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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 216-699-2 | CAS number: 1643-19-2
- 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
Data available for the structurally and functionally similar read across chemicals to determine the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical. Based on the summarized,it can be concluded that the testchemical 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:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: weight of evidence approach based on similar chemicals
- Justification for type of information:
- Weight of evidence approach based on similar chemicals
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Weight of evidence based on similar chemicals
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The weight of evidence report has been prepared based on the read across substances identified based on structural and functional similarity to assess the dermal sensitization potential of N,N,N-tributylbutan-1-aminium bromide (CAS No: 1643-19-2).
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: 1.Pirbright albino 2.Pirbright white 3.not specified
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- No data available
- Route:
- other: 1.epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 4%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 6 hours
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- Route:
- other: 3.epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- not specified
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- other: 1. epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 1%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 6 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- other: 2.epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: not specified
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 1.Total :46
Preliminary study: 6 animals
Main study
Treated group:30
Control group:10
2.not specified - Details on study design:
- 1. Details on study design
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures:3
- Exposure period: 6hr
- Test groups:30
- Control group:10
- Site: 2 x 2 cm cellulose patch to the clipped skin of the left flank.
- Frequency of applications: on day 1,8 and 15
- Duration: 15 days
- Concentrations: 4%
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures:1
- Day(s) of challenge: on day 29
- Exposure period:6hr
- Test groups:30
- Control group:10
- Site: 2 x 2 cm patch to the clipped skin of the right flank and covered with an occlusive dressing
- Concentrations:1%
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48hr
OTHER: All animals were observed daily for signs of systemic toxicity. Body weights were recorded on days 1 and 31.
2.not specified - Challenge controls:
- 1.yes, concurrent vehicle used
2.not specified - Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Reading:
- other: 1. 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 30
- Clinical observations:
- No skin sensitization reaction was observed.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- other: 2. 1st reading
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- Not specified
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Clinical observations:
- No skin sensitization reaction was observed.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
- The test material was considered to be not sensitizing to the skin of treated guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
Data available for the structurally and functionally similar read across chemicals has been reviewed to determine the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical. The studies are as mentioned below:
The skin sensitization study of similar read across chemical was performed by Buehler test using 30 female Pirbright albino guinea pigs in treated group and 10 in control group. Doses were selected on the bases of preliminary study using 6 animals. In induction phase, induction given on day 1, using 4 % concentration in water by topical application as2 x 2 cm cellulose patch to the clipped skin of the left flank. The patch was covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours and removed afterwards. The second induction given on day 8 and third on day 15 using same procedure on day first. During the induction phase, the skin sites were examined for local effects 24 hours after each treatment. In challenge phase, on day 29 test substance 1% concentration in same vehicle applied on a 2 x 2 cm patch to the clipped skin of the right flank and covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hour and evaluated 24 and 48hr after removal of occlusive dressing .All animals were observed daily for signs of systemic toxicity. Body weights were recorded on days 1 and 31.No skin sensitizing reaction observed after challenge application also no clinical effects were observed. Body weight development of the treated group was not different from that of the control group. During the induction phase, treated animals showed slight to well-defined erythema and very slight oedema at the treated skin area. After challenge, skin reactions were observed neither in the treated group nor in the control group. Hence the test chemical was considered to be not skin sensitizing in guinea pig.
Another Buhler test was conducted onfemalePirbrightalbinoguinea pigs to assess the skin sensitization potential of similar read across chemical. Doses were selected on the bases of preliminary study using 6 animals. In the preliminary study, 4% of test chemical in ethanol:water 80:20 as a concentration causing slight, well-defined erythema and very slight oedema and therefore suitable for induction. No irritation is reported after application of 1.0, 0.2 and 0.04%, wherefore 1% was used as challenge concentration.In the main study, the test group consisted of 20 female Guinea pigs and the control group of 10 female Guinea pigs. On day 1, a 4% solution of the test substance in ethanol was prepared and applied on a 2 x 2 cm cellulose patch to the clipped skin of the left flank. The patch was covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours and was removed afterwards. This treatment was repeated on days 8 and 15. During the induction phase, the skin sites were examined for local effects 24 hours after each treatment. On day 29 (challenge exposure) a 1% solution of the test substance in isopropanol was applied on a 2 x 2 cm patch to the clipped skin of the right flank and covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours. 24 and 48 hours after removal of the patches the skin reactions were scored. All animals were observed daily for signs of systemic toxicity. Body weights were recorded on days 1 and 31.During the study, no clinical effects were observed. Body weight development of the treated group was not different from that of the control group. During the induction phase, treated animals showed slight, well-defined to severe erythema and very slight to well-defined oedema at the treated skin area. After challenge, skin reactions were observed neither in the treated group nor in the control group.Thus on the basis of observed effects, the test chemical was considered to be not-sensitizing to the skin of guinea pigs.
