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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 231-722-6 | CAS number: 7704-34-9
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Information on the skin sensitization potential of sulfur is available from three adjuvant based tests (Magnusson and Kligman methodology) and one non-adjuvant investigation (Buehler methodology). All four studies followed OECD guideline 406 and were GLP compliant.
In the first investigation, male and female guinea pigs (albino, NIH (Hartley) strain) were induced by intradermal injection (1% w/v sulfur in saline) and topical application (0.5 g sulfur as a paste in deionised water, applied following treatment with sodium lauryl sulphate) with topical challenge taking place approximately three weeks later (0.5 g sulfur, paste in deionised water) (Rallis Research Centre, 2005). The concentrations used were selected based on results from a preliminary irritancy study, with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole used as a positive control substance. Dermal responses in all groups were assessed using Draize criteria. No erythema or oedema was present in either the control or test groups 24 hr or 48 hr post-challenge while a satisfactory response was obtained in the positive control group. It was concluded that sulfur was not a sensitizer under the conditions of the test.
In a study of essentially similar design, using the same strain of guinea pig, induction treatments comprised intradermal injection of 1% w/v sulfur in paraffin oil followed by topical application of 0.5 g sulfur as a paste in deionised water (applied after SLS treatment of the induction site) (Advinus Therapeutic Private Ltd, 2005). 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole used as a positive control substance and all dermal responses assessed using Draize criteria. No erythema or oedema was present at the challenge site 24 hr or 48 hr post-treatment, while a satisfactory response was obtained in the positive control group. The results confirmed that sulfur is not a dermal sensitizer in the guinea pig maximization test.
In the third adjuvant-based test, 1% w/v sulfur in paraffin oil was selected for intradermal induction and 25% sulfur in ethanol used for topical induction following SLS treatment of the site (RCC Research and Consulting Co., 1994). Animals were challenged/rechallenged 10%, 15% or 25% w/v sulfur in vaselinum album. 4-Aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester was used as a positive control substance. In contrast to the two preceding investigations, erythema and occasional oedema was present in the control and test groups, however responses generally decreased in severity and incidence between the 24 hr and 48 hr observation periods. While responses were more pronounced in the test group relative to the controls, there was little consistency in the extent of response at first challenge and rechallenge for the individual animals with the overall pattern of responses obtained appearing more consistent with non-specific irritation than with sensitization. The results from this study are therefore considered ambiguous and inconclusive with regard to the sensitization potential of sulfur.
In the final study (RCC Research and Consulting Co., 1994), the sensitization potential of sulfur was investigated using a non-adjuvant (Buehler) protocol, with 25% w/v sulfur in vaselinum album selected for topical induction phase and 15% and 25% w/v sulfur in vaselinum album used topical challenge (selection based on results of an irritation screen). 2-Chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene was used as positive control substance, and dermal responses assessed in all groups using Draize criteria. Slight patchy erythema was commonly present in control animals after challenge/rechallenge with 15% or 25% sulfur, with more pronounced redness present in a majority of test animals. Rechallenge of the same test animals with 15% w/v Thiovit (containing 80% w/w water dispersible sulfur) resulted in moderate erythema after topical application in vaselinum album while no reactions were elicited when distilled water was used a vehicle. While the incidence and extent of responses observed in test animals was greater than that recorded in the controls, the irritant nature of the test substance (as indicated by the occurrence of slight patchy erythema after challenge of the controls) suggests that irritation rather than sensitization was responsible for the responses seen. The results also suggest that the choice of vehicle may influence the response. The results from this study are therefore considered ambiguous and inconclusive regarding to the sensitization potential of sulfur.
In addition to these animal data, a large number of humans are exposed either occupationally or during treatment of skin conditions (acne, seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, scabies and tinea versicolor). Furthermore, sulfur has been used for many years in cosmetics, veterinary creams, pesticide sprays and dusts/powders. In view of these uses, many individuals have been exposed to sulfur. In all of these applications there is dermal exposure. Human data from the medical examinations conducted at the production plants have shown no incidences of skin sensitization, with some plants being operative for up to 50 years. An extensive review of the literature, concentrating specifically on human data do not indicate a significant number of cases reporting skin sensitization as a consequence of sulfur use for treatment of skin conditions.
Overall, results from two GLP-compliant guideline maximization tests together with extensive human experience indicate that sulfur is not a dermal sensitizer. Skin reactions recorded in other studies appear consistent with irritation, not sensitization.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Results from four GLP-compliant guideline guinea pig maximisation studies indicate that sulfur is not a dermal sensitiser.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
One of four available studies.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Sulfur does not meet the criteria for classification as a skin sensitiser according to the criteria of the EU CLP Regulation (EC No. 1272/2008).
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.