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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 217-682-2 | CAS number: 1929-82-4
- 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
Genetic toxicity: in vitro
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- in vitro DNA damage and/or repair study
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 02 November 1981 to 05 January 1982
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Study conducted to GLP in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles, possibly with incomplete reporting or methodological deficiencies, which do not affect the quality of the relevant results.
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 982
- Report date:
- 1982
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 482 (Genetic Toxicology: DNA Damage and Repair, Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Mammalian Cells In Vitro)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.18 (DNA Damage and Repair - Unscheduled DNA Synthesis - Mammalian Cells In Vitro)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of assay:
- DNA damage and repair assay, unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cells in vitro
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Nitrapyrin
- EC Number:
- 217-682-2
- EC Name:
- Nitrapyrin
- Cas Number:
- 1929-82-4
- Molecular formula:
- C6H3Cl4N
- IUPAC Name:
- 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine
- Test material form:
- not specified
Constituent 1
Method
Species / strain
- Species / strain / cell type:
- hepatocytes: Primary cultures of rat hepatocytes
- Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- PREPARATION OF PRIMARY RAT HEPATOCYTE CULTURES
Primary cultures of rat hepatocytes were prepared by slight modification of the method described by Williams et al. (1977).
The rat was anaesthetised with methoxyfluorane and the liver exposed by an abdominal incision. Sodium heparin (200 units) was injected into the inferior vena cava and the hepatic portal vein cannulated. The liver was then perfused for approximately 2-3 minutes with 0.5 mM ethylene glycol -bis(ß-amino ethyl ether)N,N’-tetraacetic acid (EGTA) in Ca++, Mg ++ free Hank's balanced salt solution (37 °C) at pH 7.4.
The liver was subsequently perfused with 100 units/mL of collagenase in Williams Medium E (WE; 37 °C) buffered with 0.05 M N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N’-2-ethanesulfonic acid (HEPES) to pH 7.4. An antibiotic-antimycotic solution was also added to all WE medium in the experiment so that the final concentration of penicillin, streptomycin and fungizone was 100 units, 100 µg and 0.25 µg per mL of medium, respectively.
After a 12-15 minute perfusion the liver was removed from the rat and the cells dispersed in WE with 10 % foetal calf serum (WE + FCS). The cells were sedimented by centrifugation a t 50 x g for approximately 30 seconds and re-suspended in WE + FCS. Cellular viability (exclusion of trypan blue) and the total number of cells were assessed by mixing equal volumes of cell suspension and 0.5 % trypan blue (prepared in 0.9 % saline) and counting with a haemocytometer. The viability of rat liver cells obtained by this experiment was approximately 65 %.
One ml of the cell suspension (8 x 10⁵ viable cells) was inoculated into a 35 x 17.8 mm tissue culture dish containing a plastic coverslip and 2 mL of WE + FCS. The cultures were placed in a humidified 37 °C incubator and maintained in an atmosphere of 95 % air: 5 % CO₂ for 1.5 h. During this interval viable cells attach to the coverslip. Nonviable cells were removed by washing the cultures with 3 mL of WE at the end of the attachment interval. - Additional strain / cell type characteristics:
- not applicable
- Metabolic activation:
- not applicable
- Metabolic activation system:
- The rat hepatocyte UDS assay has the advantage that the primary hepatocyte cultures have sufficient metabolic capacity (activation/deactivation) to eliminate the need of an exogenous enzyme source.
- Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
- - The test material was prepared at concentrations of 1 x 10^-4, 3.16 x 10^-5, 1 x 10^-5, 3.16 x 10^-6, 1 x 10^-6, 3.16 x 10^-7 and 1 x 10^-7 M in WE + FCS containing 0.1 % (v/v) dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO).
- Vehicle / solvent:
- - Vehicle(s)/solvent(s) used: DMSO
- Justification for choice of solvent/vehicle: DMSO at 0.1 % in the media was used because the test material has low aqueous solubility.
Controls
- Untreated negative controls:
- yes
- Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
- yes
- Remarks:
- Cultures exposed to media + 0.1 % DMSO served as the negative control.
