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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 948-935-1 | 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
Skin irritation: not irritating
Eye irritation: not irritating
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Skin Irritation:
The skin irritation dataset contains two studies performed using the substance to be registered and a further seven studies performed on read across substances.
In the key study, Younger (1966), the irritation potential of the undiluted test material was determined using 3 rabbits (2 male and 1 female). No guideline was followed. The clipped intact skin of each rabbit was exposed to the test material under an occlusive dressing for 24 hours. Animals were observed for signs of irritation for 7 days and scored in accordance with the Draize scale (1944). Under the conditions of the test, slight to mild irritation was observed 24 hours after removal of the undiluted test material. This reaction was reversible in one animal after 3 days and after 5 days in the remaining two animals. The author of the report concludes that the test material is a slight to mild irritant, however, the recorded irritation was not sufficient for classification in accordance with CLP; the test material is therefore determined to be not irritating.
A further supporting study was performed on the substance to be registered (at a purity of 80 %), Rush (1991). In the primary dermal irritation study, 6 young adult New Zealand white rabbits were dermally exposed to 0.5 mL of the test material for 24 hours. Animals then were observed for 72 hours and the study was terminated before full reversibility could be determined. Irritation was scored by the method of Draize. Under the conditions of the test, the test substance was not a dermal irritant.
The remaining seven supporting studies were performed using two read across substances. All read-across studies demonstrate that these categories of substances are not dermal irritants.
Eye Irritation:
The eye irritation dataset contains three studies performed using the substance to be registered and seven performed on read across substances.
In the key study, Mallory (1986), the irritation potential of the substance to be registered was determined in an acute eye irritation study performed under GLP conditions and followed a protocol similar to that of OECD 405. The test material was instilled into the right eye of 6 New Zealand white rabbits (3 male and 3 female). The eye was examined at 1, 24, 48, 72 hours after administration and scored for ocular irritation in accordance with the Draize scale (1965). Due to the absence of irritation at 72 hours the study was terminated. Under the conditions of the test, animals displayed mild discomfort immediately following application of the test material. One hour after application there was moderate discharge, mild swelling and redness, and slight iris congestion. Edema and corneal dullness increased by 24 hours. Following irrigation 24 hours post application, congestion reduced so that iris clarity was practically normal by day 5. Based on these results the author of the report concludes that the test material is an eye irritant. However, the observed reactions were mild and not sufficient for classification as an irritant under Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.
Two further studies on the material to be registered have been provided as supporting data. The first study, Mallory (1999), was conducted using a 60 % solution in an acute eye irritation study performed under GLP conditions and followed a protocol similar to of OECD 405. Under the conditions of the test, three of the six animals displayed reactions at the 24, 48 and 72 hour time points. The mean scores for corneal opacity, iris, conjunctivae redness and chemosis at these time points was mild. Since the substance was tested in a 60 % solution the results are unreliable and not sufficient for classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008. The second study, Younger (1996), was performed in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles, but was presented as an abstract and thus the reliability of the data could not be assessed. Under the conditions of the test, animals displayed mild discomfort immediately following application of the test material. One hour after application there was moderate discharge, mild swelling and redness, and slight iris congestion. Edema and corneal dullness increased by 24 hours. Following irrigation 24 hours post application, congestion reduced so that iris clarity was practically normal by day 5. Based on these results the author of the report concludes that the test material is a mild eye irritant. The results are insufficient to determine a classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.
Data from the studies conducted using the substance to be registered have demonstrated that the test material does not elicit eye irritation at a level that requires classification.
Five further supporting studies have been provided on read-across substances.
The results from the three studies conducted using the substance to be registered clearly demonstrated that the test material is not an eye irritant sufficient for classification in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.
Justification for selection of skin irritation / corrosion endpoint:
The skin irritation dataset contains two studies performed using the substance to be registered and a further seven studies performed on read across substances.
Younger (1966) has been selected as the key study in addressing this endpoint, since the study was performed using the substance to be registered in an undiluted form. The study was performed in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles and presented as a short abstract, with adequate reporting of the methodology and results to allow the reliability of the results to be assessed. Based on the available information, the study can be considered reliable, but with restrictions (Klimisch 2) in accordance with Klimisch et al. (1997).
A further supporting study was performed on the substance to be registered, Rush (1991). This study was conducted to guidelines and GLP; however, the test material was only 80 % pure with the remaining 20 % comprised of a similar calcium sulphonate that is a known skin irritant. The test period was 24 hours instead of 4 hours, representing a worst case scenario. The test ended at 72 hours before full reversibility could be determined.
The remaining seven studies were performed using two read across substances and have been provided as supporting data.
Justification for selection of eye irritation endpoint:
The eye irritation dataset contains three studies performed using the substance to be registered and seven performed on read across substances.
Mallory (1986) has been selected as the key study in addressing this endpoint, since the study was performed using the substance to be registered in an undiluted form. The study was performed in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles, possibly with incomplete reporting or methodological deficiencies, which do not affect the quality of the relevant results. The study was assigned a reliability score of 2 (reliable with restrictions) in accordance with Klimisch et al. (1997).
Two further supporting studies were performed on the substance to be registered. The first study, Mallory (1999), was conducted using a 60 % solution and is thus not suitable for classification. The study was assigned a reliability score of 3 (not reliable) in accordance with Klimisch et al. (1997). The second supporting study by Younger (1996), was performed in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles, but was presented as an abstract and thus the reliability of the data could not be assessed. The study was therefore assigned a reliability score of 4 (not assignable) in accordance with Klimisch et al. (1997).
The remaining five studies were performed using two read across substances and have been provided as supporting data.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Skin Irritation:
According to the criteria outlined in Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, the test material does not meet the criteria for classification as a skin irritant.
Eye Irritation:
According to the criteria outlined in Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, the test material does not meet the criteria for classification as an eye irritant.
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.