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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 807-448-3 | 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
The skin sensitisation potnetial of the test material was assessed in accordance with OECD Guideline 406. Based on the results of this study, the test material is not considered to be a contact sensitizer in guinea pigs, as the criterion for sensitization (dermal scores ≥ 1 in at least 15% of the test animals) was not met. The results of the HCA positive control study demonstrated that a valid test was performed and indicated that the test design would detect potential contact sensitizers. As such, the test material can be considered to be not sensitising and does not meet the GHS criteria for classification.
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
- Study period:
- 14 January 2014 to 22 January 2014
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Justifications (1) company data on similar products (emulsifier component in soluble oil and semi-synthetic products) was based on the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test; (2) because of the test material contains unsaturated carbon-carbon double bond and fatty acids, literature data have demonstrated the LLNA producing false positives results for these types of chemicals; (3) to gain a definitive and experimentally based understanding of the skin sensitizing potential, a Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test was conducted for the test material.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: room temperature in the dark - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Forty-four male and 44 female Hartley-derived albino guinea pigs were received on 14 Jan 2014 from Charles River Laboratories, St. Constant, QC. The animals were examined and weighed on the day following receipt.
Each animal was identified by a cage card and plastic ear tag after receipt.
The animals were acclimated to their designated housing for at least 7 days before the first day of dosing.
The animals chosen for study were arbitrarily selected from healthy animals. All animals
received a detailed pretest observation prior to dosing. Only healthy animals were chosen for
study use.
The male range-finding animals were approximately 5 weeks of age on the day prior to dosing
with body weights of 354 g to 377 g. The female range-finding animals were approximately
6 weeks of age on the day prior to dosing with body weights of 358 g to 386 g.
The male main phase animals were approximately 6 weeks of age on the day prior to Induction 1 dosing with body weights ranging from 369 g to 488 g. The female main phase animals were approximately 7 weeks of age on the day prior to Induction 1 dosing with body weights ranging from 360 g to 436 g.
The animals were pair housed (2 animals of the same sex and same dosing group together) throughout the study in polycarbonate cages containing direct bedding material. Housing and care were as specified in the USDA Animal Welfare Act (9 CFR, Parts 1, 2, and 3) and as described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals from the National Research Council.
Temperatures of 71°F to 74°F (22°C to 23°C) with a relative humidity of 39% to 49% were maintained. A 12-hour light/12-hour dark cycle was maintained, except when interrupted for designated procedures. Ten or greater air changes per hour with 100% fresh air (no air recirculation) were maintained in the animal rooms.
PMI Nutrition International Certified Guinea Pig Chow No. 5026 was provided ad libitum throughout the study.
Municipal tap water following treatment by reverse osmosis and ultraviolet irradiation was available ad libitum throughout the study. The water is analyzed semi-annually for microbial contamination and for total dissolved solids, hardness, and various environmental contaminants. - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- The dose concentration for the main phase was based upon the results of the range-finding portion of the study (i.e. 100%).
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- The dose concentration for the main phase was based upon the results of the range-finding portion of the study (i.e. 100%).
- No. of animals per dose:
- 10 females + 10 males for the 100% test item
5 females + 5 males for the challenge control
5 females + 5 males for the rechallenge control
5 females + 5 males for the 2nd rechallenge control
5 females + 5 males for the HCA test
5 females + 5 males for the HCA control - Details on study design:
- Main Phase: For the induction, challenge, rechallenge and second rechallenge phases, a dose of 0.3 mL (or maximum volume for viscous materials) will be placed on a 25-mm Hill Top
Chamber® backed by adhesive tape (occlusive patch). The chambers will then be applied to the
clipped surface as quickly as possible.
Main Phase Induction: On the day prior to the first induction dose administration (Day -1), the hair will be removed from the left side of the test animals with a small animal clipper. Care will be taken to avoid abrading the skin during the clipping procedures. On the day following clipping (Day 0), chambers containing the appropriate material will be applied to the clipped area of the test animals and α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde test animals. The induction procedure will be repeated on Day 7 (± 1 day) and Day 14 (± 1 day) so that a total of three consecutive induction exposures will be made to the test animals and α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde test animals.
The application site for induction may be moved if irritation persists from a previous induction exposure (to ensure the test article is not dosed on compromised skin) but will remain on the left side of the animal. Following chamber application, the trunk of the animal will be wrapped with elastic wrap which is secured with adhesive tape (if necessary) to prevent removal of the chamber.
Six hours after chamber application, the elastic wrap, tape, and chambers will be removed. The test sites will then be wiped 2 times with gauze moistened in mineral oil, followed by dry gauze and then wiped with gauze moistened in deionized water, followed by dry gauze, to remove test article residue. If the mineral oil followed by deionized water does not sufficiently remove the test article residue, the Study Director/Sponsor may choose to use another solvent.
Main Phase Challenge: On the day prior to challenge dose administration, the hair will be
removed from the right side of the test and challenge control animals and α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde test and control animals. Care will be taken to avoid abrading the skin
during the clipping procedures. On the day following clipping (Day 28 ± 1 day), chambers
containing the appropriate material will be applied to a naive site within the clipped area of the test and challenge control animals and α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde test and control animals.
Following chamber application, the trunk of the animal will be wrapped with elastic wrap which is secured with adhesive tape (if necessary) to prevent removal of the chamber.