- True negative controls:
- no
- Positive controls:
- yes
- Positive control substance:
- 2-acetylaminofluorene
- Remarks:
- The positive control employed was 2-AAF at concentrations of 10^-5, 10^-6 and 10^-7 M. Due to limited solubility, 2-AAF was prepared in WE + FCS containing 0.1 % of DMSO.
- Details on test system and experimental conditions:
- SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
In the UDS assay, rat hepatocytes were isolated by perfusing the liver in situ with a solution of collagenase. After harvesting the cells, primary cultures were established and the cultures were treated with the test material and ³H-thymidine. After chemical treatment, the cells were processed for micro-autoradiography. The cells were coated with a thin layer of photographic emulsion. The emulsion is designed so that passage of ionising radiation (³H) through the emulsion results in exposure of individual silver grains which can be visualised microscopically after photographic development. The cells were then stained and the grains in the nucleus were counted. If there was repairable damage to the DNA, ³H-thymidine would be incorporated during the repair process. The amount of ³H-thymidine incorporated is detected and quantified by micro-autoradiography.
ANIMALS
Male CDF Fischer 344 rats were obtained from a pathogen free colony and acclimated to the laboratory for at least 10 days. The rats were housed in a room designed to maintain a temperature of approximately 72 °F, a relative humidity of approximately 50 % and a 12 hour lighting cycle. Food and water were provided ad libitum. One male rat weighing 247 g was used.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Two mL of medium supplemented with dexamethasone (1 µM in 0.1 % ethanol, final concentration) containing the test material and ³H-thymidine (10 µCi/mL) was applied to triplicate cultures at each dose level. The cultures were then incubated for 18 hours after which they were washed for three 30 minute intervals with 1 mM non-labelled thymidine in WE at 37 °C. The nuclei of the cells were then swelled for 10 minutes (room temperature) with 1.0 % (w/v) sodium citrate and subsequently fixed with a solution of ethanol:acetic acid (3:1) for 30 minutes, (room temperature). The coverslips were allowed to air dry and were then mounted on glass slides.
MICRO-AUTORADIOGRAPHY
The slides were dipped in NTB nuclear track photographic emulsion and stored refrigerated for 10 days. At the end of the exposure period the slides were developed with Kodak D-19 developer and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. UDS was quantitated by counting the number of grains in the nucleus and subtracting the mean number of grains in 3 nuclear sized areas adjacent to the nucleus in the cytoplasm. The grains were counted using an Artek Counter (Model 880, Artek Systems Co., Farmingdale, NY). Those cells undergoing semi-conservative DNA synthesis (DNA replication) were easily visualised because of their completely blackened nuclei and were not counted. Fifteen cells on each of two slides were evaluated per dose level.
Frequently the cytoplasmic background of radioactivity is slightly greater than the nuclear labelling in control or unaffected treated cultures. This results in a negative value for the net number of nuclear grains. Grain counts were reported as the mean ± the standard deviation. - Evaluation criteria:
- Net nuclear labelling is often observed in control cells but rarely exceeds a mean of 5 grains per nucleus. Therefore, a mean of 6 or more net grains per nucleus (this may vary with experimental conditions) and statistical significance from control at p ≤0.05 is required for an unequivocal positive result (Williams, 1977). In addition to statistical significance from control, a dose response relationship should exist.
- Statistics:
- The net number of nuclear grains in treated cells is compared to the appropriate control using a computer program that performs Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance (Winer, 1971). If variances are homogeneous, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed, followed by Dunnett's test if the ANOVA is significant. If variances are not homogeneous, treatment groups are compared using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons as described by Hollander and Wolfe (1973).
Results and discussion
Test results
- Species / strain:
- hepatocytes: Primary cultures of rat hepatocytes
- Metabolic activation:
- not applicable
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Remarks:
- at concentrations of 1 x 10^-4 and 3.16 x 10^-5 M
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Additional information on results:
- The test material was observed to be toxic to the hepatocyte cultures at concentrations of 1 x 10^-4 and 3.16 x 10^-5 M, as indicated by detachment of the cells from the coverslip and/or an un-flattened, granular appearance.
