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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 291-707-5 | CAS number: 90459-62-4
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
The test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized was negative in the DPRA and the KeratinoSens assay, but positive in the h-CLAT. Overall, following the “2 out of 3” prediction model, the test item is regarded to be a non-sensitiser
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:
- 12 October 2018 - 15 November 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, No. 442E: “In vitro Skin Sensitisation: human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT)”
- Version / remarks:
- 25 June 2018
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Details on the study design:
- see "Any other information on materials and methods incl. tables"
- Positive control results:
- The positive control gave positive 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.
- Parameter:
- other: CV75 (µg/mL)
- Value:
- 17.6
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Parameter:
- other: EC200 for CD54 expression (µg/mL)
- Value:
- 9.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Parameter:
- other: EC150 for CD86 expression (µg/mL)
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: no clear dose-response was observed for CD86 expression, the effective concentration (EC150) corresponding to CD86 expression could not be determined
- Interpretation of results:
- other: expert judgement
- Remarks:
- positive in this assay; however, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering MIE and key event 2 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
- Conclusions:
- Based on the results and the h-CLAT prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was concluded positive and demonstrated a sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of human Cell Line Activation Test.
- Executive summary:
In the course of this study the skin sensitization potential of “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was studied.
The extent of cytotoxicity induced on THP-1 cells by the test item was studied in two dose finding tests. The averagetest item concentration that results in 75% cell viability compared to the solvent/vehicle control was 17.6 µg/mL. This value was used for setting the dose‑range for measuring CD86 and CD54 expression in the main test. Eight doses were used in three independent runs between 23 µg/mL and 6 µg/mL.
The increase in CD86 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 150 % at some tested doses (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in two out of three runs. However the results were positive for CD86 expression, no clear dose-response could be observed, therefore the effective concentration (EC150) corresponding to CD86 expression could not be determined.
Also, the increase in CD54 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 200 % consequently at higher concentrations (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in all three independent run. A clear dose-response was presented for CD54 expression, therefore the effective concentration (EC200) was determined. The mean EC200 value for CD54 was 9.8 µg/mL.
Since the CD54 marker gave positive result at higher concentrations in all three independent runs and CD86 marker gave positive result at some tested dose in 2 out of 3 runs, the overall h-CLAT prediction was concluded positive, as well.
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)
Obtained EC200 value
(µg/mL)
h-CLAT result obtained (sensitizer/ non-sensitizer)
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized
17.6
positive
positive
9.8
sensitizer
Based on these results and the h-CLAT prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was concluded positive and demonstrated a sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of human Cell Line Activation Test.
However, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering MIE and key event 2 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 03 October 2018 - 11 October 2018
- 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:
- 4 February 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Details on the study design:
- Formulation of the Test Item
The test item was formulated and examined in the test as follows: first the solubility of the test item was evaluated at the concentration of 100 mM. Acetonitrile did not dissolve the test item at all. Therefore, the test item was tried to be dissolved in ultrapure water and a homogenous, clear solution was formed.
Moreover, the compatibility of the formulation was assessed with the buffers used in the experiment (phosphate buffer and acetate buffer – both prepared as described in 5.5.1) and no precipitation was observed with either of the buffers.
Since ultrapure water is the first preferred vehicle after acetonitrile according to the guideline [3] and the formulation complied with all obligations of the guideline, it was chosen as the appropriate vehicle for the study and solubility in other vehicles was not evaluated.
