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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 258-110-1 | CAS number: 52697-38-8
- 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
Based on the data presented, the test substance Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) seems to react as a skin sensitiser at concentration of ≥ 25% if the animals were pre-treated with an adjuvant. Without adjuvant, concentrations of up to 12.5% did not cause skin sensitising effects.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- March/April 1987
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Method was not available
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
albino Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs
- Source: David Hall Limited, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, U.K.
- Weight at study initiation: 333 - 393g
- Age: seven to eleven weeks
- Housing: groups of up to 4
- Diet: Guinea Pig FD1 Diet, Special Diet Services Limited, Witham, Essex, U.K. ad libitum
- Water: tap water ad libitum
- Acclimatisation period: five days,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 18 to 25°C
- Humidity (%): 45 to 60%
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
IN-LIFE DATES: From: 16. March To: 26. April 1987 - Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- arachis oil
- Concentration / amount:
- 1% / 2 x 0.1 mL
1% / 2 x 0.1 mL in arachis oild : Freund's Complete Adjuvant (FCA) 1:1 - Day(s)/duration:
- Day 1
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- petrolatum
- Concentration / amount:
- 25% (w/w) in petroleum jelly B.P. / 0.2 to 0.3 mL
- Day(s)/duration:
- on Day 8 for 48 hours
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- petrolatum
- Concentration / amount:
- 25% (w/w) in petroleum jelly B.P. / 0.1 to 0.2 mL
- Day(s)/duration:
- on Day 22 for 24 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- Determination of primary not irritating concentration: 4
Determination of intradermal tolerability: 2
Control group: 10
Treatment group: 20 - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 14
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 11
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin; one animal not evaluable due to skin alterations was counted as positive
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin; one animal not evaluable due to skin alterations was counted as positive
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- yellow/green coloured staining of skin
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- The test substance caused positive reactions in 70%, 55% and 20% of animals after 24, 48, and 72 hours after removal of the test substance; it is hence considered to be a skin sensitiser.
- Executive summary:
A study was performed to assess the skin sensitisation potential of the test sample in the albino guinea pig. The method used followed that described in the OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1981) No. 406 "skin Sensitisation" - Magnusson and Kligman Maximisation Test.
Twenty test and ten control animals were used for the main study.
Following sighting studies, the following concentrations were used in the induction and challenge phases:
Intradermal Induction 1% (w/v) in arachis oil
Topical Induction 25% (w/w) in petroleum jelly
Topical Challenge 25% (w/w) in petroleum jelly
Yellow/green coloured staining of the skin was noted at the majority of test sample sites but did not prevent assessment of the skin responses.
Positive skin responses (erythema score >1) were noted at fourteen of the test sample sites on the test animals at the 24-hour observation. Slight loss of skin suppleness was also noted at one of these sites at this time.
A positive skin response had developed at one additional test sample site on the test animals at the 48-hour observation. A further observation was therefore made 72-hours after dressing removal but no additional positive
skin responses were noted. Common signs of desquamation and occasional signs of superficial cracking and thickening of the skin were apparent at the test sample sites on the test animals at both the 48 and 72-hour
observations.
No adverse skin reactions were noted at the vehicle control sites on the test animals or test sample or vehicle control sites on the control animals at the 24, 48 or 72-hour observations.
Bodyweight gains of surviving guinea pigs in the test group, between day 0 and day 24, were comparable to those observed in the control group animals over the same period.
The test substance caused positive reactions in 70%, 55% and 20% of animals after 24, 48, and 72 hours after removal of the test substance; it is hence considered to be a skin sensitiser.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1988
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Method was not available
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Remarks:
- Pirbright White
- Sex:
- male
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Winkelmann, Borchen, SPF breeding colony.
