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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 200-198-0 | CAS number: 54-21-7
- 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
The skin sensitization potential was assessed in various LLNA and Non- LLNA experimental studies for the given test chemical. Based on the available key data and supporting studies, it can be concluded that chemical is unable to cause skin sensitization and considered as not sensitizing. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- 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 mentioned below
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The allergenic potential of test chemical was determined in a number of studies using up to 31 patients, 19 males and 12 females, with a history of aspirin intolerance
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- other: Intradermal Skin test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- not specified
- Species:
- other: humans
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Age: aged between 6 and 64 years
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- no data
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction exposure: 0.02 ml of 0.1 % of test chemical
- Day(s)/duration:
- 20 minutes
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- not specified
- Concentration / amount:
- an intradermal injection of 0.02 ml of 0.1% test chemical
- Day(s)/duration:
- 20 minutes
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 19 males and 12 females
- Details on study design:
- an intradermal injection of 0.02 ml of test chemical (0.1%) were given to human patients and the result were recorded after 20 min
- Challenge controls:
- no data available
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 20
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.02 ml of 0.1% of test chemical
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 31
- Clinical observations:
- The test chemical did not develop any skin sensitizing effects on treated animals.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
- There was one positive reaction to test chemical in the skin test was observed out of 31 pateints. Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
- Executive summary:
The allergenic potential of test chemical was determined in a number of studies using up to 31 patients. 19 males and 12 females, with a history of aspirin intolerance were used for the assay. 31 patients were given an intradermal injection of 0.02 ml of 0.1% test chemical; the results were scored 20 min after dosing. There was one positive reaction to test chemical in the skin test was observed out of 31 patients. Hence, the test material can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Various studies has been investigated for the test chemical to observe the potential for skin sensitization to a greater or lesser extent. The studies are based on in vivo experiments which summarized as below -
The allergenic potential of test chemical was determined in a number of studies using up to 31 patients. 19 males and 12 females, with a history of aspirin intolerance were used for the assay. 31 patients were given an intradermal injection of 0.02 ml of 0.1% test chemical; the results were scored 20 min after dosing. There was one positive reaction to test chemical in the skin test was observed out of 31 patients. Hence, the test material can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
The next Patch test was conducted on a patient with allergic contact dermatitis to sunscreen for assessing the skin sensitization potential of test chemical. A 48 year old woman with a 12 year history of rosacea was advised to use sunscreen. A sample of Anthelios dermo-pediatrics SPF-50+ was given to the patient. Half year later, the patient developed facial dermatitis. She was tested with the European baseline series using panels 1,2, and 3 of the Thin Layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test [T.R.U.E Test] supplemented petrolatum-based allergens in Finn chambers on Scanpor tape and with her own topical products including the Anthelios dermo-pediatrics SPF-50+ lotion. The tests were occluded for 2 days and read according to the ICDRG[International Contact Dermatitis Research Group]scoring scale on day 3 and day 7. The patient was subsequently patch test with individual components of the Anthelios dermo-pediatrics SPF-50+ lotion as provided by the manufacturer. No dermal reactions were observed on day 3 and day 7 of observation when the patient was tested with 2% test chemical in petrolatum. Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
The above result was supported by the Mouse Local Lymphnode Assay conducted for test chemical. The LLNA was conducted on groups of five female CBA mice (7-12 weeks of age) by mean of topical application of chemical on the dorsum of both ears at a dose of 25µl of 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% or 20% in acetone/olive oil (4:1). Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days. Five days after initiation of exposure all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250µl of PBS containing 20µCi of tritiatied thymidine. The mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and draining the auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by β-scintillation counting and was reported in disintegrations /minute. An SI was calculated for each chemical group as the ratio of disintegrations/minute of the treated group to the disintegrations/minute of the concurrent vehicle control group. A substance was classified skin sensitizer, if at one or more than one concentrations, it induced a three-fold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity when treated with the concurrent vehicle treated controls (SI ≥3).The approach to estimation of the relative skin sensitization potential is based on the mathematical estimation of the concentration of chemical necessary to obtain a threshold positive response (SI = 3); this is termed as the EC3 value. For each concentration, a stimulation index (SI) relative to the concurrent vehicle-treated control was calculated. The calculated EC3 value for test chemical was >20.0%. Thus based on the relative potency index the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing in the Mouse Local Lymphnode Assay.
The overall results were further supported by the similar LLNA study (mentioned above) for test chemical. The relative potency index of test chemical was not calculated since the SI were less than 3. Based on the relative potency, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to mice skin.
Based on the available data for the test chemical, it can be concluded that chemical is unable to cause skin sensitization and considered as not sensitizing. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
The skin sensitization potential of test chemical was observed in various studies. From the results obtained from these studies it is concluded that the chemical is not likely to cause skin sensitization and hence can be classified as non-skin sensitizer.
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.