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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
REACH_sensitising | KeratinoSens | OECD 442D | #key study#
REACH_sensitising | hCLAT | OECD 442E | #key study#
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- August - October 2020
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: OECD Guideline 442E (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the Key Event on activation of dendritic cells on the Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 23.07.2018
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) for Skin Sensitisation, DB-ALM Protocol n°158
- Version / remarks:
- 01.07.2015
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- In order to replace in vivo experiments validation studies on alternative, mechanistically based in chemico and in vitro test methods on skin sensitisation were conducted under the auspices of ECVAM and have been considered scientifically valid for the evaluation of the skin sensitisation hazard of chemicals. It was concluded that the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) showed evidence of being a reliable and relevant method to support the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers for the purpose of hazard classification and labelling for skin sensitisation testing. However, only combinations of several non-animal testing methods within an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) will be able to fully substitute for the animal test currently in use
- Details on the study design:
- The in vitro human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the third molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely dendritic cell activation, by quantifying the expression of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. The expression of the cell surface markers compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
- Positive control results:
- The positive controls DNCB and NiSO4 led to upregulation of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: CD86 Experiment 1 (158.75 µg/mL)
- Parameter:
- other: RFI
- Remarks:
- [%]
- Value:
- 187
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Cell viability: 55.7%
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: CD86 Experiment 2 (110.24 µg/mL)
- Parameter:
- other: RFI
- Remarks:
- [%]
- Value:
- 426
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Cell viability: 25.8%
- Run / experiment:
- other: CD54
- Parameter:
- other: RFI
- Remarks:
- [%]
- Value:
- 200
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Remarks:
- in the context of an integrated approach only
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did upregulate the cell surface marker CD86 in two independent experiments. Therefore, the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach such as IATA. - Executive summary:
The in vitro human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the third molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely dendritic cell activation, by quantifying the expression of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. The expression of the cell surface markers compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
Prior to the main study the cell batches were checked for its reactivity towards known positive and negative controls and was found to be acceptable for further testing.
In the present study 2-Propenoic acid,2-[[3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl]oxy]ethyl ester; EC Name: Reaction mass of 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-5-yloxy)ethyl acrylate and 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-6-yloxy)ethyl acrylate was dissolved in DMSO. For the dose finding assay stock solutions with concentrations ranging from 500 mg/mL to 3.91 mg/mL were prepared by a serial dilution of 1:2. Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained with propidium iodide and cell viability was measured by FACS analysis.
A CV75 of 132.29 ± 4.06 μg/mL was derived in the dose finding assay.
Based on the CV75, the main experiment was performed covering the following concentration steps:
158.75, 132.29, 110.24, 91.87, 76.56, 63.80, 53.17, 44.30 μg/mL
In the dose finding assay 1 precipitation of the test item was observed in the three highest working solutions when mixing the test item stock solutions with cell culture medium. In the other experiments, no precipitation or turbidity of the test item was observed for all concentration steps when mixing the test item stock solutions with cell culture medium.
Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained and cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 were measured by FACS analysis. Cell viability was assessed in parallel using propidium iodide staining.
Cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the test item. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 55.7% (CD86), 54.6% (CD54) and 50.4% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 18.0% (CD86), 23.7% (CD54) and 19.3% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment.
The expression of the cell surface marker CD86 was upregulated up to 187% (158.75 μg/mL) in the first experiment and up to 426% (110.24 μg/mL) in the second experiment.
In contrast, the expression of the cell surface marker CD54 was not upregulated above the threshold of 200% in any of the experiments.
