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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

The LLNA returned a negative result. Therefore this substance is not classified as a skin sensitiser.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in chemico
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2018
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
Positive control results:
Cinnamaldehyde
Key result
Run / experiment:
other: Cysteine and Lysine reactivity
Parameter:
other: Pepteide reactivity
Value:
0
Vehicle controls validity:
valid
Negative controls validity:
valid
Positive controls validity:
valid
Interpretation of results:
study cannot be used for classification
Conclusions:
waiting for study to be completed
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
17 to 22 January 2019
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Specific details on test material used for the study:
SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: Kyoeisha Chemical Co. / Bx 7080101
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: 01 Aug 2019
- Purity test date:

STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Room temperature.
- Stability under test conditions: Stable
- Solubility and stability of the test substance in the solvent/vehicle:
- Reactivity of the test substance with the solvent/vehicle of the cell culture medium:

TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing:
- Preliminary purification step (if any):
- Final dilution of a dissolved solid, stock liquid or gel:
- Final preparation of a solid:

FORM AS APPLIED IN THE TEST (if different from that of starting material)

Species:
mouse
Strain:
CBA:J
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Commercial laboratory animal breeder.
- Females nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Microbiological status of animals, when known: no data
- Age at study initiation: 8 - 10 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 18.8 to 26.4g
- Housing: Solid floor polypropylene mice cages (size: 290 mm x 220 mm x 140 mm). Each cage is fitted with a top grill having provision for keeping rodent pellet feed and water bottles.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Teklad Certified Global High Fiber Rat/Mice Feed manufactured by Envigo, USA, was provided
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): Each cage was supplied with a polypropylene water bottle (capacity 300 mL) with a stainless steel nozzle.
- Acclimation period: 07 days
- Indication of any skin lesions: no data

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20 to 23 °C
- Humidity (%): 64 to 66%
- Air changes (per hr): Minimum 15 air changes/hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): The photoperiod was 12 h artificial light and 12 h darkness, light hours being 06:00 – 18:00 h (photoperiod maintained through an automatic timer).
- IN-LIFE DATES: From: To:
Vehicle:
acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
Concentration:
5%; 25% and 50%.;
No. of animals per dose:
5
Details on study design:
PRE-SCREEN TESTS:
- Compound solubility: up to 75%
- Irritation: In the preliminary assay, no erythema was observed at the site of application at tested concentrations of 10% and 50% (v/v) C10-C14 alkyl ether in AOO. Very slight erythema (score of 1) was observed from days 3 to 5 at the site of application at tested concentrations of 75% (v/v) in AOO and 100% C10-C14 alkyl ether.
- Systemic toxicity: no data
- Ear thickness measurements: ear thickness increases were below 25% at 10% and 50% (v/v) C10-C14 alkyl ether in AOO, while an increase of ≥ 25% in ear thickness was observed at 75% (v/v) in AOO and 100% C10-C14 alkyl ether. Therefore, dose concentrations of 5%, 25%, and 50% (v/v) C10-C14 alkyl ether in AOO were evaluated in the main LLNA study.
- Erythema scores: none

MAIN STUDY

ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method:
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: A Stimulation Index (SI) value of three or more (SI value of the treated group over the control group) indicates potential to cause skin sensitisation.

TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Positive control substance(s):
hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
Positive control results:
25% v/v HCA in AOO gave a group mean DPM of 6697±622.89*
* = Significantly higher than control (p<=0.01)
Parameter:
SI
Value:
1.76
Test group / Remarks:
G2 5% v/v
Parameter:
SI
Value:
2.38
Test group / Remarks:
G3 25% v/v
Parameter:
SI
Value:
2.72
Test group / Remarks:
G4 50% v/v

The vehicle and all test concentratuion returned no erythema scores in a 5 day period.

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
This substance returned no erythema scores and the stimulation index did not reach 3 or more. Therefore this substance is not classified as a skin sensitiser under the conditions of this study.
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

The LLNA returned a negative result. Therefore this substance is not classified as a skin sensitiser.