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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 209-235-5 | CAS number: 562-74-3
- 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
LuSens (2018): activation of keratinocytes: positive
DPRA (2018): protein reactivity: positive
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- Mar 2018 - Apr 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to same study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Version / remarks:
- Feb 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/735 B.59 In Chemico Skin Sensitization: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA)
- Version / remarks:
- Feb 2017
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source: BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- Batch No.of test material: 01767-1010
- Identity: Confirmed
- Purity: 97.3%
- Physical state / color: liquid / colorless, clear
STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: ambient, under light exclusion
- Stability under test conditions: The stability under storage conditions was guaranteed
- Homogeneity: The test substance was homogeneous by visual inspection
TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing: Test substance preparations were prepared on a weight per volume basis. The test substance was prepared at a 100 mM concentration in acetonitrile
- Reason for vehicle: The test substance was soluble in acetonitrile. - Details on the study design:
- Skin sensitisation (In chemico test system) - Details on study design:
TEST SYSTEM:
Synthetic peptides:
Cysteine- (C-) containing peptide: Ac-RFAACAA-COOH (MW=751.9 g/mol)
Lysine- (K-) containing peptide: Ac-RFAAKAA-COOH (MW=776.2 g/mol)
CONTROLS:
- Negative control (NC): vehicle control = acetonitrile
- Positive control (PC): Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), prepared as a 50 mM solution in acetonitrile.
- Co-elution control (SK): Sample prepared of the respective peptide buffer and the test substance but without peptide.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE:
- Number of replicates: 3
- Analytical method: HPLC with gradient elution and UV-detection at 220 nm
DATA EVALUATION:
- Calculations: performed with EXCEL
- Peptide depletions peak areas at 220 nm were used. When samples were additionally analyzed by measuring UV absorbance at 258 nm, the area ratio 220 nm/ 258 nm may be calculated and serve as a measure of peak purity.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
- The standard calibration curve should have an r² > 0.99.
- The negative control (vehicle control) samples of sets A and C should be 0.50 mM +/- 0.05 mM.
- The CV of the nine vehicle controls B and C should be < 15%.
- Since the mean peptide depletion for each peptide is determined from the mean of three single samples, the variability between these samples should be acceptably low (SD < 14.9% for % cysteine depletion and < 11.6% for % lysine depletion).
- In addition the positive control should cause depletion of both peptides comparable to historic data. - Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 95.27
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 95.26
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: 3
- Parameter:
- other: peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 95.35
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: no
DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY:
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes - Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- Based on the observed results and applying the cysteine 1:10 prediction model it was concluded that the test substance shows moderate to high chemical reactivity in the DPRA under the test conditions chosen.
Based on the observed results and applying the evaluation criteria, the test substance is peptide reactive and activates keratinocytes. Thus, the test substance is predicted to be a skin sensitizer. - Executive summary:
The objective was to assess the skin sensitizing potential of the test substance. A combination of the following three in vitro methods, addressing key events of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization (OECD, 2012) as defined by the OECD, were part of this in vitro Skin Sensitization Turnkey Testing Strategy:
• protein reactivity (DPRA),
• activation of keratinocytes (LuSens), and
• activation of dendritic cells (h-CLAT).
However, in the current case for the test substance the results derived with DPRA and LuSens were sufficient for a final assessment. Therefore further testing in h-CLAT was waived.
DPRA: The reactivity of the test substance towards synthetic cysteine (C)- or lysine (K)-containing peptides was evaluated in the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA). For this purpose, the test substance was incubated with synthetic peptides for ca. 24 hours at ca. 25°C and the remaining non-depleted peptide concentrations were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with gradient elution and UV-detection at 220 nm. The test substance was dissolved at 100 mM in acetonitrile. Three samples of the test substance were incubated with each peptide in ratios of 1:10 (for C-containing peptide) or 1:50 (for K-containing peptide). Additionally, triplicates of the concurrent vehicle control (= VC) were incubated with the peptides.
