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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: - | 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 potential of test item, to cause delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea-pigs was assessed by the Magnusson-Kligman Maximisation Test based on OECD 406.
A significant dermal response (slight erythema or a more marked reaction) was observed in six test and no control animals following challenge application of 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol. A single significant response was observed amongst test animals following challenge application of 10% w/v test item in propylene glycol. No significant response was observed following challenge application of propylene glycol alone. It was concluded that, under the conditions of this study and the criteria of the EEC, repeated administration of test item caused delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea-pigs.
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 1992-07-28 to 1992-08-28
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: see 'Remark'
- Remarks:
- GLP study in accordance with recognised test guideline but: Lot/batch No.: not stated Expiration date of the lot/batch: not stated NOTE: study deemed acceptable because spectral data for test item are available, covering approximately before and after the test period - see section 1.4 Analytical Information.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 1981
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- This study was carried out conducted in accordance with OECD 406 and in compliance with OECD GLP before 10 May 2017.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Substance type: Organic
- Physical state: Fine, off-white powder
- Analytical purity: Approximately 100%
- Storage condition of test material: ambient temperature, in the original container - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan Olac Limited, Bicester, Oxfordshire, England
- Age at study initiation: six to eight weeks
- Weight at study initiation: all animals were within the bodyweight range 338 - 438 g
- Housing: stainless steel cages with grid floors and tops (Type GP7/TRI0 from Modular Systems and Development Company Limited, London, England). The grid floors ensured rapid removal of waste material to undertrays which were cleaned out as necessary. No more than five animals of the same sex were assigned to each cage. The cages were suspended in mobile stainless steel racks.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): commercially-available pelleted guinea-pig diet (Guinea-pig F.D.l., from Special Diets Services Limited, Witham, Essex, England) was fed without restriction. The diet contained no added antibiotic or other chemotherapeutic or prophylactic treatment. A regular supplement of autoclaved hay was also provided.
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): free access to tap water taken from the public supply
- Acclimation period: at least six days but not more than sixteen days was allowed between arrival at the laboratory and first administration of the test material.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 18°C (range 15°-23°C)
- Humidity (%): 55% R.H. (range 40%-70% R.H.)
- Air changes (per hr): approximately 15 air changes per hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): lighting cycle of 12 hours artificial light per day; there was no source of natural light
IN-LIFE DATES: From: 28 July 2009 To: 28 August 1992 - Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- propylene glycol
- Concentration / amount:
- First induction: 3% w/v test item in propylene glycol and 3% w/v test item in propylene glycol in FCA
Second induction: 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol - Day(s)/duration:
- First induction: Day 1; Second induction: Day 8
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- propylene glycol
- Concentration / amount:
- 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol and 10% w/v test item in propylene glycol
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 22/ 24 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
Phase 1 - Intradermal induction
Four naive guinea-pigs received intradermal injections (0.1 mL) into the skin overlying the scapulae. Six injections were administered to each guinea-pig; three concentrations of test material in the selected vehicle and three in an emulsion of FCA. Two guinea-pigs received the maximum practicable concentration in each medium and two dilutions. The other two animals received three lower concentrations in each medium.
Reactions to treatment were assessed approximately 24 and 48 hours and 7 days after injection.
Phase 2 - Topical induction administration
Two guinea-pigs were subjected to a single intradermal injection of 0.1 mL FCA at least five days before topical application to simulate the FCA insult that the main study animals receive before topical induction. The hair was removed from both flanks of the two animals. Topical application of 0.4 ml of the maximum practicable concentration of the test material and three lower concentrations in the selected induction vehicle was administered to the four test sites on each guinea-pig. Each test formulation was applied to a 2 x 2 cm absorbent patch (Whatman No.3 filter paper) which was applied to the skin and covered by an occlusive dressing for 48 hours.
Reactions to treatment were assessed 24 and 48 hours and 7 days after removal of the dressings.
Phase 3 - Topical challenge administration
Three guinea-pigs received a single intradermal injection of 0.1 mL FCA at least twenty days before topical application to simulate the FCA insult that the main study animals receive before challenge application. The hair was removed from both flanks of the three animals. Topical application of 0.03 mL of four concentrations of test material in the selected challenge vehicle was administered to the four test sites on each guinea-pig. Each test formulation was applied to a 1 cm diameter absorbent patch which was applied to the skin and covered by an dressing for 24 hours.
Reactions to treatment were assessed 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressings.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- Induction procedures: The induction procedures were primary induction by intradermal injection on Day 1 and secondary induction by occluded topical application on Day 8. Dermal responses to primary and secondary induction were assessed approximately 24 hours and 48 hours after injection or removal of the occlusive dressings
- Constitution of study groups: the test group consisted of twenty animals and the control group ten animals both, evenly divided by sex. The control animals (Group 1) were treated identically to the test animals (Group 2) during the induction and challenge procedures, except that during induction the test material was replaced by vehicle.
