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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 288-927-9 | CAS number: 85940-40-5
- 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
- DPRA test: negative
- ARE reporter assay: negative
- MUSST assay: positive
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Remarks:
- DPRA test
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2012/13
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, 8ailey RE, Chaney JG, Morrall SW, Lepoittevin JP.
Development of a Peptide Reactivity Assay for Screening Contact Allergens.
Toxicological Seiences 81 ,332-343, 2004.
Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Foertsch LM, Price 88, Chaney JG, Lepoittenvin JP.
Quantificationn of Chemical Peptide Reactivity for Screening Contact Allergens: A
Classification Tree Model Approach. Toxicological Seiences 97(2), 417-427, 2007.
Bauch C, Kolle SN, Fabian E, Pachel C, Ramirez T, Wiench B, Wruck CJ , van
Ravenzwaay B, Landsiedei R. lntralaboratory validation of four in vitro assays for
the prediction of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro 25,
1162 - 1168, 2011.
Maxwell G, Aeby P, Ashikaga T, Bessou-Touya S, Diembeck W, Gerberick F,
Kern P, Marrec-Fairley M, Ovigne JM, Sakaguchi H, Schroeder K, Tailhardat M,
Teissier S, Winkler P. Skin sensitisation: the Colipa strategy for developing and
evaluating non-animal test methods for risk assessment. AL TEX 28(1 ): 50-5,
2011. - GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- other: direct peptide reactivity assay
- Parameter:
- cysteine depletion
- Remarks:
- mean depletion (%)
- Value:
- 0 %
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Remarks:
- ARE reporter gene assay
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2013
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- At the time of study conduct, there were no official national or international guidelines for the LuSens Assay; however, the study was performed according to the methods described in the following publication:
Bauch C, Kolle SN, Ramirez T, Eltze T, Fabian E, Mehling A, Teubner W, van Ravenzwaay B, Landsiedel R, (2012), Putting the parts together: Combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials, Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 63(3):489-504. - GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- - Cell line: LuSens, transgenic keratinocyte cell line derived from HaCaT cells, prepared in collaboration with Christoph J. Wruck, RWTH Aachen, Germany
- LuSens cells from the working cell bank were thawed and cultured in culture medium 1 under standard culture conditions (37°C, ca. 5% CO2, ≥ 90% humidity) for at least 2 weeks at passage >5 but not longer than 15 passages prior to testing.
- Before substance incubation, cells were seeded in 96-well microtiter plates (120 μL of 0.83 x 10^5 cells/mL cell suspensions) in culture medium 2.
- Positive control: Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA 18 μg/mL) PSN 08/0496 - Positive control results:
- The fold induction (luciferase activity) of the positive control was 5.62 in the first experiment and 6.69 in the second experiment at concentrations that did not reduce viability below 70%.
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- Based on the observed results it was concluded that the test item does not induce luciferase activity in LuSens cells under the test conditions chosen.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Remarks:
- MUSST assay
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2012/2013
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- no guideline available
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- In Vitro Sensitization: Dendritic Cell Line Activation Assay Myeloid U937 Skin Sensitization Test (MUSST)
There are no official national or international guidelines for the MUSST Assay; however, the study was performed according to the methods described in the following publications:
Python F, Goebel C, Aeby P. (2007) Assessment of the U937 cell line for the detection of contact allergens. Toxicol Appl. Pharmacol. 220(2), 113-24.
Bauch C, Kolle SN, Fabian E, Pachel C, Ramirez T, Wiench B, Wruck CJ, van Ravenzwaay B, Landsiedel R. (2011) Intralaboratory validation of four in vitro assays for the prediction of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro 25, 1162 – 1168. - GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Details on the study design:
- - Preparation of the cells:
U937 cells from the working cell bank were thawed and cultured in suspension using complete RPMI 1640 medium with 25 mM HEPES buffer and 2 mM L-glutamine supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 100 U/mL penicillin and 100 μg/mL streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, ca. 5% CO2, ≥ 90% humidity) until for 5 passages but not longer than passage 13 prior to testing.
For substance incubation, cells were seeded in 96-well microtiter plates (100 μL of 0.5x10^6 cells/mL cell suspensions). - Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- Based on the observed results it was concluded that the test item does induce dendritic cell activation in the MUSST assay under the test conditions chosen.
Referenceopen allclose all
Result: minimal reactivity
mean peptide depletion = 0%
After 48 hours of exposure to test substance luciferase activity in LuSens cells was not induced at concentration affording at least 70% viability. From this it has to be concluded that test substance does not have a keratinocyte activating potential.
1st experiment | 2nd experiment | 3rd experiment | ||||
c [ug/ml] | CD 86 induction | rel. viability | CD 86 induction | rel. viability | CD 86 induction | rel. viability |
VC | 1.00 | 100 | 1.00 | 100 | 1.00 | 100 |
0.3 | 0.99 | 99.7 | 1.36 | 100.4 | 1.15 | 99.9 |
0.53 | 1.06 | 100 | 1.72 | 100.5 | 1.26 | 100.1 |
1.06 | 1.17 | 99.8 | 1.94 | 100.4 | 1.29 | 100 |
2.11 | 1.14 | 99.6 | 2.18 | 100 | 1.28 | 99.9 |
4.22 | 1.14 | 99.3 | 3.54 | 98.3 | 1.63 | 99.5 |
VC | 1.00 | 100 | 1.00 | 100 | 1.00 | 100 |
LA 200 ug/ml | 0.83 | 100.1 | 1.00 | 100.7 | 1.02 | 99.9 |
EDA 70 ug/ml | 2.26 | 93.6 | 2.86 | 94 | 2.33 | 92.8 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
A combination of several in vitro methods addressing key steps of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization as defined by OECD, has been conducted to assess the skin sensitizing potential of the test material:
• protein reactivity (DPRA),
• activation of keratinocytes (luSens), and
• activation of dendritic cells (MUSST).
The combination of test methods and the evaluation of their results has been evaluated and published by Bauch et al., 2012. Based on the performance standards of the OECD test guideline no. 429 (Local Lymph Node Assay, LLNA, OECD 2010) the evaluation based on the DPRA, LuSens and MUSST methods yields an overall accuracy of 95% compared to results in humans (for comparison: for the same data set the LLNA yielded an overall accuracy of 86%). A skin sensitizing (quantitative) potency assessment using the reported results was not validated at the time of writing of this report. Based on the results and applying the evaluation criteria described the test item is predicted not to be a skin sensitizer.
According to the evaluation criteria: "ln the test battery evaluation a weight of evidence (WoE) approach is used: Any two of the three tests determine the overall results, i.e. any two positive test results drive the prediction of a sensitizer, while any two negative test results drive the prediction of a test substance to be a non-sensitizer (Bauch et al. 2012)." the test item is predicted not to be a skin sensitizer.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Classification, Labeling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008
The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for classification purposes under Regulation 1272/2008. As a result the substance is not considered to be classified for skin sensitization under Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, as amended for the 14th time in Regulation (EU) 2020/217.
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.