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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 232-954-0 | CAS number: 9066-59-5
- 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
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:
- From November 26, 2001 to January 18, 2002
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Test conducted following internationally accepted testing guidelines and performed according to the GLP.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Justification of Species: the guinea pig is conventionally used in skin sensitization studies to provide information on which human hazard can be judged, and is preferred by the regulatory agencies.
- Source: Charles River Laboratories; Wilmington, MA.
- Weight at study initiation: males 380-542 g; females 413-520 g
- Housing: suspended, wire bottom, stainless steel. 1-4 per cage (males separate from females).
- Diet: PMI Feeds, Inc.TM Guinea Pig Diet #5025; available ad libitum.
- Water: municipal water supply analyzed by TNRCC Water Utilities Division; available ad libitum from water bowls.
- A uarantine: 5 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature:20 ± 3 °C
- Humidity: 30-70 %
- Air changes: 10-12 air changes/hour
- Photoperiod: 12-hour light/dark cycle
IN-LIFE DATES
Animlas were received by the laboratory at November 26 and December 10, 2001. They were treated with the test substance for first induction on December 19, for second induction on January 02 and for challenge on January 16, 2002. The in-life portion of the study was termined on January 02, 2002.
No contaminants were expected to have been present in the feed or water which would have interfered with or affected the results of the study. - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 400 mg moistened w/0.5 ml corn oil
Challenge: 400 mg moistened w/0.5 ml corn oil - Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 400 mg moistened w/0.5 ml corn oil
Challenge: 400 mg moistened w/0.5 ml corn oil - No. of animals per dose:
- 2 males and 2 females (Range-finding)
15 males and 15 females (definitive, of which 10 treated and 5 used as naive control) - Details on study design:
- IRRITATION SCREENING
Two male and two female albino guinea pigs were selected for irritation screening to determine both the maximum dose producing no more than moderate irritation, and the maximum non¬irritating dose. Tested in the screening were 400 mg of test substance moistened wich com oil, and 75 %, 50 % and 25 % w/v concentrations of the test substance in corn oil.
PREPARATION of ANIMALS
On the day prior to each treatment, the animals were prepared by clipping the back of the trunk free of hair to expose a longitudinal area at least 8 x 10 cm of each animal. Individual body weights were recorded on Days 0 and 28.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- Application: for each induction treatment, animals were treated by introducing the test substance beneath a 4 ply, 2.5 x 2.5 cm surgical gauze patch. Each gauze patch was placed laterally from the midline of the back on the left front quadrant of the exposure area and secured with a strip of non-irritating adhesive tape. A strip of clear polyethylene film was placed over the patch and securely taped.
- Exposure period: each animal was placed in a restrainer for approximately six hours. At the end of the exposure period, the animals were removed from the restrainers, the wrappings and patches were removed, and the animals were returned to their cages.
- Frequency of applications: animals were treated once weekly for three weeks. Induction treatments were on Days 1, 8 and 15.
- Concentrations: 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of com oil.
- Control group: control group (5 animals) remained untreated during the induction phase of the study.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
After a two-week rest period, all animals (treated and untreated) were each challenged at a virgin test site.
- Concentrations: 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of com oil.
- Day of challenge: on day 29
- Application: as for the induction treatment, animals were treated by introducing the test substance beneath a 4 ply, 2.5 x 2.5 cm surgical gauze patch. Each gauze patch was placed laterally from the midline of the back on the right front quadrant of the exposure area and secured with a strip of non-irritating adhesive tape. A strip of clear polyethylene film was placed over the patch and securely taped.
OBSERVATIONS and SCORING METHOD
Observations for skin reactions at each test site were made approximately 24 hours after each treatment. In addition, observations for skin reactions were made approximately 48 hours after the first induction treatment and 48 hours after the challenge treatment.
An average score for each time period was obtained by adding all of the scores for each time period and dividing by the number of test sites scored for that tie period. The test substance is considered a sensitizer if the mean irritation scores, the total number of animals with scores, and/or the total number of scores for the virgin test site ion the test group after the challenge treatment are appreciably greater than those for the naive challenge group.