Positive Control : CINNAMALDEHYDE
Synthetic Peptides:
Cysteine peptide
Name:RFA7-C
Lot:11180.02
Storage:at -20°C or below
Purity:95.03 %
Molecular weight:750.87 g/mol
Sequence:Ac-RFAACAA
Lysine peptide
Name:RFA7-K
Lot:11181.01
Storage:at -20°C or below
Purity:96.75 %
Molecular weight:775.90 g/mol
Sequence:Ac-RFAAKAA
HPLC System Conditions
HPLC system: SHIMADZU LC2030 (Prominence-i LC-2030C)
Column: Zorbax SB-C18 (2.1 x 100 mm, 3.5 µm)
Column temperature: 30°C
Sample temperature: 25°C
Detector: 220 nm (258 nm)
Injection volume: 7µL
System equilibration: 50% phase A and 50% phase B for 2 hours at 30°C and running the gradient twice before injecting the first sample
Run time: 20 min
Flow conditions: gradient , 0.35 mL / min
Time A phase (%) B phase (%)
0 min 90 10
10 min 75 25
11 min 10 90
13 min 10 90
13.5 min 90 10
20 min gradient ends
Demonstration of Proficiency
Prior to routine use of the method, TOXI-COOP ZRT. demonstrated technical proficiency in a separate study (Study number.: 392-442-2996) by correctly obtaining the expected DPRA prediction for 10 proficiency substances as recommended in the OECD TG 442C guideline. - Parameter:
- other: Obtained mean % cysteine peptide depletion
- Value:
- 0.89
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Parameter:
- other: Obtained mean % lysine peptide depletion
- Value:
- 0.18
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Parameter:
- other: Mean % obtained peptide depletion
- Value:
- 0.54
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: expert judgement
- Remarks:
- negative in this assay; however, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering key events 2 and 3 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
- Conclusions:
- The mean percent peptide depletion value of the test item was 0.54 %, which corresponded to a negative outcome. Results obtained from this in chemico Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay with the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized indicated that the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides, thus is not a potential skin sensitizer.
- Executive summary:
This study was undertaken to evaluate the skin sensitization potential of the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized 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.
One individual test was conducted with both peptides, since all runs met the acceptance criteria and were considered valid. All in all, the results of the two valid runs were used for the classification of the test item.
The acceptance criteria were met for the positive control with a cysteine peptide depletion value of 75.36 % and a mean lysine peptide depletion value of 57.24 %. The SD of the percent peptide depletions of the positive control was 1.95 % and 0.84 % for the cysteine and lysine depletion, respectively. Thus, this validity criterion was also met.
The back-calculated values of the reference control replicates were within the expected molarity concentration range for the cysteine and lysine peptides, as well.
All other validity criteria were also met, thus confirming the validity of the assay.
The percent cysteine peptide depletion value of the test item was 0.89 % while the percent lysine peptide depletion was 0.18 %. The mean depletion value of the peptides was used to categorize 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 0.54 %, which did not exceed the 6.38 % threshold of the applicable prediction model.
The mean percent peptide depletion value of the test item was 0.54 %, which corresponded to a negative outcome. Results obtained from this in chemico Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay with the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized indicated that the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides, thus is not a potential skin sensitizer.
However, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering key events 2 and 3 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 18 September 2018 - 18 September 2018
- 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 June 2018
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- see "Any other information on materials and methods incl. tables"
- 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.
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. - Parameter:
- other: EC1.5
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- fold induction did not exceed the threshold of 1.5-fold at any concentrations; thus, no EC1.5 could be calculated
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- There was cytotoxicity induced (viability < 70 %) by the test item in KeratinoSens™ cells compared to the solvent/vehicle control at several concentrations in both tests. In the first run the IC30 and IC50 values were 4 µM and 17 µM while in the second run 9 µM and 19 µM respectively. However, 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 concluded negative for luciferase gene induction.
- Interpretation of results:
- other: expert judgement
- Remarks:
- negative in this assay; however, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering MIE and key event 3 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
- Conclusions:
- Based on the results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was negative therefore having a non-sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
- Executive summary:
In the course of this study the skin sensitization potential of the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized ” 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 induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations.
For the test item twelve doses were used in two independent runs. In the first run the default concentration range between 2000 µM and 1 µM was used while in the second run a lower concentration range was chosen between 500 µM and 0.2 µM due to cytotoxic effects of the test item.
