell suspension of lymph node cells of each individual animal was prepared. Samples were transferred to suitable sized scintillation vials containing 10 mL of scintillation liquid and loaded into a β-scintillation counter for the measurement of incorporated radioactivity. The β-counter expresses the 3HTdR incorporation as the amount of radioactive disintegration per minute (DPM). Similarly, background 3HTdR levels were also measured in two 1 mL aliquots of 5 % (w/v) TCA. - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Statistics:
- The measured DPM values corrected with the mean background value were used for statistical analysis of the proliferation data. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS/PC+ (4.0.1) software package.
The heterogeneity of variance between the groups treated with the test item or the vehicle control (Plu) was checked by Bartlett's test. Since significant heterogeneity was detected, the normal distribution of data was examined by Kolmogorow-Smirnow test followed by the non-parametric method of Kruskal-Wallis One-Way analysis of variance. As a result of this analysis the inter-group comparison was performed using Mann-Whitney U-test to assess the significance of inter-group differences. Significance of the positive control response was evaluated by t-test versus the relevant vehicle control (AOO).
Significance of the dose-response was evaluated by linear regression made with Microsoft Excel Software. - Positive control results:
- The positive control group animals were treated with 25 % HCA solution concurrent to the test item treated groups. No mortality, cutaneous reactions or signs of toxicity were observed in the positive control group. The positive control substance induced the appropriate, statistically significant stimulation compared to the relevant control (p < 0.01, t-test). The calculated SI value was 21.8. The results of the positive control item demonstrated appropriate performance of the test in accordance with the relevant guidelines and confirmed sensitivity and validity of the assay.
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for test item (Plu)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for the positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 21.8
- Test group / Remarks:
- positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 2.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 308.3
- Variability:
- 118
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for test item (Plu)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 453.5
- Variability:
- 375.4
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for the positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 9 905.3
- Variability:
- 2752.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 821.9
- Variability:
- 864.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 202.9
- Variability:
- 52.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 438.5
- Variability:
- 36.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10% test item
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- CELLULAR PROLIFERATION DATA
Visually larger lymph nodes compared to the relevant vehicle controls (Aceton:Olive Oil or Plu) were observed in the positive control group (5/5 animals) and in the 50 % (w/v) dose group (1/5 animals). Visual appearance of the lymph nodes were normal in both negative (vehicle) control groups and in the test item treated groups (except 1 animal in the 50 % (w/v) dose group). In the 50 % (w/v) dose group individual DPM values observed for two animals significantly differed from the values observed for the other three animals. This resulted in an SI value of 2.7 which is close to the threshold value of 3. It is considered that differences in individual sensitivity of the animals may result in this deviation. It cannot be concluded obviously that these increased values are real indication of sensitization potential of the test item as proliferation values observed for the other animals in this dose group were comparable with the relevant control values. It is supported by result of the statistical analysis where no statistical significance was observed at the 50 % (w/v) dose group and also by lack of a significant dose-response relationship. Although statistical significance was observed in the 10 % (w/v) dose group (p < 0.05) no biological relevance was considered since proliferation values observed in the higher (25 %, w/v) dose group did not differ significantly from the control values and the group DPM value (calculated from the individual DPM values) of the 10 % (w/v) dose group was within the historical vehicle control range.
DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION
DPM was measured for each animal. The results were expressed also as disintegration per node (DPN) (DPM divided by the number of lymph nodes). The mean DPM and DPN values and associated error terms were calculated for each treatment group. The stimulation index (SI = the mean DPN of a treated (positive control or test item) group divided by the DPN of the respective negative control group) for each treatment group was also calculated. A SI value of 3 or greater is an indication of a positive result. All calculations were made by Microsoft Excel Software. Based on the results EC3 value (dose calculated to induce a stimulation index of 3) was not calculated.
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS
No mortality or symptoms of systemic toxicity were observed in any treatment group. No sign of irritation (indicated by an erythema score ≥ 3) or other local effects were observed in any treatment groups.
BODY WEIGHTS
Body weights decrease by > 5 % were observed in the following treatment groups: vehicle control for the positive control (Aceton, 1/5 animals, 7 % decrease) and the 10 % (w/v) dose group (1/5 animals, 8 % decrease). The observed effect on the body weights was considered neither significant nor treatment related. - Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of the present assay, the substance tested at the maximum feasible concentration of 50 % and also at concentrations of 25 % or 10 % (w/v) as formulations in a suitable vehicle (aqueous 1 % (w/v) Pluronic®PE 9200) was shown to have no skin sensitization potential in the Local Lymph Node Assay.
- Executive summary:
A study according OECD TG 429, EU method B.42 and EPA OPPTS 870.2600 was performed to determine the skin sensitization potential of the test item following dermal exposure in the Local Lymph Node Assay. An individual approach was used in this test. The vehicle and maximum dose selection was performed according to the relevant guidelines.
Due to its viscosity the test item was not suitable for application on the ears of animals at 100 % (w/v) concentration. Formulations were prepared with the standard vehicle of aqueous 1 % (w/v) Pluronic®PE 9200 (Plu). The test item was appropriately miscible with the vehicle. In the pre-experiment no adverse effects were observed at test concentrations of 50 %, 25 % or 10 %; w/v), hence the test item was examined in the main test at the maximum feasible concentration (based on solubility) of 50 % and at 25 % or 10 % (w/v) concentrations as formulations in Plu.