Cultures exposed to 3.16 x 10^-6 to 1 x 10^-7 M test material matched the appearance of the negative control cultures. Thus, a wide spectrum of concentrations was evaluated ranging from toxic to nontoxic.
The test material failed to elicit UDS at any concentration tested compared to the negative control (media + 0.1 % DMSO). In contrast, 2-acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF) elicited a significant, dose-related increase in UDS at all concentrations tested when compared to the media + 0.1 % DMSO control. The positive response of 2-AAF, a known genotoxic chemical, demonstrates the responsiveness of the assay in the present study.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Table 1: The Effects of the test material in the UDS Assay
Treatment |
Concentration |
UDS* |
Media Control |
- |
-2.0 ± 3.3 |
Media + 0.1 % DMSO Control |
- |
-2.7 ± 4.9 |
Test Material |
1 x 10^-4 |
-1.1 ± 2.9 ∆ |
3.16 x 10^-5 |
-2.2 ± 5.0 ∆ |
|
1 x 10^-5 |
-4.0 ± 4.1 |
|
3.16 x 10^-6 |
-2.4 ± 3.4 |
|
1 x 10^-6 |
-1.1 ± 3.1 |
|
3.16 x 10^-7 |
-2.8 ± 3.0 |
|
1 x 10^-7 |
-1.0 ± 2.7 |
|
2-AAF (positive control) |
1 x 10^-5 |
54 ± 32 ∆† |
1 x 10^-6 |
37 ± 27† |
|
1 x 10^-7 |
22 ± 21† |
*Net nuclear grains = total nuclear grains - background cytoplasmic grains
∆ = Test chemical toxicity observed
† = Positive response; 6 or more net nuclear grains and statistical significance (p≤0.05)
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- Interpretation of results: Negative
Under the conditions of the study, the test material has been determined to give a negative response when evaluated using the UDS assay. - Executive summary:
The genotoxic potential of the test material was evaluated in the rat hepatocyte unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay under GLP conditions. The methodology employed was equivalent to that outlined in the standardised guidelines OECD 482 and EU Method B.18.
Primary cultures of rat hepatocytes were prepared by slight modification of the method described by Williams et al. (1977). The test material was prepared at concentrations of 1 x 10^-4, 3.16 x 10^-5, 1 x 10^-5, 3.16 x 10^-6, 1 x 10^-6, 3.16 x 10^-7 and 1 x 10^-7 M in Williams Medium E with 10 % foetal calf serum containing 0.1 % (v/v) dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO). Concurrent positive (2-acetylaminofluorene, 2-AAF), solvent and media controls were run.
Two mL of medium supplemented with dexamethasone (1 µM in 0.1 % ethanol, final concentration) containing the test material and ³H-thymidine (10 µCi/mL) was applied to triplicate cultures at each dose level. The cultures were then incubated for 18 hours after which they were washed for three 30 minute intervals with 1 mM non-labelled thymidine in WE at 37 °C. The nuclei of the cells were then swelled for 10 minutes (room temperature) with 1.0 % (w/v) sodium citrate and subsequently fixed with a solution of ethanol:acetic acid (3:1) for 30 minutes, (room temperature). The coverslips were allowed to air dry and were then mounted on glass slides. The slides were then examined by micro-autoradiography, with 15 cells on each of two slides being evaluated per dose level.
The test material was observed to be toxic to the hepatocyte cultures at concentrations of 1 x 10^-4 and 3.16 x 10^-5 M. Cultures exposed to 3.16 x 10^-6 to 1 x 10^-7 M test material matched the appearance of the negative control cultures. Thus, a wide spectrum of concentrations was evaluated ranging from toxic to nontoxic.
The test material failed to elicit UDS at any concentration tested compared to the negative control (media + 0.1 % DMSO). In contrast, 2-AAF elicited a significant, dose-related increase in UDS at all concentrations tested when compared to the media + 0.1 % DMSO control.
Under the conditions of the study, the test material has been determined to give a negative response when evaluated using the UDS 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.