Further, in order to detect possible interference of the test substance with the peptides, a coelution control was performed and the samples were analyzed by measuring UV absorbance at 258 nm in order to calculate the area ratio 220 nm / 258 nm. The following results were obtained in the DPRA:
The test substance was dissolved in acetonitrile at a concentration of 100 mM. The samples of the test substance with the peptides were solutions at the time of preparation. Visual observation after the 24-hour incubation time did not reveal precipitates in any samples of the test substance with the peptides.
Co-elution of test substance and both peptides was present. However, due to the high peptidedepletion value obtained for the C-peptide, an evaluation of the C-peptide reaction is possible. The mean C-peptide depletion, caused by the test substance was determined to be >95.29%. The mean K-peptide depletion, caused by the test substance was not evaluable due to coelution of the test substance with the peptide (interference). Due to the interference observed in the K-peptide samples calculation of mean peptide depletion is not applicable and the cysteine 1:10 prediction model is used for evaluation.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- Feb 2018 - Apr 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to same study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- Feb 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/735 of Feb 2017
- Version / remarks:
- Feb 2017
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source: BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- Batch No.of test material: 01767-1010
- Identity: Confirmed
- Purity: 97.3%
- Physical state / color: liquid / colorless, clear
STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: ambient, under light exclusion
- Stability under test conditions: The stability under storage conditions was guaranteed
- Homogeneity: The test substance was homogeneous by visual inspection
TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing: Test substance preparations were prepared on a weight per volume basis within 4 hours of application. The test substance was topped up with 4% DMSO in culture medium. Test substance preparations were prepared by stirring.
- Reason for vehicle: The test substance was soluble in 4% DMSO in culture medium 3. - Details on the study design:
- Skin sensitisation (In vitro test system) - Details on study design:
SELECTION OF CONCENTRATIONS IN A PRE-TEST:
- Concentrations: 0.5 - 2000 µM
- Cytotoxicity test: MTT
- CV75 value (= estimated concentration that affords 75% cell viability): determined by linear regression to be 451 µM
SELECTION OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR MAIN STUDY:
- Highest concentration: 1.2³-fold of CV75
- Additional concentrations: 1:1.2 serial dilution of the highest concentration
FURTHER CHOICE OF CONCENTRATIONS
As no cytotoxicity below 70% was observed in all test-substance concentrations of the 1st experiment and as no luciferase activity above 1.5-fold induction of statistical significance with respect to the vehicle control was observed in two consecutive concentrations, the selected concentrations were too low. Hence, higher concentrations were tested in further experiments.
TEST SYSTEM:
- Cell line: LuSens (Human transgenic keratinocyte cell line derived from HaCaT cells)
CONTROLS:
- Negative control (NC): DL-Lactic acid (LA, CAS no.: 50-21-5), 5000 μM (= 450 μg/mL) in 1% DMSO in culture medium 3
- Positive control (PC): Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 90.8 μM (= 18 μg/mL) in 1% DMSO in culture medium 3
- Vehicle control (VC): 1% DMSO in culture medium 3
- Blank control: culture medium 3 without cells
- Basal control: culture medium 3 with cells
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE:
- Exposur eperiod: 48 +/- 1 hour
- Luciferase assay: Luminescence was measured in the luminometer
- Cytotoxicity: MTT
DATA EVALUATION:
- Relative survival rate od the CV75-value: linear regression
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
- A tested concentration is not further evaluated when relative viability is less than 70%.
- The cell viability of VC cells must yield at least 85%.
- The mean of the positive control EGDMA should achieve ≥ 2.50 fold-induction and the mean of the LA < 1.50 and the mean of the viability must be ≥70%.
- The CV [%] of the luminescence in the vehicle control wells for each plate should be below 20%.
- The mean of the basal expression of the cells must be <1.50 fold-induction as compared to the solvent control.
