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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Remarks:
- Originally, the test was carried out for the purpose of another regulation- registration in the US according to TSCA - US EPA OPPTS 870.240 Acute Eye irritation [EPA712-C-98-195]
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- December 13, 2017 - January 9, 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Justification for type of information:
- Originally, the test was carried out for the purpose of another regulation- Registration in the US according to TSCA US EPA OPPTS 870. 2600. [712-C-03-197].
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 018
- Report date:
- 2018
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 2003
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- 2010
- Deviations:
- no
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- none
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Reaction mass of 1-hydroxypropan-2-yl diethylphosphinate and 2-hydroxypropyl diethylphosphinate
- Cas Number:
- 2230512-72-6
- Molecular formula:
- C7H17O3P
- IUPAC Name:
- Reaction mass of 1-hydroxypropan-2-yl diethylphosphinate and 2-hydroxypropyl diethylphosphinate
- Test material form:
- liquid
- Details on test material:
- R&D level
Constituent 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- COA attached
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA:J
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Animals
Number of Animals: 33
Number of Groups: 9
Number of Animals per Group:
Preliminary Irritation (4 groups): 2 per group
Test (3 groups): 5 per group
Vehicle (Negative) Control: 5
Positive Control: 5
Sex: Female, nulliparous and non-pregnant.
Species/Strain: Mouse, CBAlJ
Age/Body Weight: Preliminary Animals: Young adult (10-11 weeks)
Test and Control Animals: Young adult (11-12 weeks)!
19.7-24.2 grams at experimental start.
Source: Received from Envigo RMS Inc. on November 29, 2017 (preliminary
Irritation Group Animals) and on December 13,2017 (Test and Control Group
Animals).
Housing: The animals were individually housed in plastic solid bottom cages during
the dosing and resting phase of the study. After fmal weighing until sacrifice,
animals were housed in their respective dose groups in plastic cages with bedding.
Bedding in the plastic, solid bottom cages was changed at least once per week.
Enrichment (e.g., nesting material) was placed in each cage. All caging conformed to
the size recommendations in the most recent Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals (Natl. Res. Council, 2011).
Animal Room Temperature and Relative Humidity Ranges: 19-23°C and 37-50%,
respectively.
Animal Room Air Changes/Hour: 13. Airflow measurements are evaluated regularly
and the records are kept on file at Product Safety Labs.
Photoperiod: 12-hour light/dark cycle
Acclimation Period: 14 or 21 days
Food: Envigo Teklad Global 16% Protein Rodent Diet@ #2016. The diet was
available ad libitum.
Water: Filtered tap water was supplied ad libitum.
Contaminants: There were no known contaminants reasonably expected to be found
in the food or water at levels which would have interfered with the results of this
study. Analyses of the food and water are conducted regularly and the records are
kept on file at Product Safety Labs
Study design: in vivo (LLNA)
- Vehicle:
- dimethylformamide
- Concentration:
- The test substance at 25% and 50% w/w mixtures in DMF and the test substance at 100% were selected for test.
- No. of animals per dose:
- Preliminary Irritation (4 groups): 2 per group
Test (3 groups): 5 per group
Vehicle (Negative) Control: 5
Positive Control: 5 - Details on study design:
- Preparation of Test Substance
The test substance, as received (neat), was mixed well prior to use. Solubility testing conducted
by PSL indicated that the test substance was soluble in DMF. All preparations were mixed well
prior to dosing.
Preliminary Toxicity Testing
Three test substance concentrations and the vehicle control were used. Test substance
concentrations of 25%, 50% and 100% were tested to determine the highest achievable level that
does not produce overt systemic toxicity or excessive local irritation. Dilutions of the test
substance were prepared as w/w mixtures in DMF. Each group consisted of two mice. The ears
of each mouse were evaluated for erythema and edema pre-dose on Day I and on Days 2, 3, and
6 according to the scoring system described in Table 8.
Twenty-five J.tL of the appropriate concentration of the test substance or the vehicle alone was
applied to the dorsum of both ears of each mouse for three consecutive days. Application was
done using an appropriate size micropipette to accurately deliver 25 ftL. The dose was gently
spread as evenly as possible over the dorsal surface of the ear using the tip of the pipette. No
treatment was made on Days 4 and 5. On Day 6, the sites for each mouse were evaluated for
local reactions (erythema & edema).
Animals were observed daily for signs of toxicity. The Study Director used this data in
conjunction with any pre-existing data to select the three concentrations to be tested. The test
substance at 25% and 50% w/w mixtures in DMF and the test substance at 100% were selected
for test.
Selection of Animals/Dose Levels
Page 9 of44
Study Number 47018
Prior to dosing, the animals were weighed and the ears were checked for any abnormalities or
clinical signs of diseases or injury. Twenty-five healthy naive female mice without pre-existing
ear irritation were selected and distributed (5 mice per group) into the following groups:
Group Purpose Concentration
I Vehicle Control 0%
2 Positive Control Substance 25%HCA
3 Test Substance 25%
4 Test Substance 50%
5 Test Substance 100%
Concentrations were selected based on toxicity, solubility, irritancy, and viscosity.
Sample Preparation
Concentrations of 25%, 50% and 100% were selected for the main test based on results of the
preliminary screening test. Dilutions of the test substance were prepared as w/w mixtures in
DMF. A single concentration of a 25% w/w mixture of HCA in DMF was also prepared. All
dosage preparations were freshly prepared on the day of application.