Since one of the cell surface markers clearly exceeded the threshold in two independent experiments the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
Conclusion
In this study under the given conditions the test item did upregulate the cell surface marker CD86 in two independent experiments. Therefore, the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach such as IATA.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- August - October 2020
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- 25.06.2018
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: KeratinoSens™, EURL ECVAM DB-ALM Protocol No. 155
- Version / remarks:
- 09.03.2018
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- In order to replace in vivo experiments validation studies on alternative, mechanistically based in chemico and in vitro test methods on skin sensitisation were conducted under the auspices of ECVAM and have been considered scientifically valid for the evaluation of the skin sensitisation hazard of chemicals. It was concluded that the KeratinoSens™ assay showed evidence of being a reliable and relevant method to support the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers for the purpose of hazard classification and labelling for skin sensitisation testing. However, only combinations of several non-animal testing methods within an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) will be able to fully substitute for the animal test currently in use
- Details on the study design:
- The in vitro KeratinoSens™ assay enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the second molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely activation of keratinocytes, by quantifying the luciferase activity in the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™. The luciferase activity, assessed by luminescence measurement, compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
In the present study the test item was dissolved in DMSO. Based on a molecular weight of 248.32 g/mol a stock solution of 200 mM was prepared. Based on the stock solution a set of twelve master solutions in 100% solvent was prepared by serial dilution using a constant dilution factor of 1:2 in experiments 1 and 2 and a constant dilution factor of 1:1.333 in experiment 3. These master solutions were diluted 1:100 in cell culture medium. Cells were incubated with the test item for 48 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were lysed and luciferase activity was assessed by luminescence measurement. - Positive control results:
- The positive controls DNCB and NiSO4 led to upregulation of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 1 (62.50 µM)
- Parameter:
- other: I max
- Value:
- 14.49
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Cell viability: 10.4%
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 2 (31.25 µM)
- Parameter:
- other: I max
- Value:
- 4.09
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Cell viability: 35.5%
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 3 (60 µM)
- Parameter:
- other: I max
- Value:
- 15.34
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Cell viability: 86.2%
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- The controls confirmed the validity of the study.
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Remarks:
- in the context of an integrated approach only
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did induce the luciferase activity in the transgenic KeratinoSens™ cell line in two independent experiments. Therefore, the test item can be considered as sensitiser.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach such as IATA. - Executive summary:
The in vitro KeratinoSens™ assay enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the second molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely activation of keratinocytes, by quantifying the luciferase activity in the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™. The luciferase activity, assessed by luminescence measurement, compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
In the present study 2-Propenoic acid,2-[[3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl]oxy]ethyl ester; EC Name: Reaction mass of 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-5 -yloxy)ethyl acrylate and 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-6-yloxy)ethyl acrylate was dissolved in DMSO. Based on a molecular weight of 248.32 g/mol a stock solution of 200 mM was prepared.
Based on the stock solution a set of twelve master solutions in 100% solvent was prepared by serial dilution using a constant dilution factor of 1:2 in experiments 1 and 2 and a constant dilution factor of 1:1.333 in experiment 3. These master solutions were diluted 1:100 in cell culture medium. The following concentration range was tested in the assay:
2000, 1000, 500, 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.63, 7.81, 3.91, 1.95, 0.98 μM (Experiment 1 and 2)
60, 45.01, 33.77, 25.33, 19, 14.26, 10.69, 8.02, 6.02, 4.52, 3.39, 2.54 μM (Experiment 3)
Cells were incubated with the test item for 48 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were lysed and luciferase activity was assessed by luminescence measurement.
In the first experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 14.49 was determined at a test item concentration of 62.50 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 10.4%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (2.66) was found to be 31.25 μM. The corresponding cell viability was >70% (109.8%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (18.05 μM). Furthermore, a slight but apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction was observable.
Therefore, the test item is considered as sensitiser in this experiment.
In the second experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 4.09 was determined at a test item concentration of 31.25 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 35.5%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (1.58) was found to be 15.63 μM. The corresponding cell viability was <70% (54.5%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (14.34 μM). Therefore, the test item is considered as non-sensitiser in this experiment.
As the first and second experiment showed different outcomes, a third experiment with an adapted concentration range was performed.
In the third experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 15.34 was determined at a test item concentration of 60 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 86.2%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (1.64) was found to be 25.33 μM. The corresponding cell viability was >70% (93.2%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (22.65 μM). Furthermore, an overall dose-response for luciferase induction was observable. Therefore, the test item is considered as sensitiser in this experiment.