- Body weight at start of study: 315-408 g
- Age at start of study: 5-7 weeks
- Housing: in groups of four in macrolon cages (type 4) on soft wood granulate
- Diet: Altromin 3022 for guinea pigs, ad libitum
- Water: Tap water in plastic bottles, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: At least 7 d
- Animal identification: Fur marking and cage numbering
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature: 20-24°C
- Humidity: apprrox. 50%
- Photoperiod: 12 h light/dark cycle
- Air changes (per hr): ca 10 - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: Cremophore EL (2% v/v) in water for injection
- Concentration / amount:
- 12.5% /0.5 mL
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 1, Day 8, Day 15 - for 6 hours each
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest technically applicable concentration used
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: Cremophore EL (2% v/v) in water for injection
- Concentration / amount:
- 12.5% / 0.5 mL
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 29 for 6 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- other: highest technically applicable concentration used
- No. of animals per dose:
- Number of animals in test group: 12
Number of animals in 1st control group: 12
Number of animals in 2nd control group: 12 - Details on study design:
- MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Exposure period: on Day 1, 8, and 15 for 6 hours each
- Test groups: 1
- Control group: 2
- Site: flank
- Frequency of applications: every seven days
- Duration: 6 hours
- Concentrations: 12.5%
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: Day 29
- Exposure period: 6 hours
- Test groups: 1
- Control group: 2
- Site: left flank test substance, right flank vehicle
- Concentrations: 12.5%
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 48 and 72
OTHER: thicknes of skin folds were measured during induction and before challenge and 48 and 72 hours after challenge - Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 12.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Clinical observations:
- same animals which showed reactions with the vehicle alone
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 12.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Clinical observations:
- same animals which showed reactions with the vehicle alone
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 12.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 12.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Based on the study coducted, Disperse Violet 93:1 does not have sin sensitising properties.
- Executive summary:
In a skin sensitization test in male guinea pigs (Buehler test) it was examined whether Disperse Violet 93:1 has a skin sensitizing effect.
Under occlusive conditions, three epicutaneous inductions were performed at an interval of 7 days and 2 weeks later a challenge treatment followed with a 12.5% test substance formulation to determine whether hypersensitivity (sensitization) has been induced.
The test sample was applied at a maximum suspendable and administrable concentration in an aqueous formulation to allow optimal skin contact. The concentration used is sufficiently high for a suspended solid, since the test sample came into contact with the skin in a sufficiently thick layer and well moistened with the method used. As the test substance stained the skin as a dye, skin reactions (redness) could not be determined after the inductions. As a substitute, the skin fold thickness was measured to determine thickening as a result of inflammatory processes in the skin. The results of these studies showed no evidence of test-substance-induced inflammatory skin reactions.
After the challenge treatment, a chemical depilation was performed to determine whether the skin discoloration could possibly be removed. This measure was successful so that a macroscopic evaluation of the skin could be carried out in addition to skin fold measurements.
After the challenge treatment, the skin fold measurements and the macroscopic findings of the skin provided no evidence of a test substance-induced hypersensitivity (sensitization) of the skin.
The slight skin redness observed in 4 animals of the test substance group occurred both on the test substance treated side and on the vehicle treated side. Another animal of this group reacted temporarily with a slight redness only on the vehicle treated side, and one animal of the control group reacted with a slight redness only at the test substance treated side. These findings can therefore not be attributed to hypersensitivity (sensitization).
The examinations carried out thus did not provide any evidence of a skin-sensitizing potential of the test substance.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- December 1978
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- test procedure in accordance with national standard methods with acceptable restrictions
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Stevens MA. Use of the Albino Guinea-pig to Detect the Skin-sensitizing Ability of Chemicals. British journal of industrial medicine 1967;24(3):189-202
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- In a routine test for skin-sensitizing potential, the test substance was applied over three days to the ears of guinea-pigs, and the flanks have been challenged one week later with a range of concentrations of suspected sensitizing substance. The erythematous reaction produced 24 hours after challenge was rated and compared with that in unsensitized controls.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Remarks:
- Study pre-dates GLP
- Type of study:
- other: ear/flank test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Study available is over 12 years old.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- No further details specified in the study report.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: AlderleyPark strain albino guinea pigs
- Sex:
- not specified
- Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- N,N-dimethylformamide
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.1 ml of a 10% w/v solution
- Day(s)/duration:
- 3 days
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- N,N-dimethylformamide
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.2 ml
5% w/v, 0.1% w/v and 0.01% w/v - Day(s)/duration:
- 1 day
- No. of animals per dose:
- 6 animals
- Details on study design:
- The test article (0.1 ml of a 10% w/v solution in dimethylformamjde) was applied daily by means of a glass syringe to the outer surface of each ear of 6 guinea pigs (animal numbers 1 - 6) for three days
(days 1, 2 and 3). On Day 8, 0.2 ml of the challenge solutions (5% w/v, 0.1% w/v and 0.01% w/v in dimethylformamide) was applied topically to 1 cm diameter circular areas on the clipped flanks of each of the same 6 animals. Solutions of test article were also applied in the same way on Day 8 to the clipped flanks of control animals (animal numbers 7 - 10) which had no previous treatment on the ears. The applications were made on both flanks of all 10 guinea pigs, with each concentration being applied to each flank. The highest concentration was applied closest to the posterior end of the animal while the lowest concentration was applied nearest the anterior end.