Test Substance Application
Beginning on Day I, a quantity of 25 ilL of the appropriate test substance concentration, the
positive control substance, or the vehicle alone was applied to the dorsum of both ears of each
mouse once per day for three consecutive days (Days I, 2, and 3) using a micropipette. During
application, the material was gently spread as evenly as possible over the dorsal surface of the ear
using the tip of the pipette.
Dermal Scoring
Prior to each application (Days I, 2, and 3) and on Day 6, the ears were evaluated for erythema
and edema according to the modified Draize scoring system (Draize, Woodard, & Calvary, 1944;
see attached individual dermal irritation score Tables ).
3H-methyl Thymidine Injections
On Day 6 of the study (three days after the final topical application) 250 f1L of sterile phosphate
buffered saline (PBS) containing 20 flCi of 3H-methyl thymidine was injected intravenously via
the tail vein of each mouse.
Lymph Node Assessment
Approximately five hours after the injection, all test and control mice were euthanized via
overdose of inhaled Isoflurane and the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised. The lymph
nodes were evaluated for each individual mouse. A single cell suspension of lymph node cells
(LNC) was prepared in PBS by gently massaging the lymph nodes between the frosted ends of
two microscope slides over a collection vessel. The slides were then rinsed briefly with PBS into
the vessel. The contents of the vessel were transferred to a centrifuge tube and washed with an
excess of PBS and centrifuged for approximately 10 minutes at 1800 rpm, with an RCFl of 489G.
This process was carried out twice. In both cases, the supernatant was decanted and discarded
following each centrifugation. After the second wash, 5 mL of the 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA)
in distilled water was then added to the sediment and the tube was vortexed briefly. The DNA
was then precipitated in the 5% TCA in distilled water at approximately 4°C overnight
(approximately 18 hours).
Following the overnight precipitation of the DNA, the tubes were centrifuged again for
approximately 10 minutes at 1800 rpm and the supernatant was discarded. The resulting
precipitate was re-suspended using ! mL of the 5% TCA in distilled water and transferred to 10
mL of scintillation fluid. Incorporation of 3H-methyl thymidine was measured by ~-scintillation
counting and expressed as disintegrations per minute, minus background dpm. - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Statistics:
- Statistical analysis was performed. Significance was judged at p < 0.05. The treated groups and
negative vehicle control group were compared using a One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA), followed by comparison of the treated groups to control by Dunnett's t-test for
multiple comparisons. Where variances are considered significantly different by Bartlett's test,
groups were compared using a non-parametric method (Kruskal-Wallis non parametric analysis
of variance followed by Dunn's test) (INS TAT Biostatistics, Graph Pad Software, San Diego,
CA). Outlier analysis was conducted using Grubbs (1969).
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- positive Coutrol - 25% HCA iu DMF: Very slight erythema (score of 1) was
evident at all positive control sites on Days 2 and 3. Well-defined erythema (score of 2) was
evident at all sites on Day 6. Slight edema (score of 1) was present at one site on Day 2, nine
sites on Day 3, and all sites on Day 6. Desquamation was present at all sites on Day 6.
The positive control (HCA) at 25% produced a dernal sensitization response in mice
(SI = 6.02).
see attached table 6- individual DPM values
In vivo (LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 1.08
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% test substance in DMF
- Remarks on result:
- other: no indication of skin sensitization
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 1.96
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% test substance in DMF
- Remarks on result:
- other: no indication of skin sensitization
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 2.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 100% test substance
- Remarks on result:
- other: no indication of skin sensitization
Any other information on results incl. tables
Clinical Observations
All test, control and preliminary mice were observed for signs of mortality, gross toxicity, and/or
behavioral changes daily (see Tables 2 and 5). Preliminary mice were euthanized via CO2
inhalation and all test and control mice were euthanized via overdose of inhaled Isoflurane
anesthetic on Day 6.
Body Weights
Individual body weights of test and control animals were recorded on Day I (initial) shortly
before test substance application and prior to IV injections on test Day 6.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Based on the results of this study, the test substance is not considered to be a contact dermal
sensitizer in the LLNA. Proper conduct of the LLNA was conftrmed via a positive response with
25% alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, ~ 95% (HCA), a moderate contact sensitizer. - Executive summary:
A dermal sensitization test was conducted with mice to determine the potential for
E 17-194 T to produce sensitization after repeated topical applications.
Two concentrations (25% and 50%) of the test substance in N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) and
the neat test substance were topically applied to fifteen healthy test mice (5 mice/group) for three
consecutive days. Three days after the last application, the mice were given an N injection
containing 20 flCi of 3H-methyl thymidine. Approximately five hours later, all animals were
euthanized via an overdose of inhaled Isoflurane and the draining (auricular) lymph nodes were
harvested and prepared for analysis in a scintillation counter. The results are presented in
disintegrations per minute per mouse (dpmlmouse). Each animal's ears were also evaluated for
erythema and edema prior to each application and again on Day 6, prior to the N injection.
A vehicle control group (five animals) and a positive control group (five animals) were
maintained under the same environmental conditions and treated in the same manner as the test
animals. The vehicle control animals were treated with DMF and the positive control group
animals were treated with a 25% w/w mixture of alpha-Hexyicinnamaldehyde (RCA), ::: 95%, in
DMF. In an effort to reduce the total number of animals used, this study was run concurrently
with another study to utilize a common positive control and common vehicle control group.
Based on the results of this study, the test substance is not considered to be a contact dermal
sensitizer in the LLNA. Proper conduct of the LLNA was conftrmed via a positive response with
25% alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, ~ 95% (HCA), a moderate contact 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.