The test item showed sensitizing potential in two out of three independent experiments. Under the condition of this study the test item is therefore considered as sensitiser.
Referenceopen allclose all
In the present study 2-Propenoic acid,2-[[3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl]oxy]ethyl ester; EC Name: Reaction mass of 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-5-yloxy)ethyl acrylate and 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-6-yloxy)ethyl acrylate was dissolved in DMSO. For the dose finding assay stock solutions with concentrations ranging from 500 mg/mL to 3.91 mg/mL were prepared by a serial dilution of 1:2. Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained with propidium iodide and cell viability was measured by FACS analysis.
A CV75 of 132.29 ± 4.06 μg/mL was derived in the dose finding assay.
Based on the CV75, the main experiment was performed covering the following concentration steps:
158.75, 132.29, 110.24, 91.87, 76.56, 63.80, 53.17, 44.30 μg/mL
In the dose finding assay 1 precipitation of the test item was observed in the three highest working solutions when mixing the test item stock solutions with cell culture medium. In the other experiments, no precipitation or turbidity of the test item was observed for all concentration steps when mixing the test item stock solutions with cell culture medium.
Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained and cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 were measured by FACS analysis. Cell viability was assessed in parallel using propidium iodide staining.
Cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the test item. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 55.7% (CD86), 54.6% (CD54) and 50.4% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 18.0% (CD86), 23.7% (CD54) and 19.3% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment.
The expression of the cell surface marker CD86 was upregulated up to 187% (158.75 μg/mL) in the first experiment and up to 426% (110.24 μg/mL) in the second experiment.
In contrast, the expression of the cell surface marker CD54 was not upregulated above the threshold of 200% in any of the experiments.
Since one of the cell surface markers clearly exceeded the threshold in two independent experiments the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
The controls confirmed the validity of the study for all experiments.
The data generated with this test should be considered in the context of integrated approached such as IATA, combining the result with other complementary information, e.g. derived from in vitro assays addressing other key events of the skin sensitisation AOP.
In the first experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 14.49 was determined at a test item concentration of 62.50 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 10.4%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (2.66) was found to be 31.25 μM. The corresponding cell viability was >70% (109.8%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (18.05 μM). Furthermore, a slight but apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction was observable.
Therefore, the test item is considered as sensitiser in this experiment.
In the second experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 4.09 was determined at a test item concentration of 31.25 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 35.5%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (1.58) was found to be 15.63 μM. The corresponding cell viability was <70% (54.5%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (14.34 μM).
Therefore, the test item is considered as non-sensitiser in this experiment.
As the first and second experiment showed different outcomes, a third experiment with an adapted concentration range was performed.
In the third experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 15.34 was determined at a test item concentration of 60 μM. The corresponding cell viability was 86.2%. The lowest tested concentration with a significant luciferase induction >1.5 (1.64) was found to be 25.33 μM. The corresponding cell viability was >70% (93.2%). The calculated EC1.5 was <1000 μM (22.65 μM). Furthermore, an overall dose-response for luciferase induction was observable.
Therefore, the test item is considered as sensitiser in this experiment.
The test item showed sensitizing potential in two out of three independent experiments. Under the condition of this study the test item is therefore considered as sensitiser.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
For assessment of the skin sensitization potential a binary testing strategy using Keratinosens (OECD 442D) and h-CLAT (OECD 442E) has been chosen. In the KeratinoSens assay the test item did induce the luciferase activity in the transgenic KeratinoSens cell line in two independent experiments and was therefore considered as sensitizer. In the h-CLAT the test item did upregulate the cell surface marker CD86 in two independent experiments. The test item was therefore considered to be a skin sensitizer.
Based on the available data reaction mass of 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-5-yloxy)ethyl acrylate and 2-(3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-1H-4,7-methanoinden-6-yloxy)ethyl acrylate is classified as skin sensitizer.
(Skin Sens. 1 – no subcategorization)
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.