The erythema produced on each site was assessed 24 hours later (Day 9) and graded on a 6 point scale. - Challenge controls:
- The highest concentration was applied closest to the posterior end of the animal while the lowest concentration was applied nearest the anterior end.
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Positive control results:
- Not specified.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 6
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.1% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 6
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.01% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 6
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 5% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.1% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.01% w/v
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Clinical observations:
- None specified
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- No erythema was noted in any of the test or control animals. The test article was not considered to be a strong sensitiser.
- Executive summary:
A study was carried out to determine the skin-sensitising potential of test article in the albino guinea pig. The study was performed in accordance with the ear/flank test method (Stevens).
The test article (0.1 ml of a 10% w/v solution in dimethylformamjde) was applied daily by means of a glass syringe to the outer surface of the ears of 6 guinea pigs (animal numbers 1 - 6) for three days (days 1, 2 and 3).
On Day 8, 0.2 ml of the challenge solutions (5% w/v, 0.1% w/v and 0.01% w/v in dimethylformamide) was applied topically to 1 cm diameter circular areas on the clipped flanks of each of the same 6 animals. Solutions of test article were also applied in the same way on Day 8 to the clipped flanks of control animals (animal numbers 7 - 10) which had no previous treatment on the ears. The applications were made on both flanks of all 10 guinea pigs, with each concentration being applied to each flank.
The highest concentration was applied closest to the posterior end of the animal while the lowest concentration was applied nearest the anterior end.
The erythema produced on each site was assessed 24 hours later (Day 9).
Results
No erythema was noted in any of the test or control animals. The test article was not considered to be a strong sensitiser.
Referenceopen allclose all
Yellow/green coloured staining of the skin was noted at the majority of test sample sites but did not prevent assessment of the skin responses.
Positive skin responses (erythema score >1) were noted at fourteen of the test sample sites on the test animals at the 24-hour observation. Slight loss of skin suppleness was also noted at one of these sites at this time.
A positive skin response had developed at one additional test sample site on the test animals at the 48-hour observation. A further observation was therefore made 72-hours after dressing removal but no additional positive
skin responses were noted. Common signs of desquamation and occasional signs of superficial cracking and thickening of the skin were apparent at the test sample sites on the test animals at both the 48 and 72-hour
observations.
No adverse skin reactions were noted at the vehicle control sites on the test animals or test sample or vehicle control sites on the control animals at the 24, 48 or 72-hour observations.
Bodyweight gains of surviving guinea pigs in the test group, between day 0 and day 24, were comparable to those observed in the control group animals over the same period.
Measurement of skin-fold thickness showed no difference between negative control and test group or vehicle and test substance trated flanks.
Body weight development was regular in all animals.
Induction was carried out using a 10.0% w/v solution of the test substance in dimethylformamide (DMF). The subsequent challenge was accomplished using 5.0, 0.1 and 0.01% w/v solutions in DMF.
None of the animals showed a visible erythmic response or any signs of oedema.
Reading the result of the test was made difficult owing to pronounced skin staining with the test substance.
Histological examination of skin taken from the challenge sites showed no evidence of sensitisation.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
Three studies for skin sensitising properties were conducted with Disperse Violet 93:1. Two of those studies were negative and one of these studies were positive.
The first skin sensitisation study performed in 1978 with Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) with a purity of ca. 98% was conducted according to the ear/flank test method established by Stevens (Stevens MA. Use of the Albino Guinea-pig to Detect the Skin-sensitizing Ability of Chemicals. British journal of industrial medicine 1967;24(3):189-202) in albino guinea pigs. For this purpose, the test article (0.1 mL of a 10% w/v solution in dimethylformamide) was applied daily by means of a glass syringe to the outer surface of the ears of 6 guinea pigs for three days. On Day 8, 0.2 mL of the challenge solutions (5% w/v, 0.1% w/v and 0.01% w/v in dimethylformamide) was applied topically to 1 cm diameter circular areas on the clipped flanks of each of the same 6 animals. Solutions of test article were also applied in the same way on Day 8 to the clipped flanks of 4 control animals which had no previous treatment on the ears. The applications were made on both flanks of all 10 guinea pigs, with each concentration being applied to each flank. The treated skin at each site was assessed 24 hours later (Day 9). No erythema was noted in any of the test or control animals. The test article was thus not considered to be a strong sensitiser.
