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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 947-894-7 | 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
Based on the results of three in vitro and in chemico assays covering key event 1 to 3 the test item is considered to be not skin sensitising.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 09 May 2018 - 07 January 2019
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Version / remarks:
- 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Details on the study design:
- The reactivity of a test chemical and synthetic cysteine or lysine containing peptides was evaluated by combining the test chemical with a solution of the peptide (reaction samples) and monitoring the remaining concentration of the peptide following 24 ± 2 hours of interaction time at room temperature (25 ± 2.5 °C). The peptide is a custom material containing phenylalanine to aid in detection and either cysteine or lysine as the reactive centre. Relative concentrations of the peptide following the 24 hour reaction time were determined by HPLC with gradient elution and UV detection at 220 nm. Samples were prepared and analysed in triplicates in batches to keep the total HPLC analysis time less than 30 hours.
- Positive control results:
- The acceptance criteria were met in case of the positive control with the cysteine peptide depletion value of 70.09 % and a mean lysine peptide depletion value of 57.24 %. The SD of the percent peptide depletions of the positive control was 0.65 % and 0.84 % for the cysteine and lysine depletion respectively.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: mean of three runs
- Parameter:
- other: % peptide depletion cysteine
- Value:
- 3.9
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not examined
- Negative controls validity:
- not examined
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: mean of three runs
- Parameter:
- other: % peptide depletion lysine
- Value:
- 11.68
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not examined
- Negative controls validity:
- not examined
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- The percent cysteine peptide depletion value of the test item (100 mM) was 3.93 % while of the neat test item (1g/mL) was 11.68 %. The percent lysine peptide depletion of the test item (100 mM) was 0.86 % while of the neat test item (1 g/mL) was 0.02 %.
The standard deviations for the test chemical replicates were 1.87 % and 1.23 % for the percent cysteine depletions and 0.42 % and 0.37 % for the percent lysine peptide depletions respectively. - Interpretation of results:
- other: negative
- Conclusions:
- Based on results of this in chemico Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay according to OECD 442C the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides and is thus not considered a potential skin sensitiser.
- Executive summary:
This study was conducted to evaluate the skin sensitisation potential of the test item in chemico. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) proposed the molecular initiating event of the skin sensitisation Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP), namely protein reactivity, by quantifying the reactivity of the test chemical towards cysteine and lysine model synthetic peptides. At the beginning of the assay the solubility of the test chemical was assessed and ultrapure water was chosen as the appropriate solvent.
Two individual tests were conducted with the cysteine peptide, since the first one did not meet the acceptance criteria and had to be rejected. The second run was valid and accepted. Only one individual run was needed with the lysine peptide, which has fulfilled all the acceptance criteria. All in all, the results of the two valid runs were used for the classification of the test item. The positive control replicates showed the expected percent peptide depletion values within acceptable limits with 70.09 % cysteine peptide depletion and 57.24 % lysine peptide depletion. The back-calculated values of the reference control replicates were within the expected molarity concentration range for the cysteine and lysine peptides, as well. Two stock solutions were prepared with the test item for both peptides: in addition to the 100 mM solutions, the test chemical was dissolved to its maximum soluble concentration (neat reaction sample) in the same solvent used to prepare the apparent 100 mM solutions. The percent cysteine peptide depletion value of the test item (100 mM) was 3.93 % while of the neat test item (1 g/mL) was 11.68 %. The percent lysine peptide depletion of the test item (100 mM) was 0.86 % while of the neat test item (1 g/mL) was 0.02 %.