The above results were further supported by a Buehler test conducted for another similar read across chemical on skin of guinea pigs. When the guinea pig were exposed to the test chemical, none of the treated animal had develop any allergic reaction. Hence the test material was considered to be not sensitizing to the skin of treated guinea pigs.
Based on the above summarized studies for target chemical and its structurally and functionally similar read across substances,it can be concluded that the testchemical is unable to cause skin sensitization and considered as non-skin sensitizer. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.
Reference
No contact sensitization was observed in treated guinea pigs.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Data available for the structurally and functionally similar read across chemicals has been reviewed to determine the skin sensitization potential of the test chemical. The studies are as mentioned below:
The skin sensitization study of similar read across chemical was performed by Buehler test using 30 female Pirbright albino guinea pigs in treated group and 10 in control group. Doses were selected on the bases of preliminary study using 6 animals. In induction phase, induction given on day 1, using 4 % concentration in water by topical application as2 x 2 cm cellulose patch to the clipped skin of the left flank. The patch was covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours and removed afterwards. The second induction given on day 8 and third on day 15 using same procedure on day first. During the induction phase, the skin sites were examined for local effects 24 hours after each treatment. In challenge phase, on day 29 test substance 1% concentration in same vehicle applied on a 2 x 2 cm patch to the clipped skin of the right flank and covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hour and evaluated 24 and 48hr after removal of occlusive dressing .All animals were observed daily for signs of systemic toxicity. Body weights were recorded on days 1 and 31.No skin sensitizing reaction observed after challenge application also no clinical effects were observed. Body weight development of the treated group was not different from that of the control group. During the induction phase, treated animals showed slight to well-defined erythema and very slight oedema at the treated skin area. After challenge, skin reactions were observed neither in the treated group nor in the control group. Hence the test chemical was considered to be not skin sensitizing in guinea pig.
Another Buhler test was conducted onfemalePirbrightalbinoguinea pigs to assess the skin sensitization potential of similar read across chemical. Doses were selected on the bases of preliminary study using 6 animals. In the preliminary study, 4% of test chemical in ethanol:water 80:20 as a concentration causing slight, well-defined erythema and very slight oedema and therefore suitable for induction. No irritation is reported after application of 1.0, 0.2 and 0.04%, wherefore 1% was used as challenge concentration.In the main study, the test group consisted of 20 female Guinea pigs and the control group of 10 female Guinea pigs. On day 1, a 4% solution of the test substance in ethanol was prepared and applied on a 2 x 2 cm cellulose patch to the clipped skin of the left flank. The patch was covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours and was removed afterwards. This treatment was repeated on days 8 and 15. During the induction phase, the skin sites were examined for local effects 24 hours after each treatment. On day 29 (challenge exposure) a 1% solution of the test substance in isopropanol was applied on a 2 x 2 cm patch to the clipped skin of the right flank and covered with an occlusive dressing for 6 hours. 24 and 48 hours after removal of the patches the skin reactions were scored. All animals were observed daily for signs of systemic toxicity. Body weights were recorded on days 1 and 31.During the study, no clinical effects were observed. Body weight development of the treated group was not different from that of the control group. During the induction phase, treated animals showed slight, well-defined to severe erythema and very slight to well-defined oedema at the treated skin area. After challenge, skin reactions were observed neither in the treated group nor in the control group.Thus on the basis of observed effects, the test chemical was considered to be not-sensitizing to the skin of guinea pigs.
The above results were further supported by a Buehler test conducted for another similar read across chemical on skin of guinea pigs. When the guinea pig were exposed to the test chemical, none of the treated animal had develop any allergic reaction. Hence the test material was considered to be not sensitizing to the skin of treated guinea pigs.
Based on the above summarized studies for target chemical and its structurally and functionally similar read across substances,it can be concluded that the testchemical is unable to cause skin sensitization and considered as non-skin sensitizer. 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 substance and its structurally and functionally similar read across substanceswere 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.