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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 224-583-8 | CAS number: 4419-11-8
- 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 vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 09. Oct. 2017 - 08.Mar. 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 018
- Report date:
- 2018
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The LuSens cell line was specially designed for this test system by the BASF SE (Ludwigshafen,
Germany). It employs the use of a reporter gene for luciferase placed under the
control of the antioxidant response element (ARE) and hence monitors Nrf-2 transcription
factor activity. For designing this cell line, a human keratinocyte cell line (provided by
RWTH, Aachen, Germany) was transfected with the pGL4.20 [luc2/Puro] vector (Promega,
Germany) carrying the regulatory antioxidant response element (ARE) upstream of the
luciferase gene (Luc2, Promega, Germany) at the Institute of Anatomy and Cell Biology of
the RWTH, Aachen (laboratory of PD Dr. Wruck). - GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- 2,2'-azobis[2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile]
- EC Number:
- 224-583-8
- EC Name:
- 2,2'-azobis[2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile]
- Cas Number:
- 4419-11-8
- Molecular formula:
- C14H24N4
- IUPAC Name:
- 2-[(E)-2-(1-cyano-1,3-dimethylbutyl)diazen-1-yl]-2,4-dimethylpentanenitrile
- Test material form:
- solid: crystalline
Constituent 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: CF1001
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: Jul. 2018
- Purity test date: not stated
RADIOLABELLING INFORMATION (if applicable)
not applicable
STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Freezer: (-15 - -25 °C)
- Stability under test conditions: assumed stable under given conditions.
- Solubility and stability of the test substance in the solvent/vehicle: a Solubility Test
was performed to verify whether the test item is sufficiently soluble in DMSO. The
solubility test was performed under non-GLP conditions. The test item was soluble at the
required concentration of 200 mM.
- Reactivity of the test substance with the solvent/vehicle of the cell culture medium: assumed stable under given conditions.
TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
none
FORM AS APPLIED IN THE TEST (if different from that of starting material)
TYPE OF BIOCIDE/PESTICIDE FORMULATION (if applicable)
OTHER SPECIFICS:
In vitro test system
- Details on the study design:
- Cell Cultures
For mycoplasma contamination screened stocks of LuSens cells are stored in liquid nitrogen
in the cell bank of LAUS GmbH to allow a continuous stock of cells, which guarantees
similar parameters of the experiment and reproducible characteristics of the cells.
For the Cytotoxicity Range Finder Assay cells of passage 8 were used. For the main experiments
cells of passage 10 were used. After thawing the cells were cultivated in DMEM
(9 % FCS) in cell culture flasks at 37 ± 1 °C in a humidified atmosphere with 5.0 ± 0.5 %
CO2.
Negative Control
Name DL-Lactic acid
CAS no. 50-21-5
Solvent DMSO
Supplier: Sigma-Aldrich
Purity: 90.5 %
Lot no.: BCBP5043V
Expiry Date: 26. Jan. 2021
Final concentration: 5000 μM
The solution was freshly prepared on the day of the experiment.
Positive Control
Name EGDMA (Ethylene glycol dimethylacrylate)
CAS no. 97-90-5
Solvent DMSO
Supplier: Sigma-Aldrich
Purity: 98 %
Lot no.: SHBG0572V
Expiry Date: 27. Jan. 2021
Final concentration: 120 μM
The solution was freshly prepared on the day of the experiment.
Solvent Control
Name DMSO
CAS no. 67-68-5
Supplier: Carl Roth
Purity: > 99.5 %
Lot no.: 187256959
Expiry Date: 04. Apr. 2020
Final concentration: 1 %
Experimental Performance
Experiment I and II were performed in the same way. Experiment II serves only to confirm
the results of experiment I. The exposure dates were 24. Oct. 2017 and 25. Oct. 2017.
At the time of seeding the cells were 80 % confluent. The cells were washed twice with
PBS (without Ca2+/Mg2+) containing 0.05% EDTA. Afterwards the cells were trypsinized
until the cells detached. To stop this reaction, medium no. 2 was added. After centrifugation
(5 min at 380 * g), the supernatant was discarded and the cells were resuspended in
medium no. 2. After quantification, the cell suspension was adjusted to 83 000 (±10 %)
cells per mL. 120 μL of the cell suspension (≙ 10 000 cells) were seeded in two clear flat
bottom 96 well plates (one for viability and one for luciferase induction measurement)9.