The Buehler sensitisation scoring scale was used, based on the erythema observed:
no reaction: score 0
Very faint, usually nonconfluent: score 0.5
Faint, usually confluent: score 1
Moderate: score 2
Strong, with or without oedema: 3 - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (DNCB). Conc. administered: induction 0.4 ml of 1 % w/v solution in 80 % ethanol; challenge 0.4 ml of 0.1 % w/v solution in acetone
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information according to the CLP Regulation Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- Not sensitising
- Executive summary:
A skin sensitization study was conducted on 15 male and 15 female short-haired albino guinea pigs to determine if test substance produced a sensitizing reaction. Males and females were assigned to each of two goups, designated Groups I (5/sex) and II (10/sex). Group I animals remained untreated during the induction phase of the study and served as a negative control group. Group II animals, the test group, were treated with 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of corn oil (selected from previous screening). The animals were treated once weekly for three weeks, for a total of three treatments. After a two week rest period, all animals (Groups I and II) were challenged at a virgin test site with an application of 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of corn oil. The test substance produced no irritation in the naive control animals (Group I) after the single treatment at challenge. The test substance likewise produced no irritation in the test animals (Group II) after the challenge and therefore did not elicit a sensitizing reaction in guinea pigs.
Conlusion
Not sensitising
Reference
The test substance produced no irritation in the naive control animals after the single treatment at challenge.
The test substance likewise produced no irritation in the test animals after the challenge treatment and therefore did not elicit a sensitizing reaction in guinea pigs.
Group | Mean challenge scores |
Neive control | 0.0 |
Test group | 0.0 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
A skin sensitization study was conducted on 15 male and 15 female guinea pigs. Males and females were assigned to each of two groups, designated Groups I (5/sex) and II (10/sex). Group I animals remained untreated during the induction phase of the study and served as a negative control group. Group II animals, the test group, were treated with 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of corn oil (selected from previous screening). The animals were treated once weekly for three weeks, for a total of three treatments. After a two week rest period, all animals (Groups I and II) were challenged at a virgin test site with an application of 400 mg of test substance moistened with 0.5 ml of corn oil. The test substance produced no irritation in the naive control animals (Group I) after the single treatment at challenge. The test substance likewise produced no irritation in the test animals (Group II) after the challenge and therefore did not elicit a sensitizing reaction in guinea pigs.
Furthermore, the Environment Directorate General of the European Commission commissioned a collection of information about enzymes (European Communities, 2002); the publication provides an in-depth view of enzymes, their production, use and properties, as well as enzyme regulation in some non-EU countries. Based on literature review, it is stated that there are no indications that enzymes are skin sensitizers. Therefore, testing the skin sensitizing properties of enzymes is not considered to be relevant.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Not skin sensitising
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Test conducted following internationally accepted testing guidelines and performed according to the GLP.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
Specific tests about the respiratory sensitisation potential were not conducted on the lysozyme hydrochloride.
The scientific literature indicates that enzymes have the potential for sensitisation of the respiratory tract. At present, no specific test exists to determine the lysozyme hydrochloride sensitisation potential via the inhalation route.
The Environment Directorate General of the European Commission commissioned a collection of information about enzymes (European Communities, 2002); the publication provides an in-depth view of enzymes, their production, use and properties, as well as enzyme regulation in some non-EU countries. It also outlines potential hazards to the environment and human health and gives recommendations as to how enzymes could be regulated in future. Concerning the respiratory sensitisation potential of enzymes, it is proposed to apply the precautionary principle and generally label enzymes with R42 „May cause sensitisation via inhalation”, unless convincing evidence to the contrary is provided. Potential for respiratory sensitisation has to be considered as a serious concern, in particular when applying enzymes in personal care and cosmetics products and for occupational exposure.
In the EFSA review (EFSA, 2010) on the potential of microorganisms, microbial products and enzymes to induce respiratory sensitization was reported that enzymes have been a cause of concern for several decades in food and feed industry, albeit at lower levels than in the bakery or detergent industry (Vanhanen et al., 2001).
The most reported cause of respiratory sensitization by enzymes in the food and feed industry is the case of alpha-amylase and baker’s asthma, but other enzymes such as proteases, cellulase and glucose oxydase are also a cause of concern. To compound the problem, industrial enzyme grades are often poor and contain other enzymes from the same production organism, leading to unexpected sensitization and cross-reactions (Vanhanen et al., 1996).
In the remarks of the EFSA document (EFSA, 2010), it was reported that the inherent properties of an enzyme may not be decisive, as to whether it is going to create inhalation allergies and that it is not known whether sensitization always lead to clinical allergy, but based on industrial hygiene experiences and knowledge from other areas of allergy, it must be assumed that sensitization would be a very strong risk factor for also developing symptoms upon continued exposure.