The mean depletion value of the peptides was used to categorise the test chemical in one of the four classes of reactivity. No co-elution was observed with either cysteine or lysine peptides, therefore the Cysteine 1:10 / Lysine 1:50 prediction model was used for the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers. The mean peptide depletion of the test item was 2.40 % with the 100 mM test item stock solutions and 5.85 % with the 1 mg/mL test item stock solutions, thus none of them exceeded the 6.38 % threshold of the applicable prediction model. The results correspond to a negative outcome indicating that the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides, thus is not a potential skin sensitiser.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 9 May 2018 - 08 January 2019
- 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)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- Principle of the test:
The KeratinoSens™ method is an in vitro assay that quantifies the extent of luciferase gene induction following 48 hours incubation time of the KeratinoSens™ reporter cells with the test chemicals. Luciferase gene induction is measured in the cell lysates by luminescence detection using a light producing luciferase substrate (Luciferase Reagent). Cytotoxicity and the relative luminescence intensity of luciferase substrate in the lysates are measured and luciferase induction compared to solvent/vehicle control is calculated.
KeratinoSens™ cells were derived from HaCaT human keratinocytes and transfected with selectable plasmids containing luciferase gene under the transcriptional control of the AKR1C2 ARE gene sequence, upstream of the SV40 promoter. AKR1C2 is known to be one of the genes up-regulated upon contacting skin sensitisers in dendritic cells. Therefore, this method is able to mimic the activation of the Keap1-Nrf2-ARE regulatory pathway, and is relevant for the assessment of the skin sensitisation potential of test chemicals. A prediction model is used, to support the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
Procedure of the KeratinoSens™ method:
0. Preincubation of cells; Solubility assessment of test chemicals
1. Seeding of cells for testing - 24 h incubation
2. Preparation of the stock solution
3. Preparation of master plates
4. Exposure – 48 h incubation
5. Luciferase activation measurement; Cytotoxicity assessment - Positive control results:
- The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, Trans-Cinnamaldehyde was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 at two concentrations in the first test and at three concentrations in the other test. The EC1.5 value of the positive control was 16 µM and 13 µM in the two individual tests.
In addition, the average induction in the parallel plates for Trans Cinnamaldehyde at 64 μM was 9.40 and 11.42 fold. Although these values are out of the 2 – 8 fold induction domain, the dose response could be clearly seen with increasing luciferase activity induction at increasing concentrations for the positive control, therefore the tests were considered valid. Average fold induction values are presented in Table 3 and 4.
There was no cytotoxicity (cell viability lower than 70 %) induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations, thus no IC30 or IC50 values were determined. - Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: max. fold induction
- Value:
- 1.07
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: max- fold induction
- Value:
- 1.22
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: both
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5
- Remarks on result:
- not determinable
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY:
Prior to routine use of the test method described in the OECD Test Guideline 442D, the laboratory demonstrated technical proficiency (Study Number: 392-442-4012), using the 10 Proficiency Substances listed in APPENDIX IA - ANNEX 1 of TG 442D. Moreover, a historical database of data generated with the positive control is maintained over time to confirm the reproducibility of the test method in the laboratory.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: yes - Interpretation of results:
- other: negative
- Conclusions:
- Based on these results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item turned out to be negative and therefore having a non-sensitising potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
- Executive summary:
In the course of this study the skin sensitisation potential of the test item was studied using the KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method). For the test chemical and positive control substance, in order to derive a prediction two independent tests were sufficient to be conducted, since the results of those tests were concordant and both runs met the acceptance criteria. The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, Trans-Cinnamaldehyde was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 at two concentrations in the first test and at three concentrations in the other test. The EC1.5 value of the positive control was 16 µM and 13 µM in the two individual tests. In addition, the average induction in the parallel plates for Trans‑Cinnamaldehyde at 64 μM was 9.40 and 11.42 fold and the dose response could be clearly seen with increasing luciferase activity induction at increasing concentrations for the positive control. There was no cytotoxicity (viability < 70 %) induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations. Moreover, the average coefficient of variation (CV) of the luminescence reading for the negative (solvent) control DMSO was not greater than 20 % in either tests. The CV% for the DMSO control was 14.01 % and 19.69 % in the first and second tests respectively. For the test item twelve doses were used in two independent runs between 2000 µM to 1 µM. There was no cytotoxicity (viability < 70 %) induced at any concentrations) by the test item in KeratinoSens™ cells compared to the solvent/vehicle control, thus no IC30 or IC50 values could be determined. The fold induction did not exceed the threshold of 1.5-fold at any concentrations compared to the respective negative controls in any of the independent runs. Therefore, both runs were negative for luciferase gene induction.
