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: 201-162-7
CAS number: 78-96-6
In a questioning study by NIOSH after poisoning incidents due to
unprotected skin irritation, five workers described experiences of
direct contact dermatitis after contact to MIPA.
In a patch testing multicentre studys in 144 metalworkers, MIPA was not
found to be an allergen, administered as a 2% solution.
Skin irritation/corrosion, described for
poisoning incidents in humans
In a questioning after a written request of
a representative of employees to NIOSH, monoisopropanolamine (MIPA) and
titaniurn dioxide (TiO2) in the milling department of a large plant
producing TiO2 were investigated for its hazard potential. MIPA
represented a definite cutaneous hazard upon direct contact with the
skin to those workmen failing to utilize proper protective equipment
(direct contact). Five individuals of 15 questioned employees
experienced an irritant contact dermatitis after direct skin exposure to
MIPA. Most employees working with the substance recognized irritant
effects when not wearing appropriate protective clothing at the time of
contact. Irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eye irritation
were noted by another individual.
Patch testing in 144 metalworkers
patch test study in humans was conducted to investigate sensitization to
10 frequently used metalworking fluids (MWF) components, which are not
part of the established MWF test series, in metalworkers with suspected
occupational dermatitis due to MWF. Besides
-amino-2 -propanol (monoisopropanolamine; MIPA), has been patch tested
in 144 patients. 1
patient reacted positively to MIPA.
testing with well-known MWF allergens showed proportions of positive
reactions, which were comparable to those from other studies, e.g. 11%
to monoethanolamine, 8% to colophonium and 3%–5% to various
preservatives. MIPA was found
to be a far less important allergen in metalworking fluids.
Skin sensitization, tested with human
A modified Draize repeat insult patch test
with a 2% aqueous solution of MIPA was used to determine the potential
to cause sensibilization to humans. In two different approaches 150 male
and female or 25 male and 25 female volunteers were applied at the back
with patches to cause sensitization or photosensitization respectively. For
the skin sensitization, volunteers were treated for 48 -72 h three times
a week for three weeks and the sites were scored at patch removal. After
two weeks, the challenge patch was applied to a naive side and scored at
48 and 96 h on a scale of 0 -4. For photosensitization, 25 male and 25
female volunteers were applied with 0.2 ml volume of the MIPA solution
on patches of the lower backs of a 0.2 ml volume of the MIPA solution,
and the patches were applied to the lower backs for 24 h three
successive days a week for three successive weeks. The sites were
irradiated with a combination of UV-A and UV-B at patch removal in a
dose of three times the minimal erythema dose. Again, a challenge patch
was applied. One patch remained in place for 24 h, and the site was
irradiated at the second patch removal . The other patch remained in
place for 48 h and was used to measure contact dermatitis. MIPA did not
induce allergic, photoallergic or allergic contact dermatitis.
Nasal provocation test with Amines
present in cleaning products
nasal provocation test (NPT) was performed with an aliphatic or
alicyclic amine in 37 patients. Most patients presented rhinitis
associated with asthma-like symptoms. Women were overrepresented (F/M
Nearly 40% of patients were considered to be atopic. Six patients
reported a history of asthma (n=4),
or atopic dermatitis (n=1,
patient G), before they develop their work-related symptoms. All of them
a criteria of atopy (presence of a positive prick test to a common
respiratory allergen or a positive Phadiatop test). More than two thirds
worked as cleaners (industrial or domestic) or paramedics. An amine was
tested in nearly 4 out of 5 patients, as it was present in the
composition of a cleaning product (detergent, disinfectant, wax-remover,
stripper, etc.) and, in most cases, it was sprayed. The other kinds of
amine-containing products in this series were: lubricant/cuttingfluids
patients), resin hardeners (n=2),
polishing agents (n=1),
hair colour products (n=1),
a brazing product (n=1).
Six patients presented one positive NPT with an amine and another
patient presented three positive NPTs performed with three different
surfactant solutions (A, B1, B2: detergent A contained surfactant A and
detergent B contained surfactants B1 and B2) present in the patient’s
cleaning products. These surfactant solutions contained various
alkylamine oxides: surfactant B1 contained a mixture of
bis(2-hydroxyethyl)tallowamine oxides and surfactants A and B2 were both
mixtures of C12-C18 alkyldimethylamine oxides (these mixtures were
supplied for challenge by their respective industrial furnishers).
seven patients who had a positive NPT with an amine, at least one
additional NPT with other compounds was performed in six patients and
two patients had at least one positive additional NPT. Two of the four
patients challenged with didecyldimethylammonium chloride had a positive
response. Most patients (25 out of 30 patients) with a negative
amine-NPT were subsequently tested with other agents. MIPA was tested to
be negative in the assay.
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.
Welcome to the ECHA website. This site is not fully supported in Internet Explorer 7 (and earlier versions). Please upgrade your Internet Explorer to a newer version.
Do not show this message again