There was cytotoxicity induced (viability < 70 %) by the test item in KeratinoSens™ cells compared to the solvent/vehicle control at several concentrations in both tests. In the first run the IC30 and IC50 values were 4 µM and 17 µM while in the second run 9 µM and 19 µM respectively. However, 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 concluded 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)
Average
IC30(µM)
Average
IC50
(µM)KeratinoSens™ result obtained (sensitizer/ non-sensitizer)
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized
no
6.5
18
non-sensitizer
Based on these results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was negative therefore having a non-sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
However, to conclude in the endpoint skin sensitisation, further studies covering MIE and key event 3 of the Adverse Outcome Pathway are taken into account.
Referenceopen allclose all
Preliminary tests (Dose finding assays)
Two independent runs for the dose finding assay were performed to determine the test item concentration that results in 75 % cell viability (CV75) compared to the solvent/vehicle control. For the first run the default 100 mg/mL stock solution was used for the test item dissolved in saline. This stock concentration corresponded to 1000 µg/mL as the highest final test item concentration on the plate.Due to low cell viability observed in the first run, for the second runlower stock concentration was used,which was 3.1 mg/mL. The highest final concentration on the plate was 30 µg/mL.
In the first run a 2-fold serial dilution was used when preparing the master solutions, but in the second run a 1.2-fold serial dilution was used in order to be able todetermine the CV75 value more accurately.
Table 4.a Dose finding test results
Date |
Test dose (µg/mL) |
8 |
16 |
31 |
63 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
23-24. October 2018 |
Viability (%) |
91,5 |
76,4 |
37,1 |
6,9 |
0,4 |
1,7 |
37,6 |
58,7 |
Date |
Test dose (µg/mL) |
8,4 |
10,0 |
12,1 |
14,5 |
17,4 |
20,8 |
25 |
30 |
24-25. October 2018. |
Viability (%) |
94,0 |
93,1 |
90,9 |
86,7 |
79,5 |
69,0 |
57,6 |
56,2 |
Table 4.b Dose finding test results
Test dose (µg/mL) |
16 |
31 |
Log CV75 |
CV75 |
|
Viability (%) |
76,4 |
37,1 |
1,21 |
16,4 |
|
Test dose (µg/mL) |
17,4 |
20,8 |
Log CV75 |
CV75 |
|
Viability (%) |
79,5 |
69,0 |
|
1,27 |
18,8 |
AVERAGE |
17,6 |
CV75 values could be determined by log-linear interpolation based on the concentrations causing cell viabilities to lower close to 75%. The average CV75 value of the two runs (17.6 µg/mL) was used for setting the dose-range for measuring CD86 and CD54 expression in the main test.
Eight final concentrations (µg/mL) were used for the test item tested of the main test. These are (nominal concentrations):
1.2 × CV75 (21 µg/mL);
1 × CV75 (18 µg/mL);
1/1.2 × CV75 (15 µg/mL);
1/1.22 × CV75
(12 µg/mL);
1/1.23 × CV75 (10 µg/mL);
1/1.24 × CV75 (9 µg/mL);
1/1.25× CV75 (7 µg/mL);
and 1/1.26× CV75 (6 µg/mL).
Main tests (CD86 and CD54 expression)
The CD86/54 expression was measured shortly after determining CV75, using the same batch of THP-1 cells.
For CD86/CD54 expression measurement, the test item was tested in three independent runs to derive a single prediction (positive/negative). Each independent run was performed on a different day.
The relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) was calculated for the test item, positive and negative controls for each concentration in each run for both surface markers, using the geometric mean fluorescence intensities.
Negative and positive control
The positive control gave positive 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.
The DMSO controls had negative outcomes compared to the medium control for both markers in all runs, meaning that the RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 expression was never over the positive criteria.
The cell viabilities of medium and DMSO controls were higher than 90% in all runs (taken cell viabilities of the IgG1 isotypic control). For medium and DMSO controls, the MFI ratio of both CD86 and CD54 to isotype control was over 105%.
