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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 228-783-6 | CAS number: 6358-69-6
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Genetic toxicity in vitro
Description of key information
AMES test
The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay.Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.
In vitro gene mutation assay in Mammalian cells
The test chemical was cosidered to be non – mutagenic in the Chromosomal Aberration assay using a mammalian cell culture
Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
- Remarks:
- Type of genotoxicity: gene mutation
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Justification for type of information:
- Data is from publication
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: As mention below
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- To determine the genetic toxicity of the test material by AMES test.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of assay:
- bacterial gene mutation assay
- Target gene:
- AMES Assay
- Species / strain / cell type:
- S. typhimurium, other: No detailed data available
- Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- Not applicable
- Additional strain / cell type characteristics:
- not specified
- Metabolic activation:
- not specified
- Metabolic activation system:
- no data
- Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
- no data
- Vehicle / solvent:
- no data
- Untreated negative controls:
- not specified
- Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
- not specified
- True negative controls:
- not specified
- Positive controls:
- not specified
- Positive control substance:
- not specified
- Remarks:
- no data
- Details on test system and experimental conditions:
- no data
- Evaluation criteria:
- An increase in the number of revertants was noted
- Statistics:
- no data
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium, other: No detailed data available
- Metabolic activation:
- not specified
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not specified
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- not specified
- Positive controls validity:
- not specified
- Remarks on result:
- other: No mutagenic potential
- Conclusions:
- The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay.Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.
- Executive summary:
Uncertainties regarding possible negative effects on the environment or on human health of authorizing tracing experiments in groundwater and surface waters led to the establishment of a Working Group at the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt – UBA) for conducting a toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment. A total of 17 water tracers was assessed by the Working Group on the basis of the results of toxicological tests. Two test methods that have been sufficiently validated and established for testing of chemicals were used: the salmonella/microsome test (gene mutation) and the analysis of chromosome aberration using a mammalian cell culture (chromosome aberration).The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay. Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.Test substance is classified as SAFE for use in water tracing.
- Endpoint:
- in vitro cytogenicity / chromosome aberration study in mammalian cells
- Remarks:
- Type of genotoxicity: chromosome aberration
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Justification for type of information:
- Data is from publication.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: As mention below
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- To determine the genetic toxicity of the test material .
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of assay:
- in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test
- Target gene:
- no data
- Species / strain / cell type:
- mammalian cell line, other: No detailed data available
- Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- No data
- Additional strain / cell type characteristics:
- not specified
- Metabolic activation:
- not specified
- Metabolic activation system:
- no data
- Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
- No data
- Vehicle / solvent:
- no data
- Untreated negative controls:
- not specified
- Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
- not specified
- True negative controls:
- not specified
- Positive controls:
- not specified
- Positive control substance:
- not specified
- Details on test system and experimental conditions:
- no data
- Evaluation criteria:
- Chromosmal abberration,gaps were noted in cell line.
- Statistics:
- no data
- Species / strain:
- mammalian cell line, other:
- Metabolic activation:
- not specified
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not specified
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- not specified
- Positive controls validity:
- not specified
- Additional information on results:
- No data
- Remarks on result:
- other: No mutagenic potential was observed
- Conclusions:
- The test chemical was cosidered to be non – mutagenic in the Chromosomal Aberration assay using a mammalian cell culture
Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing. - Executive summary:
Uncertainties regarding possible negative effects on the environment or on human health of authorizing tracing experiments in groundwater and surface waters led to the establishment of a Working Group at the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt – UBA) for conducting a toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment. A total of 17 water tracers was assessed by the Working Group on the basis of the results of toxicological tests. Two test methods that have been sufficiently validated and established for testing of chemicals were used: the salmonella/microsome test (gene mutation) and the analysis of chromosome aberration using a mammalian cell culture (chromosome aberration).The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay. Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.Test substance is classified as SAFE for use in water tracing.
Referenceopen allclose all
Table 1 : Genetoxicity of the tracer dyes
Tracer |
Salmonella –Microsome assay |
Cytogenetic assay – Chromosal aberration |
Pyranine |
- |
- |
Table 1: Genetic Toxicity of tracer dyes
Tracer |
Salmonella Microsome assay |
Cytogenetic assay – Chromosal aberration |
Pyranine |
- |
- |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (negative)
Genetic toxicity in vivo
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Gene mutation in vitro:
Data for the various test chemicals was reviewed to determine the mutagenic nature of Solvent Green 7; Pyranine; trisodium 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,6-trisulfonate (6358-69-6). The studies are as mentioned below:
AMES test
Uncertainties regarding possible negative effects on the environment or on human health of authorizing tracing experiments in groundwater and surface waters led to the establishment of a Working Group at the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt – UBA) for conducting a toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment. A total of 17 water tracers was assessed by the Working Group on the basis of the results of toxicological tests. Two test methods that have been sufficiently validated and established for testing of chemicals were used: the salmonella/microsome test (gene mutation) and the analysis of chromosome aberration using a mammalian cell culture (chromosome aberration).The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay. Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.Test substance is classified as SAFE for use in water tracing.
Supported by other studies.