The second study performed in 1987 with bulk material out of the Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) synthesis without information of its purity, was performed in the guinea pig maximisation test according to Magnusson & Kligman (OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1981) No. 406 "skin Sensitisation"). Twenty test and ten control animals were used for the main study. Following sighting studies, the intradermal induction was carried out with 1% (w/v) in arachis oil and in Freund’s Adjuvant. The topical induction and challenge was carried out with a concentration of 25% (w/w) in petroleum jelly. The skin was assessed 24, 48, and 72 hours after end of the challenge exposure. Yellow/green coloured staining of the skin was noted at the majority of test sample sites but did not prevent assessment of the skin responses. Positive skin responses (erythema score >1) were noted at fourteen of the test sample sites on the test animals at the 24-hour observation. Slight loss of skin suppleness was also noted at one of these sites at this time. A positive skin response had developed at one additional test sample site on the test animals at the 48-hour observation. A further observation was therefore made 72-hours after dressing removal but no additional positive skin responses were noted. On contrary, only 4 animals with skin reactions were seen at that observation point. Common signs of desquamation and occasional signs of superficial cracking and thickening of the skin were apparent at the test sample sites on the test animals at both the 48 and 72-hour observations. No adverse skin reactions were noted at the vehicle control sites on the test animals or test sample or vehicle control sites on the control animals at the 24, 48 or 72-hour observations. Bodyweight gains of surviving guinea pigs in the test group, between day 0 and day 24, were comparable to those observed in the control group animals over the same period. As the test substance caused positive reactions in 70%, 55% and 20% of animals after 24, 48, and 72 hours after removal of the test substance; it is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
The third skin sensitising study performed in 1988 with Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) with a purity of ca. 91% was conducted in the Bühler test in 12 male guinea pigs per group according to OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1981) No. 406 "skin Sensitisation". Under occlusive conditions, three epicutaneous inductions were performed at an interval of 7 days and 2 weeks later a challenge treatment followed with a 12.5% test substance formulation to determine whether hypersensitivity (sensitization) has been induced. The test sample was applied at a maximum suspendable and administrable concentration in an aqueous formulation to allow optimal skin contact. The concentration used is sufficiently high for a suspended solid, since the test sample came into contact with the skin in a sufficiently thick layer and well moistened with the method used. As the test substance stained the skin as a dye, skin reactions (redness) could not be determined after the inductions. As a substitute, the skin fold thickness was measured to determine thickening as a result of inflammatory processes in the skin. The results of these studies showed no evidence of test-substance-induced inflammatory skin reactions. After the challenge treatment, a chemical depilation was performed to determine whether the skin discoloration could possibly be removed. This measure was successful so that a macroscopic evaluation of the skin could be carried out in addition to skin fold measurements. After the challenge treatment, the skin fold measurements and the macroscopic findings of the skin provided no evidence of a test substance-induced hypersensitivity (sensitization) of the skin. The slight skin redness observed in 4 animals of the test substance group occurred both on the test substance treated side and on the vehicle treated side. Another animal of this group reacted temporarily with a slight redness only on the vehicle treated side, and one animal of the control group reacted with a slight redness only at the test substance treated side. These findings can therefore not be attributed to hypersensitivity (sensitization). The examinations carried out thus did not provide any evidence of a skin-sensitizing potential of the test substance.
Based on the data presented, the test substance Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) seems to react as a skin sensitiser at concentration of ≥ 25% if the animals were pre-treated with an adjuvant. Without adjuvant, concentrations of up to 12.5% did not cause skin sensitising effects.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the data presented, the test substance Disperse Violet 93:1 (Br) seems to react as a skin sensitiser at concentration of ≥ 25% if the animals were pre-treated with an adjuvant. Without adjuvant, concentrations of up to 12.5% did not cause skin sensitising effects.
Although the outcome of the various skin sensitisation study does not give a clear picture, it was concluded to classify the test substance as skin sensitiser, as Disperse Blue 165:1, for which Disperse Violet 93:1 is the precursor in the synthesis process, was positive in the Local Lymph Node assay.
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.