Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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.
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: 209-132-5 | CAS number: 556-61-6
Toxicological information
Skin sensitisation
Currently viewing:
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: GLP guideline study (EPA OPP 81-6)
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 986
- Report date:
- 1986
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPP 81-6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- This study was also according to the method of Magnusson and Kligman (1970).
The objective of this investigation was to identify irritant test article concentrations suitable for the induction phase of the main study. In addition, a suitable non-irritant concentration of the test article, by the topical route of administration, was identified for the challenge application. - GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Methyl isothiocyanate
- EC Number:
- 209-132-5
- EC Name:
- Methyl isothiocyanate
- Cas Number:
- 556-61-6
- Molecular formula:
- C2H3NS
- IUPAC Name:
- isothiocyanatomethane
- Details on test material:
- Test article name : TRAPEX 40
Cas n°: 556-61-6
Source: SCHERING AG
Batch number: 310 8210
Purity: 40% MITC formulation
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Kleintierfarm Madoerin AG (CH4414 Fuellinsdorf, Switzerland)
- Age at study initiation: 8-9 week-old
- Weight at study initiation: males = 462-516g, females = 437-530g
- Housing: individually in Makrolon type-3 cages with standard softwood bedding.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Pelleted standard Kliba 342, batch 25/85 and 26/85 guinea pig breeding/maintenance diet, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): Tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 7 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22+/-2
- Humidity (%): 55+/-10
- Air changes (per hr): 10-15
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 (music/light period)
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction : 1% with corn oil (intradermal + topical administrations).
Challenge : 1% with corn oil
Challengeopen allclose all
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction : 1% with corn oil (intradermal + topical administrations).
Challenge : 1% with corn oil
- No. of animals per dose:
- Control group : 5 animals/sexe/dose
Treated group : 10 animals/sexe/dose - Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: Intradermal injection (0.1 ml/site) were made into the clipped flank of 2 guinea-pigs at concentrations of 1, 0.5 and 0.1% of mITC in corn oil. The resulting dermal reactions were assessed 24 hours later. Topical application : patches of filter paper (2x2cm) were saturated with concentrations of 1, 0.5, 0.1% of MITC in corn oil, respectively as suspension and applied to the clipped and shaved flanks of each of 4 guinea pigs. The patches were covered by a strip of aluminium foil anf firmly secured by elastic plaster wrapped around the thunk and covered with impervious adhesive tape. The dressings were removed after an exposure period of 24 hours and the reaction sites were assessed for erythema and edema, on a numerical basis according to the scale described above. Further examination of the sites were performed 24 and 48h after removal of the dressing.
MAIN STUDY
A1. INDUCTION EXPOSURE No.1 (intradermal injection)
- No. of exposures: 1
- Animals received 3 pairs of intradermal injections :
1/Freuds complete adjuvant 50:50 with corn oil = control group
2/MITC diluted to 1% with corn oil = tested group (1)
3/MITC diluted to 1% with corn oil, amulsified in a 50:50 mixture of Freud's complete adjuvant = tested group (2)
- Site: dorsal skin from the scapular region (6x8cm)
A2. INDUCTION EXPOSURE No.2 (topical application) : one week after the injections.
- No. of exposures: 1
- Exposure period: 48 hours
- Site: dorsal skin from the scapular region
- Concentrations: patch was saturated with MITC (1%).
The patch were covered by aluminium foil and firmly secured by an elastic plaster wrapped around the thunk of the animal and secured with impervious adhesive tape.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE : two weeks after the topical induction application.
- No. of exposures: 1
- Exposure period: 24 hours
-Treated group : with MITC
-Control group : vehicle alone
- Site: 5x5 cm area on the left flank of each animal
- Concentrations: 1% MITC (non-irritant concentration)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48h
C. RECHALLENGE : two weeks after the first challenge.
The method was similar to that described for the first challenge with the exception that the right flanks of all the animals were used.
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48h
- Challenge controls:
- Yes, control animals were treated with vehicle only.
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
Results and discussion
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Any other information on results incl. tables
After the first challenge application, the following positive results were observed in the animals treated with the test article:
- at the 24-hour reading: 4/20 (20%)
- at the 48-hour reading: 3/20 (15%)
After the second challenge application, the following positive results were observed in the animals treated with the test article:
- at the 24-hour reading: 2/20 (10%)
- at the 48-hour reading: 1/20 (5%)Animals in control group showed negative result (after 24h : 0/10, after 48h : 0/10).
No toxic symptoms were evident in the guinea pigs of either the control and test group.
There was no mortality.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Trapex 40 is considered to possess a mild skin sensitization (contact allergenic) potential in albino guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
The purpose of this skin sensitization study was to assess the allergenic potential of Trapex 40 when administered to albino guinea pigs.
According to the procedures used in this experiment, slight differences between the test group and the vehicle-treated controls were evident after epidermal challenge application of Trapex 40.
After the first challenge application, the following positive results were observed in the animals treated with the test article:
- at the 24-hour reading: 4/20 (20%)
- at the 48-hour reading: 3/20 (15%)
After the second challenge application, the following positive results were observed in the animals treated with the test article:
- at the 24-hour reading: 2/20 (10%)
- at the 48-hour reading: 1/20 (5%)Animals in control group showed negative result (after 24h : 0/10, after 48h : 0/10).
No toxic symptoms were evident in the guinea pigs of either the control and test group.
There was no mortality.Trapex 40 is considered to possess a mild skin sensitization (contact allergenic) potential in albino guinea pigs.
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.