Table 1. Summary of the KeratinoSens™ results for the test item
Name of the Test item
Significant induction above 1.5-fold
(yes/no)
KeratinoSens™ result obtained (sensitiser/ non-sensitiser)
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)
no
non-sensitiser
Based on these results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item was negative therefore having a non-sensitising potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2019-01-14 to 2019-03-21
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: IN VITRO SKIN SENSITISATION ASSAYS ADDRESSING THE KEY EVENT ON ACTIVATION OF DENDRITIC CELLS ON THE ADVERSE OUTCOME PATHWAY FOR SKIN SENSITISATION
- Version / remarks:
- 2018
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Details on the study design:
- The h-CLAT method is an in vitro assay that quantifies changes of cell surface marker expression (i.e. CD86 and CD54) on a human monocytic leukemia cell line, THP-1 cells, following 24 hours exposure to the test item. These surface molecules are typical markers of monocytic THP-1 activation and may mimic DC activation, which plays a critical role in T-cell priming. The activation process through which DCs change from antigen processing to antigen presenting cells addresses the third key event of the skin sensitization Adverse Outcome Pathway.
The changes of surface phenotypic biomarker expression were measured and quantified by flow cytometry following cell staining with fluorochrome-tagged antibodies. The relative fluorescence intensity of surface markers compared to solvent/vehicle control were calculated and used in the prediction model, to support the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers. Cytotoxicity measurement was also conducted concurrently to assess whether upregulation of surface marker expression occurred at sub-cytotoxic concentrations. - Positive control results:
- The positive control gave expected results for both markers, meaning that the RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 expression was over the positive criteria (CD86 ≥ 150 % and CD54 ≥ 200 %) and the respective cell viabilities were more than 50 % in each run.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2 to 4
- Parameter:
- other: % increase in CD86 marker expression
- Value:
- 150
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not examined
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2 to 4
- Parameter:
- other: % increase in CD54 marker expression
- Value:
- 200
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not examined
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: no
DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY:
Prior to routine use of the test method described in Annex I of the Test Guideline 442E, the laboratory demonstrated technical proficiency by correctly obtaining the expected h-CLAT prediction for the 10 proficiency substances recommended in OECD 442E and by obtaining CV75, EC150 and EC200 values that fell within the respective reference ranges (Study Number: 392-442-3821). Moreover, a historical database of reactivity check results positive controls and solvent/vehicle controls was generated and has been maintained to confirm the reproducibility of the test method over time.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes, except run 1
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: yes - Interpretation of results:
- other: positive
- Executive summary:
In the course of this OECD 442E compliant study the skin sensitization potential of the test item was studied.
The extent of cytotoxicity induced on THP-1 cells by the test item was studied in four dose finding tests. The default concentration used for test item dissolved in saline was set to the highest allowed concentration (5000 µg/mL) in the last two dose finding tests. An average CV75 value of 3817 µg/mL was calculated and it was used for setting the dose-range for measuring CD86 and CD54 expression in the main test. Eight doses were used in four independent runs between 4584 µg/mL – 1278 µg/mL. The increase in CD86 marker expression (RFI) was equal to or greater than 150 % at most of the tested doses (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in all of the independent runs. Therefore, all three valid runs were concluded positive for CD86 marker expression. However, effective concentration for CD86 expression (EC150) was not determined, since no clear dose response could be observed. The increase of CD54 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 200 % compared to the negative controls at several higher concentrations (with >50 % of cell viability) in all three independent valid runs. Based on the concordant results of the three individual runs for CD54 expression, prediction was concluded as positive. Thus, the effective concentration for CD54 expression (EC200) was determined by linear interpolation and log-linear extrapolation. The EC200 value for CD54 was 2640 µg/mL. Three out of four runs were considered valid in the main study, since the first run did not meet all acceptance criteria for the negative controls. Since both CD86 and CD54 marker expressions gave positive result, the overall h-CLAT prediction was concluded positive.
