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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 248-580-6 | CAS number: 27619-97-2
- 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
Genetic toxicity: in vivo
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- in vivo mammalian cell study: DNA damage and/or repair
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 015
- Report date:
- 2015
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 489 (In vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- See the the “Any other information on materials and methods" section for protocol deviations.
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of assay:
- mammalian comet assay
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Potassium 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctanesulphonate
- EC Number:
- 261-818-3
- EC Name:
- Potassium 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctanesulphonate
- Cas Number:
- 59587-38-1
- Molecular formula:
- C8H5F13O3S.K
- IUPAC Name:
- potassium 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctane-1-sulfonate
- Test material form:
- solid: particulate/powder
- Details on test material:
- - Purity: 97.6%
Constituent 1
Test animals
- Species:
- rat
- Strain:
- other: Crl:CD(SD)
- Details on species / strain selection:
- The rat was selected as there is a large volume of background data in this species.
- Sex:
- male
Administration / exposure
- Route of administration:
- oral: gavage
- Vehicle:
- Water
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 2 doses
- Frequency of treatment:
- Two administrations at 0 (Day 1) and 21 hours (Day 2)
- Post exposure period:
- No
Doses / concentrationsopen allclose all
- Dose / conc.:
- 500 mg/kg bw/day (nominal)
- Dose / conc.:
- 1 000 mg/kg bw/day (nominal)
- Dose / conc.:
- 2 000 mg/kg bw/day (nominal)
- No. of animals per sex per dose:
- 6 male animals
- Control animals:
- yes, concurrent vehicle
Examinations
- Tissues and cell types examined:
- Liver and stomach tissues were examined for DNA damage in the Comet assay
- Evaluation criteria:
- The following criteria were used for analysis of slides:
1. Only clearly defined non overlapping cells were scored
2. Clouds were not scored
3. Cells with unusual staining artefacts were not scored.
For valid data, the test article was considered to induce DNA damage if:
1. A least one of the test doses exhibits a marked increase in tail intensity, in any tissue, compared with the concurrent vehicle control
2. The increase is dose related in any tissue.
The test article was considered positive in this assay if both of the above criteria were met. The test article was considered negative in this assay if neither of the above criteria were met. Results which only partially satisfied the criteria were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Biological relevance was taken into account, for example consistency of response within and between dose levels. A positive response was based on scientific judgment and included analysis of related, concurrent cytotoxicity information (such as ‘cloud’ assessment) and the historical control data. - Statistics:
- Statistical analysis was conducted on tail intensity data only according to the recommendations of Bright et al., 2011. The positive control group was compared to the vehicle control using a two sample t-test. Vehicle control and test groups were analysed separately using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). An overall dose response test was performed along with Dunnett’s test for pairwise comparisons of each treated group with the vehicle control. All tests were performed with one-sided risk for increased response with increasing dose. Levene’s test for equality of variances across the groups was also performed and where test showed evidence of heterogeneity (p≤0.01), the data were rank-transformed prior to analysis. High levels of ‘clouds’ indicated the nuclear complex had been significantly fragmented and was considered evidence of excessive DNA damage. Such damage may be due to the cytotoxic nature of the treatment or due to excessive mechanical disruption during cell isolation, which had the potential to interfere with Comet analysis.
Results and discussion
Test results
- Key result
- Sex:
- male
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Toxicity:
- no effects
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not examined
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Test substance did not induce DNA damage in the liver and stomach of rats treated up to 2000 mg/kg/day (the maximum recommended dose for in vivo Comet studies according to current regulatory guidelines).
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- The test substance did not induce DNA damage in the liver and stomach of rats treated up to 2000 mg/kg/day (the maximum recommended dose for in vivo Comet studies according to current regulatory guidelines).
- Executive summary:
The study was conducted to determine the potential of test substance to induce DNA damage in the liver and stomach of treated male rats according to guideline OECD 489. The study was conducted using test concentrations of 500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg/day and a positive control using ethyl methanesulfonate 150 mg/kg, single administration at 21 hours (Day 2). Observations were made immediate, 1, 2 and 4 hours post dose on Day1 and Pre-dose, immediate and prior to necropsy on Day 2.
No signs of toxicity observed in any animal dosed with vehicle, test substance or positive control. There was a dose-related loss of body weight following dosing with test substance. Vehicle control data were comparable with the laboratory’s historical data. The positive control induced a significant increase in Comet parameters compared to the concurrent vehicle control. The study was therefore accepted as valid.
There was no dose-related increase in %clouds in liver and stomach following treatment with test substance, thus demonstrating that treatment with test substance did not cause excessive DNA damage (which can interfere with Comet analysis) following oral gavage administration. In the liver and stomach, group mean tail intensities and tail moments for groups treated with test substance at all dose levels were considered to be similar to the concurrent vehicle control group. There were no statistically significant increases in tail intensity in either tissue at any dose level compared to the concurrent vehicle control group. A small decrease in group mean tail intensity in stomach at 1000 mg/kg/day was observed, however, this was attributed to low variability of tail intensities within the dose group. As the individual animal tail intensities were comparable with those of at least one concurrent vehicle control animal and showed no evidence of a dose response, the decrease in group mean tail intensity was attributed to a chance event. It is concluded that, under the conditions of this study, test substance did not induce DNA damage in the liver and stomach of rats treated up to 2000 mg/kg/day (the maximum recommended dose for in vivo Comet studies according to current regulatory guidelines).
In the liver and stomach, group mean tail intensities and tail moments for groups treated with the test substance at all dose levels were considered to be similar to the concurrent vehicle control group. There were no statistically significant increases in tail intensity in either tissue at any dose level compared to the concurrent vehicle control group. A small decrease in group mean tail intensity in stomach at 1000 mg/kg/day was observed, however, this was attributed to low variability of tail intensities within the dose group. As the individual animal tail intensities were comparable with those of at least one concurrent vehicle control animal and showed no evidence of a dose response, the decrease in group mean tail intensity was attributed to a chance event.
It is concluded that, under the conditions of this study, the test substance did not induce DNA damage in the liver and stomach of rats treated up to 2000 mg/kg/day (the maximum recommended dose for in vivo Comet studies according to current regulatory guidelines).
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.