Table 5. Positive and negative control data
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized |
sample |
concentration |
RFI |
viability (IgG1) |
||
CD86 |
CD54 |
IgG |
||||
Exposure date: |
DMSO |
0.2% |
111 |
79 |
93,5 |
|
DNCB |
4.2 μg/mL |
364 |
588 |
70,9 |
||
Exposure date: |
DMSO |
0.2% |
99 |
63 |
94,9 |
|
DNCB |
4.2 μg/mL |
635 |
368 |
75,0 |
||
Exposure date: |
DMSO |
0.2% |
104 |
72 |
90,2 |
|
DNCB |
4.6 μg/mL |
296 |
406 |
67,1 |
All runs were considered valid, since all runs have met the acceptance criteria stated above.
Test item
For the test item, the relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) of CD86 was greater than 150 % at some tested doses (with cell viability > 50 %) in the first and second run but not in the third run. No clear dose-response could be observed.
The RFI values for CD54 expression were greater than 200 % consequently at higher tested doses (with cell viability > 50 %) at all three independent runs and a clear dose response curve was presented with increasing concentrations and increasing RFI values.
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 |
||||
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized |
17.6 |
p |
p |
n |
positive |
p |
p |
p |
positive |
Table 6. Outcome of the individual runs of the main tests
n – negative outcome of a valid run
p- positive outcome of valid run
Since 3 out of 3 runs were positive for CD54 marker expression, and 2 out of 3 runs were positive and for CD86 marker expression, the overall outcome of the study was concluded as positive.
The test itemgave positive results for CD86 and CD54 too.Since no clear dose-response was presented for CD86 expression, the effective concentration (EC150) corresponding to CD86 expression could not be determined. But aclear dose-response was presented for CD54 expression, therefore the effective concentration value (EC200) was calculated(9.8 µg/mL, 8.1 µg/mL and 10.5 µg/mL in the first, second and third runs respectively).
Table 7. Effective concentrations for the test item
Test item |
EC150 |
EC200 |
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized |
- |
9.8 |
Reference control A replicates were included in the HPLC run sequence to verify the HPLC system suitability prior analysis. The mean peptide concentration of A reference control sample replicates was 0.49 mM for the cysteine peptide and 0.51 mM for the lysine peptide. Data for the reference control A sample replicates are presented in Table 6 and 7.
A standard calibration curve was generated for both cysteine and lysine peptides using serial dilutions standards from the peptide stock solutions. Calibration standard points were analysed by linear regression. Means of the peak areas versus the concentrations of both peptides showed good linearity with r²= 0.999 for the cysteine peptide and r²= 1.000 for the lysine peptide, covering the concentration range from 0.534 mM to 0.0167 mM.
All validity criteria were within acceptable limits and therefore the study can be considered valid.
Table 6. Reference control A replicates for cysteine peptide
|
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide peak area |
Peptide concentration |
|||
Mean |
CV % |
Mean (mM) |
SD |
CV % |
|||
ref A I |
2138615 |
0.48 |
2195595 |
4 |
0.49 |
0.0187 |
4 |
ref A II |
2290737 |
0.52 |
|||||
ref A III |
2157432 |
0.49 |
Table 7. Reference control A replicates for lysine peptide
|
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide peak area |
Peptide concentration |
|||
Mean |
CV % |
Mean (mM) |
SD |
CV % |
|||
ref A I |
2387592 |
0.51 |
2373758 |
1% |
0.51 |
0.0026 |
1% |
ref A II |
2363978 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref A III |
2369703 |
0.50 |
Reference control B replicates were included in the sequence to verify the stability of the peptide over time and reference control C replicates were used to verify that the solvent of the test item did not impact the percent peptide depletion. The mean cysteine peptide concentration of the reference control C replicates was 0.48 mM and the mean lysine peptide concentration of the reference control C replicates were 0.49 mM, which were within the acceptable 0.50 ± 0.05 mM range.
Moreover, the CV % for the nine reference control B and C replicates in acetonitrile and water respectively were much smaller than the acceptable 15 % for both peptides, since it was 2 % for cysteine and 1 % for lysine peptides. All validity criteria were within acceptable limits and therefore the study can be considered valid.