Table 1 Summary of the h-CLAT results for the test item
Name of the Test item
Obtained CV75 value
(µg/mL)
h-CLAT result for CD86 (positive/negative)
h-CLAT result for CD54 (positive/negative) and obtained EC200 value (µg/mL)
h-CLAT result obtained (sensitizer/ non-sensitizer)
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)
3817
positive
positive
(2640 µg/mL)sensitizer
Based on these results and the h-CLAT prediction model, the test item “(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)” demonstrated an in vitro sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of human Cell Line Activation Test.
Referenceopen allclose all
Table 10 Mean peptide depletion values for the positive control and the test chemical
Name, replicate number |
Obtained mean % cysteine peptide depletion |
Obtained mean % lysine peptide depletion |
Mean % obtained peptide depletion |
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt) (100 mM) |
3.93 |
0.86 |
2.40 |
2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt) (1 g/mL) |
11.68 |
0.02* |
5.85 |
CINNAMALDEHYDE |
70.09 |
57.24 |
63.67 |
*Negative depletion values were substituted with zero when calculating the mean peptide depletion
The average percent peptide depletion was calculated for the test item. By using the cysteine 1:10 / lysine 1:50 prediction model (see table below), the threshold of 6.38% average peptide depletion was used to support the discrimination between a skin sensitiser and a non-sensitiser. On the basis of the prediction model, chemicals assigned to the minimal reactivity class should be classified as non-sensitisers whereas chemicals assigned to the low, moderate or high reactivity class should be classified as sensitisers. The test item had the average percent peptide depletion value of 2.40 %, thus the test item is classified as a non-sensitiser.
When the neat test item (1 g/mL) was tested, an average percent peptide depletion value of 5.85 % was obtained, which was under the minimal reactivity threshold value, as well.
Test item
There was no statistically significant induction above 1.5-fold observed at any of the concentrations in either of the runs therefore no EC1.5 values were determined for the test item. The average fold induction for each concentration is presented in Appendix III. The maximal fold induction was 1.07 for the first test and 1.22 for the second test. Based on the prediction model and the above described results, both tests were concluded negative. There was no cytotoxicity (cell viability lower than 70 %) induced by the test item at any of the concentrations, thus no IC30 or IC50 values were determined.
Positive and negative control
The coefficient of variation (CV%) of the luminescence reading for the negative control DMSO was not greater than 20 % in either of the tests (14.06 % and 19.69 % respectively).
The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, Trans-Cinnamaldehyde was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 at two concentrations in the first test and at three concentrations in the other test. The EC1.5 value of the positive control was 16 µM and 13 µM in the two individual tests. In addition, the average induction in the parallel plates for Trans‑Cinnamaldehyde at 64 μM was 9.40 and 11.42 fold. Although these values are out of the 2 – 8 fold induction domain, the dose response could be clearly seen with increasing luciferase activity induction at increasing concentrations for the positive control, therefore the tests were considered valid. There was no cytotoxicity (cell viability lower than 70 %) induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations, thus no IC30 or IC50 values were determined.
Table 1 Outcome of the individual runs of the main tests
Test item |
Obtained CV75 value (µg/mL) |
Result of the individual runs for CD86 (positive/negative) |
h-CLAT prediction for CD86 expression |
Result of the individual runs for CD54 (positive/negative) |
h-CLAT prediction for CD54 expression |
||||||
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt) |
3817 |
i |
p |
p |
p |
positive |
i |
p |
p |
p |
positive |
n – negative outcome of a valid run / p – positive outcome of a valid run / i – invalid run
Since 3 out of 4 runs were positive for CD86 marker expression and 3 out of 4 runs were positive for CD54 marker expression the overall outcome of the study was positive.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
There are three in vitro/in chemico studies available with the test item assessing its skin sensitising potential. The studies were conducted according to GLP and the respective OECD TG (OECD 442C, OECD 442D, OECD 442E) and are considered valid. The available data is considered suitable and reliable to allow assessment of the test items properties in regards to skin sensitisation.