- Primary induction: three pairs of injections (0.1 mL) were made deep into the dermis, such that on either side of the dorsal median line there were three injection sites in a row parallel to the spinal column. All injection sites lay near the periphery of a dermal test site 4 cm x 2 cm long, overlying the scapulae. The anterior and middle sites were positioned close together and distant from the posterior sites.
- Secondary induction: On Day 7, the clipped dorsa of all animals were subject to inunction with 10% w/v sodium lauryl sulphate in petrolatum. This was intended to enhance dermal absorption of formulations administered on the following day. On Day 8, the dermal site overlying the scapulae were treated by topical application of 0.6 mL of a test material formulation to test animals, while controls received 0.6 mL of the vehicle. Each dose was applied to a 4 x 2.5 cm absorbent patch which was applied to the skin and covered by an occlusive dressing for 48 hours. The application site was wiped with a paper tissue moistened with the vehicle immediately after removal of the bandage.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
Both flanks of all animals were clipped on Day 21 to expose areas (5 x 5 cm) on either side of the trunk. On Day 22 these areas were wet shaven to reveal a 5 x 5 cm area on the left flank and a 10 x 5 cm area on the right flank. Approximately one hour later the left site was treated by topical application of 0.03 ml of the vehicle while the right side received 0.03 ml of the maximum non-irritant concentration (as determined by Phase 3 of the primary skin irritation screen) to one site and a dilution to a second site. The doses were applied to 1 cm diameter absorbent patches (AI-test) and covered by an occlusive dressing for 24 hours. The test site was wiped with a paper tissue moistened with vehicle immediately after removal of the bandage.
The challenge sites were examined approximately 24 and 48 hours after removal of the occlusive dressings. - Challenge controls:
- The control animals (Group 1) were treated identically to the test procedures, except that during induction the test material was replaced by vehicle.
- Positive control substance(s):
- no
- Positive control results:
- Not applicable
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 6
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythema or more marked reaction
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 10% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 10% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythema
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% w/v in propylene glycol
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- propylene glycol only
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- propylene glycol only
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- propylene glycol only
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- propylene glycol only
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 18
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Two animals humanely killed on Day 22
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- It was concluded that, under the conditions of this study and the criteria of the EEC, repeated administration of test item caused delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea-pigs.
- Executive summary:
The potential of test item, to cause delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea-pigs was assessed by the Magnusson-Kligman Maximisation Test based on OECD 406. The closely-clipped dorsa of ten male and ten female Dunkin-Hartley guinea-pigs were subject to intradermal injections of Freunds Complete Adjuvant, 3% w/v test item in propylene glycol and 3% w/v test item in propylene glycol in the adjuvant on Day 1. Seven days later the same area of skin was treated by topical application of 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol and the test site was covered by an occlusive dressing for 48 hours. The same induction procedures were carried out on a contemporaneous control group of five male and five female animals, except that the test material was replaced by vehicle in all doses. On Day 22, all surviving animals were challenged by occluded application of propylene glycol to the left flank and 50% and 10% w/v test item in propylene glycol to two sites on the right flank. The occlusive dressings were removed on the following day and the condition of the test sites was assessed approximately 24 and 48 hours later. Dermal signs of reaction to treatment following intradermal injection of 3% w/v test item in either propylene glycol or propylene glycol in FCA were slight or moderate erythema, eschar formation and pallor. Dermal signs following occluded topical application of 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol were exfoliation and occasional barely perceptible or slight erythema. Two male test animals showing excoriation of the induction site were killed on Day 22. A significant dermal response (slight erythema or a more marked reaction) was observed in six test and no control animals following challenge application of 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol. A single significant response was observed amongst test animals following challenge application of 10% w/v test item in propylene glycol. No significant response was observed following challenge application of propylene glycol alone. It was concluded that, under the conditions of this study and the criteria of the EEC, repeated administration of test item caused delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea-pigs.
Reference
General health and bodyweight:
The main study animals generally remained in overt good health and achieved anticipated bodyweight gains. Two male test animals showed ulceration of their induction sites and were humanely killed on the day of challenge application (Day 22). Necropsy examination revealed areas of excoriation up to 30 x 30 mm in size and enlarged axillary lymph nodes: one animal also showed occasional pale areas on the median and left lobe of the liver. The damage was considered to be a spontaneous physical effect, probably resulting from scratching of the site of the animal, and not primary irritation following second induction.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Skin sensitisation:
OECD 406 test:
A significant dermal response (slight erythema or a more marked reaction) was observed in 6/20 test and no control animals following challenge application of 50% w/v test item in propylene glycol.
Therefore in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 286/2011) Table 3.4.2 and section 3.4.2.2.4.1, this substance should be classified as Category 1 for skin sensitisers based on the test data.
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.