Some literature data about the lysozyme respiratory sensitisation cases reported are available:
- Egg lysozyme. A case report: a worker in a company manufacturing egg lysozyme powder for use in the pharmaceutical industry showed respiratory sensitization (asthma symptoms) (Vanhanen, 2001 and Bernstein et al., 1993).
- Serratial peptidase and lysozyme.A case report from pharmaceutical industry: One worker sensitized(asthma symptoms) (Vanhanen, 2001 and Park and Nahm, 1997)
- The patient sifted 50 mg of powdered enzyme back and forth between porous trays; lactose powder as placebo test; FEV1.0 and FVC recorded; for possible late reaction, a mini-Wright flowmeter for home measurements.Symptoms: Immediate asthmatic reaction (Vanhanen, 2001 and Bernstein et al., 1993)
- Interesting case reports on amylase include a double sensitization to lysozyme and amylase in a baker with rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma (EFSA, 210 and Santaolalla et al., 2002)
Considering the high concern related to the sensitization reaction and the information available about reported cases, it is appropriate to consider lysozyme as potentially able to cause allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled.
REFERENCE
Bernstein JA, Kraut A, Bernstein DI, Warrington R, Bolin T, Warren CPW, Bernstein IL (1993). Occupational asthma induced by inhaled egg lysozyme. Chest 1993;103:532–535.
EFSA (2010). Scientific/technical report submitted to EFSA. Cyril Martela, Gunnar D. Nielsenb, Adriano Maric, Tine Rask Lichta, Lars K. Poulsena. Bibliographic review on the potential of microorganisms, microbial products and enzymes to induce respiratory sensitization. CFP/EFSA/FEEDAP/2009/02. Accepted for Publication on 22nd October 2010.
European Communities, (2002). Final ReportCollection of Information on Enzymes Contract No B4-3040/2000/278245/MAR/E2.
Park HS, Nahm DH (1997). New occupational allergen in a pharmaceutical industry: serratial peptidase and lysozyme chloride. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1997;78:225–229.
Santaolalla M, De BM, De FC, Gandolfo M, Zubeldia J, et al. (2002) Double sensitization to enzymes in a baker. Allergy 57: 957.
Vanhanen M, Tuomi T, Tiikkainen U, Tupasela O, Tuomainen A, et al. (2001) Sensitisation to enzymes in the animal feed industry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58: 119-123.
Vanhanen M, Tuomi T, Hokkanen H, Tupasela O, Tuomainen A, et al. (1996) Enzyme exposure and enzyme sensitisation in the baking industry. OccupEnvironMed 53: 670-676.
Vanhanen Markku (2001). Exposure, sensitization and allergy to industrial enzymes. People and Work Research Reports 46. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Department of Pulmology, Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Respiratory sensitizer
Justification for classification or non-classification
According to the CLP Regulation (EC 1272/2008), 3.4 Respiratory or skin sensitisation section, skin sensitizer means a substance that will lead to an allergic response following skin contact.
The criteria to classify a substance as skin/respiratory sensitizer are reported into the second adaptation to technical progress*.
Based on the Buehler guinea pig test results, a substance in considered a skin sensitizer when:
- at least the 15 % of the animals respond at ≤ 0.2 % topical induction dose; or
- at least 60 % of the animals respond to the topical induction dose greater than 0.2 % - lower/equal to 20 %; or
- a number of animals equal/higher than 15 % to 60 % respond to a topical induction dose in the range of 0.2 - 20 %; or
- at least the 15 % of the animals respond at higher 20 % topical induction
The test substance produced no irritation in the test animals after the challenge treatment and did not elicit a sensitizing reaction in guinea pigs.
Substances shall be classified as respiratory sensitisers (Category 1, where data are not sufficient for sub-categorisation) if there is evidence in humans that the substance can lead to specific respiratory hypersensitivity.
The scientific literature indicates that enzymes in general, and lysozyme in particular, have the potential for sensitisation of the respiratory tract.
In conclusion, lysozyme hydrochloride is not classified as skin sensitizer; on the other hand, a classification as respiratory sensitiser (Resp. Sens. 1, H334) is proposed, according to the CLP Regulation (EC 1272/2008).
*Commission Regulation (EU) No 286/2011 of 10 March 2011, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures
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.