OECD 442C, DPRA
This study was conducted to evaluate the skin sensitisation potential of the test item in chemico. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) proposed the molecular initiating event of the skin sensitisation Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP), namely protein reactivity, by quantifying the reactivity of the test chemical towards cysteine and lysine model synthetic peptides. At the beginning of the assay the solubility of the test chemical was assessed and ultrapure water was chosen as the appropriate solvent. Two individual tests were conducted with the cysteine peptide, since the first one did not meet the acceptance criteria and had to be rejected. The second run was valid and accepted. Only one individual run was needed with the lysine peptide, which has fulfilled all the acceptance criteria. All in all, the results of the two valid runs were used for the classification of the test item. The positive control replicates showed the expected percent peptide depletion values within acceptable limits with 70.09 % cysteine peptide depletion and 57.24 % lysine peptide depletion. The back-calculated values of the reference control replicates were within the expected molarity concentration range for the cysteine and lysine peptides, as well. Two stock solutions were prepared with the test item for both peptides: in addition to the 100 mM solutions, the test chemical was dissolved to its maximum soluble concentration (neat reaction sample) in the same solvent used to prepare the apparent 100 mM solutions. The percent cysteine peptide depletion value of the test item (100 mM) was 3.93 % while of the neat test item (1 g/mL) was 11.68 %. The percent lysine peptide depletion of the test item (100 mM) was 0.86 % while of the neat test item (1 g/mL) was 0.02 %. The mean depletion value of the peptides was used to categorise the test chemical in one of the four classes of reactivity. No co-elution was observed with either cysteine or lysine peptides, therefore the Cysteine 1:10 / Lysine 1:50 prediction model was usedfor the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers. The mean peptide depletion of the test item was 2.40 % with the 100 mM test item stock solutions and 5.85 % with the 1 mg/mL test item stock solutions, thus none of them exceeded the 6.38 % threshold of the applicable prediction model.
The results correspond to a negative outcome indicating that the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides, thus is not a potential skin sensitiser.
OECD 442D, KeratinoSens
In the course of this study the skin sensitisation potential of the test item was studied using the KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method). For the test chemical and positive control substance, in order to derive a prediction two independent tests were sufficient to be conducted, since the results of those tests were concordant and both runs met the acceptance criteria. The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, Trans-Cinnamaldehyde was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 at two concentrations in the first test and at three concentrations in the other test. The EC1.5 value of the positive control was 16 µM and 13 µM in the two individual tests. In addition, the average induction in the parallel plates for Trans‑Cinnamaldehyde at 64 μM was 9.40 and 11.42 fold and the dose response could be clearly seen with increasing luciferase activity induction at increasing concentrations for the positive control. There was no cytotoxicity (viability < 70 %) induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations. Moreover, the average coefficient of variation (CV) of the luminescence reading for the negative (solvent) control DMSO was not greater than 20 % in either tests. The CV% for the DMSO control was 14.01 % and 19.69 % in the first and second tests respectively. For the test item twelve doses were used in two independent runs between 2000 µM to 1 µM. There was no cytotoxicity (viability < 70 %) induced at any concentrations) by the test item in KeratinoSens™ cells compared to the solvent/vehicle control, thus no IC30 or IC50 values could be determined. The fold induction did not exceed the threshold of 1.5-fold at any concentrations compared to the respective negative controls in any of the independent runs. Therefore, both runs were negative for luciferase gene induction.