Both plates were incubated at 37 ± 1 °C and 5.0 ± 0.5 % CO2 in a humidified atmosphere
for 24 h in Experiment I and 23 h and 30 min in Experiment II.
The treatment procedure was performed on both 96 well plates identically: After the incubation
time the medium was removed from the cells and 150 μL medium no. 3 were added
to each well. Afterwards 50 μL of each single test item concentration and the controls were
added to the cells in triplicates (test item concentrations). 24 wells were used for solvent
control, 12 wells were used for growth control (cells + medium no. 3), 6 wells were used for
negative control, 5 wells for positive control and 1 well for blank. The plates were sealed
with breathable tape to avoid evaporation of volatile compounds and to avoid cross contamination
between wells. Afterwards the plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 ± 1 °C in a
humidified atmosphere containing 5.0 ± 0.5 % CO2.
For the evaluation of the viability, one of the plates was used:
The MTT working solution was prepared by mixing 9 parts of medium no. 3 with 1 part of
MTT solution. All solutions were removed from the wells of the 96 well plate and 200 μL
MTT working solution were added to each well. The plate was incubated for 2 h at 37 ±
1 °C and 5.0 ± 0.5 % CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. Afterwards the solution was removed
and 100 μL of lysis buffer were added to each well. The plate was agitated for
5 min before it was measured at 570 nm and at 690 nm (reference) at the photometer. The
cell viability is measured by the reduction of the tetrazolium dye MTT (3-(4,5-
Dimethyl thiazole 2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium-bromide) (yellow color) to its insoluble
formazan (purple color) in living cells and therefore indicates the amount of living cells.
After the measurement of the color change, the values were transferred in a validated
spreadsheet for the calculation of the viability (see chapter 7.3.2, page 19).
For the evaluation of the Luciferase induction, the second plate was used:
For the evaluation of the Luciferase expression all solutions were removed from the wells
and the cells were washed twice with 300 μL PBS (with Ca2+/Mg2+). Afterwards 100 μL per
well of a Lysis buffer were added to the cells and incubated for 5 min at room temperature.
During this process, the plate was slightly moved. Afterwards 100 μL Steady-Glo® Reagent
were added to each well and the plate was shaken again slowly for 5 min at room temperature.
Then, 160 μL per well were transferred to a white flat bottom 96 well plate and the
luminescence was measured for 2 seconds using a luminometer.
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- First Experiment:
the positive control induced a clear effect with an induction value of 5.1 fold in comparison to the solvent control.
second experiment
the positive control induced a clear effect with an induction value of 4.0 fold in comparison to the solvent control.
In vitro / in chemico
Resultsopen allclose all
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Eperiment I
- Parameter:
- other: Induction of Luciferase, expressed as "fold" compared to Solvent control
- Value:
- 2
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment II
- Parameter:
- other: Induction of Luciferase, expressed as "fold" compared to Solvent control
- Value:
- 1.7
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test item, 2,2'-Azobis(2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile), was positive in the LuSens assay and is therefore considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor (sensitizing potential).
- Executive summary:
This in vitro study evaluates the potential of the test item 2,2'-Azobis(2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile) to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor (sensitizing potential) by using the LuSens cell line. This test is part of a tiered strategy for the evaluation of skin sensitization potential. Thus, data generated with the present Test Guideline should be used to support the discrimination between skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers in the context of
an integrated approach to testing and assessment.
The LuSens test is an ARE Reporter Gene Assay that was developed by the BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany) and is based on the OECD 442D Guideline (KeratinoSens Assay).
The assay differs in some points from the OECD guideline. All differences are marked with footnotes. In addition all deviations are indicated in chapter 11 page 27.
The assay included a cytotoxicity range finder test (CRFT) and two independent experiments (experiment I and II) with a treatment period of 48 h. The CRFT was performed to detect a potential cytotoxic effect of the test item. Based on the results of this test the concentrations for the two experiments were determined. In the experiments, the highest nominal applied concentration (2000 μM) was chosen based on the results obtained in the CRFT. A geometric series (factor 1.21) of eleven dilutions thereof was prepared. Precipitation of the test item was not visible in any of the experiments.
DMSO (final concentration: 1 %) was used as solvent control and medium no. 3 as growth control. Lactic acid (5000 μM) was used as negative control and EGDMA2 (120 μM) as positive control.
The evaluated experimental points and the results are summarised in chapter 8. A substantial and reproducible dose-dependent increase in luciferase induction above 1.5 fold in more than two non-cytotoxic test item concentrations was observed in both experiments.
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.