- In addition, positive, negative and vehicle control data should lie within the range of the historic data. - Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 2
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.52
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 2
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.57
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 3
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.58
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 3
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.67
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 3
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.72
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experimet 5, plate 1
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.66
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 5, plate 1
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 1.75
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment 5, plate 1
- Parameter:
- other: fold induction
- Value:
- 2.25
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- vehicle control is negative control
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- In summary, after 48 hours of exposure to the test substance luciferase activity in LuSens cells was induced in at least two consecutive concentrations with statistical significance affording at least 70% viability in at least two independent experiments. From this,
it has to be concluded that the test substance has a keratinocyte activating potential. Based on the observed results and applying the evaluation criteria, the test substance is peptide reactive and activates keratinocytes. Thus, the test substance is predicted to be a skin sensitizer. - Executive summary:
The objective was to assess the skin sensitizing potential of the test substance. A combination of the following three in vitro methods, addressing key events of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization (OECD, 2012) as defined by the OECD, were part of this in vitro Skin Sensitization Turnkey Testing Strategy:
• protein reactivity (DPRA),
• activation of keratinocytes (LuSens), and
• activation of dendritic cells (h-CLAT).
LuSens: The keratinocyte activating potential of the test substance was evaluated in the LuSens assay. For this purpose, the test substance was incubated with a luciferase reporter cell line (LuSens cells) for ca.48 hours at 37°C and antioxidant response element (ARE) dependent luciferase activity was measured in a luminometer. In order to determine the concentrations suitable for the main experiment a pre-test (non-GLP)
was performed. Cells were exposed to several concentrations of the test substance and cytotoxicity was determined by MTT assay. The CV75 value (= estimated concentration that affords 75% cell viability) was determined by linear regression from the concentration-response curve to be 451 μM (corresponding to test substance as provided by the sponsor).
In the main test luciferase activity was measured after 48-hour exposure. In parallel a MTT assay was performed to assess cytotoxicity of the test substance. A total of 3 valid and evaluable experiments were performed. Two further experiments were valid but not useful for evaluation. They are included in the results section but not in the summary table. The following results were observed:
The test substance was soluble in 4% DMSO in culture medium 3 (4 x stock preparations) and in 1% DMSO in culture medium 3 (final concentrations). No precipitates were noticed in any concentration after 48 hours.
Relative luciferase fold induction and concurrent relative viability determined in the main experiments are summarized in table 1.
Concentration
(test substance) [µM]
fold induction
2ndexperiment
rel. viability [%
t-test
mean
mean
p-value
markers
376
1.21
86
0.003
**
451
1.41
79
0.000
**
542
1.52
83
0.022
*
650
1.37
77
0.013
*
780
1.57
72
0.000
**
936
1.51
65
0.000
**
1123
1.68
55
0.001
**
1348
2.23
44
0.001
**
VC
1.00
100
-
-
EGDMA 90.8 µM
6.51
81
0.000
**
LA 5000 µM
0.93
97
0.038
*
Concentration(test substance)
[µM]
fold induction
3rdexperiment
rel. viability [%
t-test
mean
mean
p-value
markers
376
1.43
83
0.014
*
451
1.29
76
0.003
**
542
1.58
81
0.041
*
650
1.67
78
0.002
**
780
1.72
72
0.006
**
936
2.21
68
0.012
*
1123
2.27
59
0.007
**
1348
2.68
51
0.000
**
VC
1.00
100
-
-
EGDMA 90.8 µM
4.81
86
0.000
**
LA 5000 µM
0.91
98
0.001
**
Concentration(test substance)
[µM]
fold induction
5thexperiment plate 1
rel. viability [%
t-test
Concentration
(test substance) [µM]
fold induction
5thexperiment plate 2
rel. viability [%
t-test
mean
mean
p-value
markers
mean
mean
p-value
markers
376
1.43
85
0.007
**
87
1.14
98
0.000
**
451
1.39
83
0.000
**
105
1.19
94
0.000
**
542
1.66
79
0.002
**
126
1.25
90
0.000
**
650
1.75
78
0.001
**
151
1.19
97
0.041
*
780
2.25
76
0.003
**
181
1.21
93
0.053
n.s.