Table 1 Summary of the KeratinoSens™ results for the test item
Name of the Test item
Significant induction above 1.5-fold
(yes/no)
KeratinoSens™ result obtained (sensitiser/ non-sensitiser)
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)
no
non-sensitiser
Based on these results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item was negative therefore having a non-sensitising potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
OECD 442E, h-CLAT
In the course of this OECD 442E compliant study the skin sensitization potential of the test item was studied. The extent of cytotoxicity induced on THP-1 cells by the test item was studied in four dose finding tests. The default concentration used for test item dissolved in saline was set to the highest allowed concentration (5000 µg/mL) in the last two dose finding tests. An average CV75 value of 3817 µg/mL was calculated and it was used for setting the dose-range for measuring CD86 and CD54 expression in the main test. Eight doses were used in four independent runs between 4584 µg/mL – 1278 µg/mL. The increase in CD86 marker expression (RFI) was equal to or greater than 150 % at most of the tested doses (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in all of the independent runs. Therefore, all three valid runs were concluded positive for CD86 marker expression. However, effective concentration for CD86 expression (EC150) was not determined, since no clear dose response could be observed. The increase of CD54 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 200 % compared to the negative controls at several higher concentrations (with >50 % of cell viability) in all three independent valid runs. Based on the concordant results of the three individual runs for CD54 expression, prediction was concluded as positive. Thus, the effective concentration for CD54 expression (EC200) was determined by linear interpolation and log-linear extrapolation. The EC200 value for CD54 was 2640 µg/mL. Three out of four runs were considered valid in the main study, since the first run did not meet all acceptance criteria for the negative controls. Since both CD86 and CD54 marker expressions gave positive result, the overall h-CLAT prediction was concluded positive.
Table 2 Summary of the h-CLAT results for the test item
Name of the Test item
Obtained CV75 value
(µg/mL)
h-CLAT result for CD86 (positive/negative)
h-CLAT result for CD54 (positive/negative) and obtained EC200 value (µg/mL)
h-CLAT result obtained (sensitizer/ non-sensitizer)
(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)
3817
positive
positive
(2640 µg/mL)sensitizer
Based on these results and the h-CLAT prediction model, the test item “(2-Hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)ammonium chloride (mixture of free amine and HCl salt)” demonstrated an in vitro sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of human Cell Line Activation Test.
Conclusion
In vitro studies covering three key steps of the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization as identified by the OECD (OECD Publication No.168; ENV/JM/MONO(2012)10) were performed. These study types have initially undergone validation using 54 substances (Bauch et al., 2012 Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 63: 489-504). Recently, a validation performed with 213 substances has been published (Urbisch et al. 2015 Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 71: 337-351).
Based on the results of this validation (Bauch et al., 2012 Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 63: 489-504) the predictive capacity of the evaluation scheme using DPRA (peptide reactivity), LuSens/KeratinoSens™ (keratinocyte activation) and (m)MUSST/h-CLAT (dendritic cell activation) is comparable to that of the local lymph node assay. This was confirmed in the validation study with more substances (Urbisch 2015): When compared to the sensitization potential of the substances in humans, the classification based on an evaluation scheme using results obtained from theDPRA, LuSens and mMUSST had a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 90 % and an accuracy of 90 %.
In the evaluation scheme used here any two of the three test results determine the overall classification, i.e. any two positive test results drive the prediction of a sensitizer, while any two negative test results drive the prediction of a test substance to be a non-sensitizer (Bauch et al. 2012; Table 3). If two assays (DPRA ,LuSens or KeratinoSens, MUSST or h-CLAT) yield concordant results, the result of the third assay is not necessarily required to determine the overall outcome of the evaluation scheme.
Table 3: Decision matrix for combinations of DPRA, LuSens/KeratinoSens and MUSST/ h-CLAT assays.
DPRA
LuSens/
KeratinoSensTM
MUSST/
h-CLAT
Test battery evaluation
positive
positive
positive
sensitizer
positive
positive
negative
sensitizer
positive
negative
positive
sensitizer
positive
negative
negative
non-sensitizer
negative
positive
positive
sensitizer
negative
positive
negative
non-sensitizer
negative
negative
positive
non-sensitizer
negative
negative
negative
non-sensitizer
In accordance with the published evaluation scheme (Bauch et al., 2012 Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 63: 489-504) and Sections 1.2 and 1.4 of Annex XI of EC regulation 1907/2006, the test substance is not a skin sensitizer.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Classification,
Labelling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008
The
available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for
classification purposes under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Based on
available data on skin sensitising properties, the test item does not
require classification skin sensitiser according to Regulation (EC) No
1272/2008 (CLP).
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.