Ames assay was performed to investigate the potential of the test chemical to induce gene mutations in comparison to negative control according to the plate incorporation test (Trial I) and the pre-incubation test (Trial II) using the Salmonella typhimurium strains TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98, TA 100 and TA 102. The assay was performed in two independent experiments both with and without liver microsomal activation. Each concentration, including the negative, positive controls was tested in triplicate. Based on the pre-experiment results, the test item was tested with the following concentrations 0.0 (NC), 0.005, 0.016, 0.050, 0.158, 0.501 mg/plate for main study, both in the presence of metabolic activation (+S9) and in the absence of metabolic activation (-S9). No substantial increase in revertant colony numbers in any of the tester strains were observed following treatment with the test chemical at any dose level in both the confirmatory trials, neither in the presence nor in the absence of metabolic activation (S9 mix). In conclusion, it is stated that during the described mutagenicity test and under the experimental conditions reported, the test chemical did not induce gene mutations by base pair changes or frame shifts in the genome of the strains used.
Gene mutation toxicity study was performed to determine the mutagenic nature of the test chemical. The study was performed using S. typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100 with and without S9 metabolic activation system. The test was performed as per the plate incorporation assay at dose level of 0 (negative control), 50 or 200µg/plate. The chemical was dissolved in water. The result was considered positive when a reproducible, dose-related, at least two-fold increase in the number of revertants over background was observed. Concurrent positive and negative control chemicals were also included in the study. The test chemical did not induce a doubling of revertant colonies over the negative control using S. typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100 in the presence and absence of S9 metabolic activation system and hence the chemical is not likely to classify as a gene mutant in vitro.
In vitro gene mutation assay in Mammalian cells
Uncertainties regarding possible negative effects on the environment or on human health of authorizing tracing experiments in groundwater and surface waters led to the establishment of a Working Group at the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt – UBA) for conducting a toxicological and ecotoxicological assessment. A total of 17 water tracers was assessed by the Working Group on the basis of the results of toxicological tests. Two test methods that have been sufficiently validated and established for testing of chemicals were used: the salmonella/microsome test (gene mutation) and the analysis of chromosome aberration using a mammalian cell culture (chromosome aberration).The test chemical was considered to be non – mutagenic in the Salmonella – Microsome assay. Fluorescent dyes that showed no effect upon either the genotoxicity or the ecotoxicity tests were classified by the Working Group as SAFE for use in water tracing.Test substance is classified as SAFE for use in water tracing.
Supported by other studies.
In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test was performed to determine the mutagenic nature of the test chemical. The study was performed using CHO-WBL cells in the presence and absence of exogeneous metabolic activation system. The test chemical was dissolved in DMSO and used at dose levels upto 5 mg/mL. In the chromosome aberration assay without activation, cells were exposed to the test chemical for 8 hr. The test chemical was washed off, and the cells were treated with 0.1µg/ml Colcemid for 2-2.5 hr. With metabolic activation, the cells were exposed to the test chemical plus the metabolic activation mixture for 2 hr, washed, incubated for 8 hr, and then treated with Colcemid for 2-2.5 hr. A delayed harvest was used in the aberration assay in most instances when cell cycle delay was observed in the SCE assay. In these tests the cell growth period was extended to about 20 hr. Cells were harvested. Air-dried slides were coded and stained with Giemsa. One hundred to 200 cells from each of the three highest scorable doses were analyzed and the chromosomal aberrations were scored. The test chemical did not induce chromosomal aberrations when tested to toxicity. Precipitate was evident at doses of 250µg/ml and above. Based on the observations made, the test chemical did not induce chromosome aberrations in the CHO-WBL cells in the presence and absence of exogeneous metabolic activation system and hence it is not likely to classify as a gene mutant in vitro.
In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test was performed to determine the mutagenic nature of the test chemical. The study was performed using CHO-WBL cells in the presence and absence of exogeneous metabolic activation system. The test chemical was dissolved in DMSO and used at dose levels upto 5 mg/mL. In the chromosome aberration assay without activation, cells were exposed to the test chemical for 8 hr. The test chemical was washed off, and the cells were treated with 0.1µg/ml Colcemid for 2-2.5 hr. With metabolic activation, the cells were exposed to the test chemical plus the metabolic activation mixture for 2 hr, washed, incubated for 8 hr, and then treated with Colcemid for 2-2.5 hr. A delayed harvest was used in the aberration assay in most instances when cell cycle delay was observed in the SCE assay. In these tests the cell growth period was extended to about 20 hr. Cells were harvested. Air-dried slides were coded and stained with Giemsa. One hundred to 200 cells from each of the three highest scorable doses were analyzed and the chromosomal aberrations were scored. The test chemical did not induce chromosomal aberrations when tested to toxicity. Precipitate was evident at doses of 250µg/ml and above. Based on the observations made, the test chemical did not induce chromosome aberrations in the CHO-WBL cells in the presence and absence of exogeneous metabolic activation system and hence it is not likely to classify as a gene mutant in vitro.
Based on the data summarized, Solvent Green 7; Pyranine; trisodium 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,6-trisulfonate (6358-69-6)did not induce gene mutation .Hence it is not likely to be mutagenic in vitro.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Thus based on the above annotation and CLP criteria the test chemical Solvent Green 7; Pyranine; trisodium 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,6-trisulfonate (6358-69-6) did not induce gene mutation .Hence it is not likely to be mutagenic in vitro.
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.