936
2.57
69
0.006
**
218
1.25
86
0.024
*
1123
3.69
61
0.000
**
261
1.20
89
0.024
*
1348
4.81
45
0.008
**
313
1.17
87
0.004
**
VC
1.00
100
-
-
VC
1.00
100
-
-
EGDMA 90.8 µM
4.99
87
0.000
**
EGDMA 90.8 µM
4.76
91
0.000
**
LA 5000 µM
0.85
102
0.008
**
LA 5000 µM
0.93
102
0.098
n.s.
A total of 3 valid and evaluable experiments were performed. Two further experiments were valid but not useful for evaluation and thus not shown in the summary table. Concentrations with fold inductions above 1.50 with rel. viability ≥70% and with statistical significance are indicated in bold and in grey when < 70% viability.
The EC1.50 (the concentration resulting in a 1.50-fold luciferase induction) was calculated to be 516 μM (experiment 3) and 488 μM (experiment 5), respectively.
Referenceopen allclose all
Table 1: Peak areas, peptide concentration and peptide depeltion of NC, PC and the test substance for cysteine-peptide
Reaction with cysteine- peptide |
peptide depletion [%] |
|||
sample 1 |
sample 2 |
sample 3 |
mean SD |
|
NC: ACN |
-0.63 |
0.26 |
0.37 |
0.00 0.55 |
Terpinen-4-ol |
> 95.27 |
> 95.26 |
> 95.35 |
> 95.29 0.05 |
PC: EGDMA in ACN |
63.56 |
64.83 |
67.39 |
65.26 1.95 |
Mean peptide depletion is not applicable for the test substance due to co-elution.
The mean area ratio 220 nm/ 258 nm of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 30.4. Hence, the area ratio 220 nm/ 258 nm of the test-substance samples correspond to 5.6% to 5.9% of the mean of the vehicle controls, demonstrating interference.
Calculation of depletion values was not senseful due to the co-elution of the test substance with the lysine peptide and as the peak area values at 220 nm are in the margin of the NC.
Co-elution of the test substance and both peptides occurred as demonstrated by the values of the area ratios 220 nm/258 nm. Evaluation of the cysteine-peptide reaction was possible despite the co-elution as very small peak areas were detected at the retention time of the cysteine. For the lysine-peptide reaction evaluation was not possible, as the peak areas detected at 220 nm are in the margin of the NC and it is not possible to separate a possible peptide peak from a test-substance peak.
Table 1: Mean values and standard deviations of luciferase induction and rel. viability as well as p-values of t-test (experiment 1)
Concentration (test substance) [µM] |
foldindu |
ction |
1stexperiment rel. viability [%] |
|
t-test |
||
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
p-value |
markers |
||
218 |
0.89 |
0.01 |
101 |
3 |
0.000 |
** |
|
261 |
1.16 |
0.03 |
92 |
2 |
0.000 |
** |
|
313 |
1.21 |
0.08 |
88 |
6 |
0.017 |
* |
|
376 |
1.09 |
0.07 |
78 |
2 |
0.069 |
n.s. |
|
451 |
1.13 |
0.09 |
80 |
3 |
0.051 |
n.s. |
|
542 |
1.43 |
0.06 |
80 |
2 |
0.001 |
** |
|
650 |
1.33 |
0.08 |
70 |
3 |
0.004 |
** |
|
780 |
1.46 |
0.10 |
71 |
0 |
0.004 |
** |
|
VC |
1.00 |
0.09 |
100 |
4 |
- |
- |
|
EGDMA 90.8 µM |
4.71 |
0.67 |
95 |
3 |
0.000 |
** |
|
LA 5000 µM |
0.99 |
0.07 |
105 |
4 |
0.416 |
n.s. |
Table 2: Mean values and standard deviations of luciferase induction and rel. viability as well as p-values of t-test (experiment 2)
Concentration(testsubstance) [µM] |
foldindu |