Table 8. Reference control B and C replicates for cysteine peptide
Name, replicate number |
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide peak area |
Peptide concentration |
|||
Mean |
CV % |
Mean (mM) |
SD |
CV % |
|||
ref B I |
2266292 |
0.51 |
2183241 |
2 |
0.49 |
0.0120 |
2 |
ref B II |
2219742 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref B III |
2239767 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref B I / 2 |
2179020 |
0.49 |
|||||
ref B II / 2 |
2144613 |
0.48 |
|||||
ref B III / 2 |
2154257 |
0.48 |
|||||
ref C I upw |
2203592 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref C II upw |
2138614 |
0.48 |
|||||
ref C III upw |
2103271 |
0.47 |
Table 9. Reference control B and C replicates for lysine peptide
Name, replicate number |
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide peak area |
Peptide concentration |
|||
Mean |
CV % |
Mean (mM) |
SD |
CV % |
|||
ref B I |
2375890 |
0.51 |
2349237 |
1% |
0.50 |
0.0073 |
1% |
ref B II |
2366746 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref B III |
2398674 |
0.51 |
|||||
ref B I / 2 |
2356111 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref B II / 2 |
2334886 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref B III / 2 |
2374121 |
0.51 |
|||||
ref C I upw |
2334511 |
0.50 |
|||||
ref C II upw |
2309891 |
0.49 |
|||||
ref C III upw |
2292301 |
0.49 |
Cysteine and lysine depletion and mean peptide depletion of the test item
The acceptance criteria were met for the positive control with a cysteine peptide depletion value of 75.36 % and a mean lysine peptide depletion value of 57.24 %. The SD of the percent peptide depletions of the positive control was 1.95 % and 0.84 % for the cysteine and lysine depletion, respectively. Thus, this validity criterion was also met.
The percent cysteine peptide depletion with the test item was 0.89 % while the percent lysine peptide depletion with the test item was 0.18 %. The standard deviation for the test chemical replicates was 3.25 % for the percent cysteine depletion and 2.86 % for the percent lysine peptide depletion. In Appendix II for the test chemical, the peptide peak areas of each replicate, their mean and CV %, the peptide depletion values for each replicate, their mean and SD and description of all relevant observations (solubility, precipitate, co-elution) are shown.
Table 10. Cysteine peptide depletion values for the positive control and the test item
Name, replicate number |
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide depletion |
|
% |
SD (%) |
|||
ref C, rep I upw |
2203592 |
0.50 |
- |
- |
ref C, rep II upw |
2138614 |
0.48 |
||
ref C, rep III upw |
2103271 |
0.47 |
||
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep I |
2144625 |
0.48 |
2.68 |
3.25 |
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep II |
2214796 |
0.50 |
-3.56* |
|
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep III |
2146421 |
0.48 |
-2.05* |
|
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep I |
544707 |
0.12 |
75.28 |
1.95 |
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep II |
484508 |
0.11 |
77.34 |
|
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep III |
558365 |
0.13 |
73.45 |
*Negative depletion values are substituted with zero when calculating mean peptide depletion
Table 11. Lysine peptide depletion values for the positive control and the test item
Name, replicate number |
Peptide peak area at 220 nm |
Peptide conc. calculated (mM) |
Peptide depletion |
|
% |
SD (%) |
|||
ref C, rep I upw |
2334511 |
0.50 |
- |
- |
ref C, rep II upw |
2309891 |
0.49 |
- |
|
ref C, rep III upw |
2292301 |
0.49 |
- |
|
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep I |
2334524 |
0.50 |
0.00 |
2.86 |
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep II |
2417655 |
0.51 |
-4.67* |
|
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, rep III |
2280136 |
0.49 |
0.53 |
|
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep I |
1011241 |
0.22 |
56.68 |
0.84 |
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep II |
965360 |
0.21 |
58.21 |
|
CINNAMALDEHYDE, rep III |
989280 |
0.21 |
56.84 |
*Negative depletion values are substituted with zero when calculating mean peptide depletion
Table 12. 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 |
Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized |
0.89 |
0.18 |
0.54 |
CINNAMALDEHYDE |
73.36 |
57.24 |
65.3 |
Assigning the test chemical to a reactivity class and category
The average percent peptide depletion was calculated for the test item. By using the cysteine 1:10 / lysine 1:50 prediction model, the threshold of 6.38% average peptide depletion was used to support the discrimination between a skin sensitizer and a non-sensitizer. 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. Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized had the average percent peptide depletion value of 0.54 %, thus the test item is classified as a non-sensitiser.