Appropriate positive control and two negative control groups (dosed with the vehicles of the test and positive control groups, respectively) were employed.
The positive control item α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (25 % (w/v) in Acetone: Olive oil 4:1 (v/v) mixture) induced the appropriate, statistically significant stimulation over the control, thus confirming the validity of the assay.
No mortality was observed during the main test. No significant, treatment related effect on body weights was considered during the test. No other signs of systemic toxicity were observed in any treatment group. No visible signs of irritation or other local effects were observed in any treatment group.
No significant lymphoproliferative response indicated by an SI ≥ 3 was observed at the tested concentrations. In the 50 % (w/v) dose group the proliferation values observed for two of five animals were remarkably higher than the values observed for the other animals of the same dose group. This resulted in an SI value of 2.7 which is close to the threshold value of 3. However, these differences may be due to individual sensitivity of the animals. This assumption is supported by proliferation values observed for the other animals in this dose group that were similar to the relevant control values. Therefore, and considering the lack of a dose response relationship, it cannot be concluded that these increased values are real indication of sensitization potential of the test item.
Individual DPM values were statistically evaluated by Mann-Whitney U-test. No statistical significance compared to the relevant control (Plu) was observed in the 50 % (w/v) dose group (outlier values were included in the evaluation) and in the 25 % (w/v) dose group. Although statistical significance was observed in the 10 % (w/v) dose group (p < 0.05) no biological relevance was considered.
In accordance with evaluation criteria of the relevant guidelines the lack of a significantly increased lymphoproliferation up to the maximum attainable concentration of 50 % (w/v, based on solubility) and also the lack of a significant dose-response relationship are considered evidence that the test item is not a skin sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Data waiving:
- study scientifically not necessary / other information available
- Justification for data waiving:
- an in vitro skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted because adequate data from an in vivo skin sensitisation study are available
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Justification for type of information:
- Please refer to section 13 for "Read-Across justification".
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for test item (Plu)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for the positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 21.8
- Test group / Remarks:
- positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 2.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 308.3
- Variability:
- 118
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for test item (Plu)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: vehicle control for test item (Plu)
- Value:
- 453.5
- Variability:
- 375.4
- Test group / Remarks:
- vehicle control for the positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 9 905.3
- Variability:
- 2752.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- positive control
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 821.9
- Variability:
- 864.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 202.9
- Variability:
- 52.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% test item
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: Disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 438.5
- Variability:
- 36.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10% test item
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The skin sensitisation potential was addressed with a read-across approach to the analogue substance Reaction mass of calcium 2,6-bis(3-carboxylatopropanamido)hexanoate and isomers of calcium amino-(3-carboxylatopropanamido)hexanoate:
Skin sensitisation
A study according OECD TG 429, EU method B.42 and EPA OPPTS 870.2600 was performed to determine the skin sensitization potential of the test item following dermal exposure in the Local Lymph Node Assay. An individual approach was used in this test. The vehicle and maximum dose selection was performed according to the relevant guidelines.
Due to its viscosity the test item was not suitable for application on the ears of animals at 100 % (w/v) concentration. Formulations were prepared with the standard vehicle of aqueous 1 % (w/v) Pluronic®PE 9200 (Plu). The test item was appropriately miscible with the vehicle. In the pre-experiment no adverse effects were observed at test concentrations of 50 %, 25 % or 10 %; w/v), hence the test item was examined in the main test at the maximum feasible concentration (based on solubility) of 50 % and at 25 % or 10 % (w/v) concentrations as formulations in Plu.
Appropriate positive control and two negative control groups (dosed with the vehicles of the test and positive control groups, respectively) were employed.
The positive control item α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (25 % (w/v) in Acetone: Olive oil 4:1 (v/v) mixture) induced the appropriate, statistically significant stimulation over the control, thus confirming the validity of the assay.
No mortality was observed during the main test. No significant, treatment related effect on body weights was considered during the test. No other signs of systemic toxicity were observed in any treatment group. No visible signs of irritation or other local effects were observed in any treatment group.
No significant lymphoproliferative response indicated by an SI ≥ 3 was observed at the tested concentrations. In the 50 % (w/v) dose group the proliferation values observed for two of five animals were remarkably higher than the values observed for the other animals of the same dose group. This resulted in an SI value of 2.7 which is close to the threshold value of 3. However, these differences may be due to individual sensitivity of the animals. This assumption is supported by proliferation values observed for the other animals in this dose group that were similar to the relevant control values. Therefore, and considering the lack of a dose response relationship, it cannot be concluded that these increased values are real indication of sensitization potential of the test item.
Individual DPM values were statistically evaluated by Mann-Whitney U-test. No statistical significance compared to the relevant control (Plu) was observed in the 50 % (w/v) dose group (outlier values were included in the evaluation) and in the 25 % (w/v) dose group. Although statistical significance was observed in the 10 % (w/v) dose group (p < 0.05) no biological relevance was considered.
In accordance with evaluation criteria of the relevant guidelines the lack of a significantly increased lymphoproliferation up to the maximum attainable concentration of 50 % (w/v, based on solubility) and also the lack of a significant dose-response relationship are considered evidence that the test item is not a skin sensitizer.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Classification, Labelling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008
The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for classification purposes under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Based on available data on skin sensitisation obtained with an analogue substance, the test item is not classified as skin sensitizer according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended for the seventeenth time in Regulation (EU) 2021/849.
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.