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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
23 Aug - 15 Oct 2015
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2016
Report date:
2016

Materials and methods

Test guidelineopen allclose all
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
(1992)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Remarks:
Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Schwabach, Germany
Type of study:
Buehler test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
In a recent study by Petry et al. (unpublished) the applicability of the in vitro direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens™ and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) and in the modified myeloid U937 skin sensitization test (mMUSST) has been determined for eight members of the heterogeneous group of silicone-based substances for which in vivo data was already available. Therein, the data presented provide insights into technical challenges encountered and limitations when testing such type of polysiloxanes and silanes for skin sensitization in currently proposed in vitro models and allow only a preliminary evaluation of current proposals for the hazard assessment and classification of chemical substances for the skin sensitization endpoint solely on the basis of in vitro data. The applicability is further limited by the hydrolytic instability of the test item as well as the fact that silanol hydrolysis products can form condensation products of even lower water solubility.
It is therefore concluded that, at present, the available in vitro test methods are not suitable to correctly predict the skin sensitising potential of these types of polysiloxanes and silanes and that future work has to focus on improving the understanding of the mode of action how such materials cause skin sensitisation and identifying most suitable in vitro skin sensitisation testing strategies accordingly.
The Buehler type of sensitization test was selected since the test substance is a functional silane and the Local Lymph Node Assay as the preferred alternative has shown to provide false positive results for silicone substances.

Literature
Petry, T., Bosch, A., Coste, X., Eigler, D., Germain, P., Seidel, S. and Jean, P. A. Evaluation of in vitro assays for the assessment of the skin sensitization hazard of functional polysiloxanes and silanes (unpublished)

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylcyclohexylamine]
EC Number:
221-329-8
EC Name:
N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylcyclohexylamine]
Cas Number:
3068-78-8
Molecular formula:
C12H27NO3Si
IUPAC Name:
N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]cyclohexanamine
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): 3-(Cyclohexylamino)propyl trimethoxysilane
- Physical state: yellowish liquid
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: 06 Feb 2017
- Storage condition of test material: at room temperature, protected from light and moisture

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Crl: HA
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, Sulzfeld, Germany
- Age at study initiation: 4 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 301 - 348 g
- Housing: animals were kept in groups in Terfuran cages on Altromin saw fibre bedding
- Diet: autoclaved hay and Altromin 3122 maintenance diet for guinea pigs, ad libitum
- Water: tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 5 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 ± 3
- Humidity (%): 55 ± 10
- Air changes (per hr): at least 10
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Induction
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
cotton seed oil
Concentration / amount:
100%
Day(s)/duration:
3 applications each lasting 6 hours
Challenge
No.:
#1
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
cotton seed oil
Concentration / amount:
12.5%
Day(s)/duration:
1 application lasting 6 hours
No. of animals per dose:
10 (controls), 20 (in test groups)
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS
Before the initiation of the preliminary test, a solubility test was performed to define the maximum concentration which is technically applicable to the animals. The test item was found to be not soluble at a concentration of 75% in physiological saline 0.9% NaCl. Solubility was found for the vehicle cottonseed oil at a concentration of 75%. The adequate concentrations for the inductions and the challenge were determined by a preliminary test with test concentrations of 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 and 75% in cottonseed oil. Each concentration and the undiluted test substance were applied topically to the flanks of the animals for 6 h using occlusive dressings. Two animals were treated topically with concentrations of 100 and 75% of the test substance for 6 h. One animal was treated with concentrations of 25 and 50% of the test substance for 6 h and another animal was topically treated with concentrations of 6.25 and 12.5% of the test substance for 6 h. The application sites were assessed for erythema and edema 24, 48 and 72 h after patch removal. Based on the results of the preliminary test concentrations of 100 and 12.5% were chosen for the dermal induction and the challenge application, respectively. A concentration of 12.5% was found to be the highest dose which did not cause any signs of irritation after a topical treatment over a period of 6 h.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Exposure period: 6 h
- Test groups: neat test substance
- Control group: concurrent no treatment
- Site: left flank
- Frequency of applications: every 7 days
- Duration: Days 0 - 21
- Concentrations: 100%

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 35
- Exposure period: 6 h
- Test groups: test substance in vehicle and vehicle only
- Control group: test substance in vehicle and vehicle only
- Site: right flank (test substance), left flank (vehicle)
- Concentrations: 12.5%
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after patch removal
Challenge controls:
The control group is actually a challenge control
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
mercaptobenzothiazole

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
The periodically reliability check was performed with 20 healthy female Crl: HA guinea pigs treated with mercaptobenzothiazole at concentrations of 50 and 25% (in vaseline) in the induction and challenge exposure, respectively. The sensitisation rate after application of the positive control substance was 95%, confirming the reliability of the test system.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
Induction: 0%; challenge: 12.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
neither erythema nor edema observed
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
Induction: 100%; challenge: 12.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
neither erythema nor edema observed
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
Induction: 50%; challenge: 25%
No. with + reactions:
19
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
slight erythema (grade 1) were observed in 19/20 animals
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
Induction: 0%; challenge: 12.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
neither erythema nor edema observed
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
Induction: 100%; challenge: 12.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
neither erythema nor edema observed
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
Induction: 50%; challenge: 25%
No. with + reactions:
13
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
slight erythema (grade 1) were observed in 13/20 animals

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
other: CLP/EU GHS criteria are not met, no classification required according to Regulations (EC) No 1272/2008
Conclusions:
In a skin sensitisation study (Buehler test) according to OECD guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP, the test substance caused no skin reactions identified as sensitisation at the tested concentrations (induction: 100%, challenge: 12.5%) in Crl: HA guinea pigs. Thus, the test substance is not considered to be a skin sensitizer under the conditions of the test.