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. Each individual test contained four parallel plates of which three replicates were used for the luciferase activity induction measurements and one of them was needed formeasuring the extent of cytotoxicity induced by the test chemical.
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 maximal fold induction was 1.40 for the first test and 1.15 for the second test. Based on the prediction model and the above described results, both tests were concluded negative.
There was cytotoxicity (cell viability lower than 70 %) induced by the test item at most of the concentrations in the first run, therefore the concentration range was lowered in the second test. In the first run the default concentration range between 2000 µM and 1 µM was used while in the second run a lower concentration range was chosen between 500 µM and 0.2 µM due to cytotoxic effects of the test item.
In the first run the IC30 and IC50 values were 4 µM and 17 µM while in the second run 9 µM and 19 µM respectively.
First test:
|
|
Test item |
|||||||||||
Concentration (µM) |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
31 |
63 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
2000 |
|
Plate ID |
20180918-1117-2 |
1.29 |
1.12 |
0.83 |
0.95 |
1.03 |
1.42 |
0.00 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
20180918-1117-3 |
1.02 |
0.83 |
0.91 |
0.83 |
0.85 |
1.31 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20180918-1117-4 |
0.98 |
1.06 |
0.87 |
0.89 |
1.06 |
1.46 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
average induction |
1.10 |
1.00 |
0.87 |
0.89 |
0.98 |
1.40 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
-0.01 |
|
significance |
0.237 |
0.991 |
0.169 |
0.127 |
0.843 |
0.015 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
viability |
96% |
74% |
69% |
54% |
53% |
12% |
0% |
1% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
1% |
Second test:
|
|
Test item |
|||||||||||
Concentration (µM) |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
31 |
63 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
|
Plate ID |
20181001-1108-2 |
0.97 |
0.98 |
1.42 |
0.74 |
0.51 |
0.83 |
0.66 |
1.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
20181001-1108-3 |
0.79 |
0.79 |
0.84 |
0.82 |
0.99 |
0.81 |
0.74 |
1.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20181001-1108-4 |
1.20 |
1.16 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
0.83 |
1.21 |
0.90 |
1.02 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
|
average induction |
0.99 |
0.98 |
1.05 |
0.82 |
0.78 |
0.95 |
0.77 |
1.15 |
0.00 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.01 |
|
significance |
0.757 |
0.703 |
0.817 |
0.049 |
0.271 |
0.518 |
0.027 |
0.305 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
viability |
97% |
97% |
96% |
85% |
83% |
72% |
58% |
13% |
2% |
3% |
3% |
4% |
Negative and positive control
The coefficient of variation (CV%) of the luminescence reading for the negative control DMSO was no greater than 20 % in either of the tests (14 % and 20 % 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. 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.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
For the assessment of the sensitising potential of the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized, a battery of in chemico and in vitro assays is available, including DPRA, KeratinoSens, and h-CLAT.
Molecular initiating event: DPRA
This study was undertaken to evaluate the skin sensitization potential of the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized 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.
One individual test was conducted with both peptides, since all runs met the acceptance criteria and were considered valid. All in all, the results of the two valid runs were used for the classification of the test item.
The acceptance criteria were met for the positive control with a cysteine peptide depletion value of 75.36% and a mean lysine peptide depletion value of 57.24 %. The SD of the percent peptide depletions of the positive control was 1.95% and 0.84 % for the cysteine and lysine depletion, respectively. Thus, this validity criterion was also met.
The back-calculated values of the reference control replicates were within the expected molarity concentration range for the cysteine and lysine peptides, as well.
All other validity criteria were also met, thus confirming the validity of the assay.