ction |
2ndexperiment rel. viability [%] |
|
t-test |
||
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
p-value |
markers |
||
376 |
1.21 |
0.06 |
86 |
1 |
0.003 |
** |
|
451 |
1.41 |
0.06 |
79 |
3 |
0.000 |
** |
|
542 |
1.52 |
0.20 |
83 |
4 |
0.022 |
* |
|
650 |
1.37 |
0.12 |
77 |
5 |
0.013 |
* |
|
780 |
1.57 |
0.06 |
72 |
2 |
0.000 |
** |
|
936 |
1.51 |
0.06 |
65 |
1 |
0.000 |
** |
|
1123 |
1.68 |
0.10 |
55 |
1 |
0.001 |
** |
|
1348 |
2.23 |
0.11 |
44 |
1 |
0.001 |
** |
|
VC |
1.00 |
0.09 |
100 |
5 |
- |
- |
|
EGDMA 90.8 µM |
6.51 |
0.77 |
81 |
3 |
0.000 |
** |
|
LA 5000 µM |
0.93 |
0.06 |
97 |
3 |
0.038 |
* |
Table 3: Mean values and standard deviations of luciferase induction and rel. viability as well as p-values of t-test (experiment 3)
Concentration (test substance) [µM] |
fold indu |
ction |
3rdexperiment rel. viability [%] |
|
t-test |
||
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
p-value |
markers |
||
376 |
1.43 |
0.14 |
83 |
4 |
0.014 |
* |
|
451 |
1.29 |
0.07 |
76 |
2 |
0.003 |
** |
|
542 |
1.58 |
0.31 |
81 |
3 |
0.041 |
* |
|
650 |
1.67 |
0.10 |
78 |
4 |
0.002 |
** |
|
780 |
1.72 |
0.15 |
72 |
2 |
0.006 |
** |
|
936 |
2.21 |
0.34 |
68 |
2 |
0.012 |
* |
|
1123 |
2.27 |
0.28 |
59 |
2 |
0.007 |
** |
|
1348 |
2.68 |
0.11 |
51 |
1 |
0.000 |
** |
|
VC |
1.00 |
0.08 |
100 |
4 |
- |
- |
|
EGDMA 90.8 µM |
4.81 |
0.33 |
86 |
5 |
0.000 |
** |
|
LA 5000 µM |
0.91 |
0.03 |
98 |
4 |
0.001 |
** |
The EC1.50 was calculated by linear regression from the results of the 451 μM and the 542 μM concentrations to be 516 μM.
The 4th experiment, conducted with concentrations of 376 μM up to 1348 μM was not evaluable, as only one test-substanc concentration had a relative viability above 70%
Table 4: Mean values and standard deviations of luciferase induction and rel. viability as well as p-values of t-test (experiment 5, plate 1)
Concentration(testsubstance) [µM] |
foldindu |
ction |
5thexperiment plate 1 rel. viability [%] |
|
t-test |
||
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
p-value |
markers |
||
376 |
1.43 |
0.11 |
85 |
4 |
0.007 |
** |
|
451 |
1.39 |
0.04 |
83 |
4 |
0.000 |
** |
|
542 |
1.66 |
0.10 |
79 |
3 |
0.002 |
** |
|
650 |
1.75 |
0.08 |
78 |
2 |
0.001 |
** |
|
780 |
2.25 |
0.18 |
76 |
3 |
0.003 |
** |
|
936 |
2.57 |
0.31 |
69 |
1 |
0.006 |
** |
|
1123 |
3.69 |
0.03 |
61 |
2 |
0.000 |
** |
|
1348 |
4.81 |
0.84 |
45 |
3 |
0.008 |
** |
|
VC |
1.00 |
0.08 |
100 |
5 |
- |
- |
|
EGDMA 90.8 µM |
4.99 |
0.38 |
87 |
5 |
0.000 |
** |
|
LA 5000 µM |
0.85 |
0.09 |
102 |
2 |
0.008 |
** |
Table 5: Mean values and standard deviations of luciferase induction and rel. viability as well as p-values of t-test (experiment 5, plate 2)
Concentration(testsubstance) [µM] |
foldindu |
ction |
5thexperiment plate 2 rel. viability [%] |
|
t-test |
||
mean |
SD |
mean |
SD |
p-value |
markers |
||
87 |
1.14 |
0.02 |
98 |
5 |
0.000 |
** |
|
105 |
1.19 |
0.02 |
94 |
1 |
0.000 |
** |
|
126 |
1.25 |
0.05 |
90 |
3 |
0.000 |
** |
|
151 |
1.19 |
0.11 |
97 |
5 |
0.041 |
* |
|
181 |
1.21 |
0.14 |
93 |
4 |
0.053 |
n.s. |
|
218 |
1.25 |
0.12 |
86 |
3 |
0.024 |
* |
|
261 |
1.20 |
0.10 |
89 |
4 |
0.024 |
* |
|
313 |
1.17 |
0.06 |
87 |
1 |
0.004 |
