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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
1985
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Analogue substance tested.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1985

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test

Test material

Constituent 1
Reference substance name:
Analogue substance (refer to IUCLID chapter 13)
IUPAC Name:
Analogue substance (refer to IUCLID chapter 13)

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
male/female

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal injections (0.1 ml/site) were made into the clipped flank of two guinea-pigs at a concentration of 5 % of the test article in physiological saline. The resulting dermal reactions were assessed 24 hours later.
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal injections (0.1 ml/site) were made into the clipped flank of two guinea-pigs at a concentration of 5 % of the test article in physiological saline. The resulting dermal reactions were assessed 24 hours later.
No. of animals per dose:
The animals were distributed as follows:
5 males, 5 females for the vehicle control group and 10 males, 10 females for the test article group.

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
According to the procedures used in the experiment, no differences between the test group and the vehicle-treated controls were evident after epidermal challenge application of the substance.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
5 % in the vehicle
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no toxic symptoms
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5 % in the vehicle. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no toxic symptoms.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
5 % in the vehicle
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no toxic symptoms
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5 % in the vehicle. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no toxic symptoms.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information
Conclusions:
The skin sensitization study was conducted with the analogue substance. This substance is considered to possess no skin sensitizing (contact allergenic) potential in this test system. Due to the structural similarity of the analogue substance and the substance subject of registration, the substance subject of registration is expected to show a comparable behaviour.