The percent cysteine peptide depletion value of the test item was 0.89 % while the percent lysine peptide depletion was 0.18 %. The mean depletion value of the peptides was used to categorize 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 0.54%, which did not exceed the 6.38 % threshold of the applicable prediction model.
The mean percent peptide depletion value of the test item was 0.54 %, which corresponded to a negative outcome. Results obtained from this in chemico Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay with the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized indicated that the test item has no or minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptides, thus is not a potential skin sensitizer.
Key event 2: Keratinosens
In the course of this study the skin sensitization potential of the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized ” 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 induced by the positive control at any of the concentrations.
For the test item twelve doses were used in two independent runs. In the first run the default concentration range between 2000 µM and 1 µM was used while in the second run a lower concentration range was chosen between 500 µM and 0.2 µM due to cytotoxic effects of the test item.
There was cytotoxicity induced (viability < 70 %) by the test item in KeratinoSens™ cells compared to the solvent/vehicle control at several concentrations in both tests. In the first run the IC30 and IC50 values were 4 µM and 17 µM while in the second run 9 µM and 19 µM respectively. However, 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 concluded negative for luciferase gene induction.
Based on these results and the KeratinoSens™ prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was negative therefore having a non-sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of KeratinoSens™ method (ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method).
Key event 3: h-CLAT
In the course of this study the skin sensitization potential of “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was studied.
The extent of cytotoxicity induced on THP-1 cells by the test item was studied in two dose finding tests. The average test item concentration that results in 75% cell viability compared to the solvent/vehicle control was 17.6 µg/mL. This value was used for setting the dose‑range for measuring CD86 and CD54 expression in the main test. Eight doses were used in three independent runs between 23 µg/mL – 6 µg/mL.
The increase in CD86 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 150 % at some tested doses (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in two out of three runs. However the results were positive for CD86 expression, no clear dose-response could be observed, therefore the effective concentration (EC150) corresponding to CD86 expression could not be determined.
Also, the increase in CD54 marker expression (RFI) was greater than 200 % consequently at higher concentrations (with >50 % of cell viability) compared to the respective negative controls in all three independent runs. A clear dose-response was presented for CD54 expression, therefore the effective concentration (EC200) was determined. The mean EC200 value for CD54 was 9.8 µg/mL.
Since the CD54 marker gave positive result at higher concentrations in all three independent runs and CD86 marker gave positive result at some tested dose in 2 out of 3 runs, the overall h-CLAT prediction was concluded positive, as well.
Based on these results and the h-CLAT prediction model, the test item “Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized” was concluded positive and demonstrated a sensitizing potential under the experimental conditions of human Cell Line Activation Test.
Overall conclusion
Since no single in chemico or in vitro assay is sufficient to fully address the endpoint skin sensitisation, a battery of test was applied. Although a number of methods is validated for single Key events, currently no IATA (Integrated Approach toTesting and Assessment) is formally validated. One of the most commonly used assessment approaches is the “2 out of 3” prediction model, according to which any two congruent results of the three tests summarised above determine the overall assessment.
Urbisch et al (2015) examined the specificity and sensitivity of the common “2 out of 3” prediction model and found 90% accuracy when compared to human data, which is even higher than the accuracy of the LLNA (82%). The concluded, that “in many cases positives or negatives in single assays are actually FP [false posotives] or FN [false negatives], respectively, what underlines the importance of making a majority voting”.
The test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized was negative in the DPRA and the KeratinoSens assay, but positive in the h-CLAT.
The Guideline states that“membrane disruptingsubstances can lead to false positive results due to a non-specific increase of CD86 expression” (OECD TG 442E).Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized is a surface active substance (41.46 mN/m at 90% saturation concentration).
In addition, irritating substances – the test item is classified as Skin Irritation Cat. 2, Eye Irritation Cat. 1 – may also lead to surface marker expression and, thus, to a false positive result in the h-CLAT (Urbisch et al., 2015).
Overall, following the “2 out of 3” prediction model, the test item Octadecanoic acid, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, di-Me sulfate-quaternized is regarded to be a non-sensitiser
Reference
Urbisch et al., 2015. Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal
test methods. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 71 (2015) 337–351
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
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.