Six hours after chamber application, the elastic wrap, tape, and chambers will be removed. The test sites will then be wiped 2 times with gauze moistened in mineral oil, followed by dry gauze and then wiped with gauze moistened in deionized water, followed by dry gauze, to remove test article residue. If the mineral oil followed by deionized water does not sufficiently remove the test article residue, the Study Director/Sponsor may choose to use another solvent. - Challenge controls:
- The Challenge control is done with 0.3 mL of test item (100%) on two sites of 5 males and 5 females
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 1, 2.5 and 5.0% (w/v) α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA) in Ethanol
- Positive control results:
- Following challenge with 2.5% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 10/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour and 48-hour scoring intervals.
Following challenge with 1.0% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 9/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour scoring interval, and in 8/10 test animals at the 48-hour scoring interval. - Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 8
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- The skin sensitisation potnetial of the test material was assessed in accordance with OECD Guideline 406. Based on the results of this study, the test material is not considered to be a contact sensitizer in guinea pigs, as the criterion for sensitization (dermal scores ≥ 1 in at least 15% of the test animals) was not met. The results of the HCA positive control study demonstrated that a valid test was performed and indicated that the test design would detect potential contact sensitizers. As such, the test material can be considered to be not sensitising and does not meet the GHS criteria for classification.
- Executive summary:
Guideline
OECD Guideline No. 406 and EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
Method
The dermal sensitization potential of the test material was evaluated in Hartley-derived albino guinea pigs. Ten male and 10 female guinea pigs were topically treated with 100% (as received) the test material once per week, for 3 consecutive weeks. Following a 2-week rest period, a challenge was performed whereby the 20 test and 10 previously untreated (naïve) challenge control guinea pigs were topically treated with 100% the test material as received. Challenge responses in the test animals were similar to those of the challenge control animals.
An α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA) positive control group consisting of 10 HCA test and 10 HCA control guinea pigs was included in this study. The animals were treated as above with the HCA test animals receiving 5% w/v HCA in ethanol for induction and 2.5% and 1.0% w/v HCA in acetone for challenge.
Results
Following challenge with 100% (as received) of the test material, dermal reactions were limited to scores of 0 and ± in test and challenge control animals. Group mean dermal scores were similar in the test and challenge control animals.
Following challenge with 2.5% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 10/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour and 48-hour scoring intervals. Dermal reactions in the HCA control animals were limited to scores of 0. Group mean dermal scores were higher in the HCA test animals compared to the HCA control animals.
Following challenge with 1.0% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 9/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour scoring interval, and in 8/10 test animals at the 48-hour scoring interval. Dermal reactions in the HCA control animals were limited to scores of 0. Group mean dermal scores were higher in the HCA test animals compared to the HCA control animals.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, the test material is not considered to be a contact sensitizer in guinea pigs, as the criterion for sensitization (dermal scores ≥ 1 in at least 15% of the test animals) was not met. The results of the HCA positive control study demonstrated that a valid test was performed and indicated that the test design would detect potential contact sensitizers.
Reference
The sensitization potential of the test substance was based on the dermal responses observed on the test and control animals at challenge. Generally, dermal scores of ≥ 1 in the test animals with scores of 0 to ± noted in the controls were considered indicative of sensitization. Dermal scores of 1 in both the test and control animals were generally considered equivocal unless a higher dermal response (≥ grade 2) was noted in the test animals. Group mean dermal scores were calculated for challenge. A response of at least 15% in a nonadjuvant test is expected for a mild to moderate sensitizer in this study design.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
In a key study performed to OECD Guideline No. 406 and EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation), the dermal sensitization potential of the test material was evaluated in Hartley-derived albino guinea pigs. Ten male and 10 female guinea pigs were topically treated with 100% (as received) the test material once per week, for 3 consecutive weeks. Following a 2-week rest period, a challenge was performed whereby the 20 test and 10 previously untreated (naïve) challenge control guinea pigs were topically treated with 100% the test material as received. Challenge responses in the test animals were similar to those of the challenge control animals.
An α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA) positive control group consisting of 10 HCA test and 10 HCA control guinea pigs was included in this study. The animals were treated as above with the HCA test animals receiving 5% w/v HCA in ethanol for induction and 2.5% and 1.0% w/v HCA in acetone for challenge.
Following challenge with 100% (as received) of the test material, dermal reactions were limited to scores of 0 and ± in test and challenge control animals. Group mean dermal scores were similar in the test and challenge control animals.
Following challenge with 2.5% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 10/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour and 48-hour scoring intervals. Dermal reactions in the HCA control animals were limited to scores of 0. Group mean dermal scores were higher in the HCA test animals compared to the HCA control animals.
Following challenge with 1.0% w/v HCA in acetone, dermal scores of 1 or 2 were noted in 9/10 HCA test animals at the 24-hour scoring interval, and in 8/10 test animals at the 48-hour scoring interval. Dermal reactions in the HCA control animals were limited to scores of 0. Group mean dermal scores were higher in the HCA test animals compared to the HCA control animals.
Based on the results of this study, the test material is not considered to be a contact sensitizer in guinea pigs, as the criterion for sensitization (dermal scores ≥ 1 in at least 15% of the test animals) was not met. The results of the HCA positive control study demonstrated that a valid test was performed and indicated that the test design would detect potential contact sensitizers.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Not a skin sensitiser (0/10 sensitisation rate).
Justification for classification or non-classification
In accordance with the CLP Regulation, No 1272/2008, a substance should be classified as a skin sensitiser if there are positive results from an appropriate animal test. Based on the results of an in vivo study in the guinea-pig, the test was not considered to be a contact sensitiser, as the criterion for sensitisation (dermal scores ≥ 1 in at least 15 % of the test animals) was not met.
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.