** |
|
VC |
1.00 |
0.11 |
100 |
4 |
- |
- |
|
EGDMA 90.8 µM |
4.76 |
0.58 |
91 |
4 |
0.000 |
** |
|
LA 5000 µM |
0.93 |
0.09 |
102 |
6 |
0.098 |
n.s. |
The EC1.50 was calculated by linear regression from the results of the 451 μM and the 542 μM concentrations to be 488 μM.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
The skin sensitizing potential of the test substance was assessed using a combination of the following three in vitro methods, addressing the key events of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization as defined by the OECD (OECD, 2012):
- protein reactivity (DPRA)
- activation of keratinocytes (LuSens) and
- activation of dentritic cells (h-CLAT)
In the current case for the test substance the results derived with DPRA and LuSens were sufficient for a final assessment. Therefore further testing in h-CLAT was waived.
Protein reactivity of the test substance was determined in a Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) according to OECD TG 442C, complying to GLP principles (2018). The mean C-peptide depletion, caused by the test substance was determined to be >95.29%. The mean K-peptide depletion, caused by the test substance was not evaluable due to coelution of the test substance with the peptide (interference). Due to the interference observed in the K-peptide samples calculation of mean peptide depletion is not applicable and the cysteine 1:10 prediction model is used for evaluation.
Based on the observed results and applying the evaluation criteria, the test substance is peptide reactive and activates keratinocytes. Thus, the test substance is predicted to be a skin sensitizer
In a second study, the activation of keratinocytes due to treatment with the test substance was investigated in an ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test (LuSens) according to OECD TG 442D, in compliance with GLP (2018). A total of 3 valid and evaluable experiments were performed. Two further experiments were valid but not useful for evaluation and thus not shown in the summary table. Concentrations with fold inductions above 1.50 with rel. viability ≥70% and with statistical significance are indicated in bold and in grey when < 70% viability.
The EC1.50 (the concentration resulting in a 1.50-fold luciferase induction) was calculated to be 516 μM (experiment 3) and 488 μM (experiment 5), respectively.
In summary, after 48 hours of exposure to the test substance luciferase activity in LuSens cells was induced in at least two consecutive concentrations with statistical significance affording at least 70% viability in at least two independent experiments. From this, it has to be concluded that the test substance has a keratinocyte activating potential. Based on the observed results and applying the evaluation criteria, the test substance is peptide reactive and activates keratinocytes. Thus, the test substance is predicted to be a skin sensitizer.
Justification for classification or non-classification
The available data on skin sensitisation of the test substance warrant a classification as skin sensitizer (Skin Sens Cat. 1) according to Regulation (EC) 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.