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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 208-865-8 | CAS number: 544-19-4
- 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
Copper diformate has been evaluated in the Keratinosens and h-CLAT in vitro assays for skin sensitisation, both of which returned a positive result. Due to the presence of a metal ion (Cu2+) in the test substance, it was not possible to run the in vitro DRPA assay. While the available in vitro data indicate skin sensitisation potential (CLP Category 1), it is not possible to assign the substance to a sub-Category (i.e. 1A or 1B) on the basis of the available data. Thus, an estimate of the skin sensitisation potential of the substance copper diformate was made using three in silico toxicology models. Where it was possible to obtain a prediction in all three models, there was consensus that copper diformate is predicted to be a non-sensitiser. Following expert review of the model outputs, it is concluded that copper diformate is concluded not to be a skin sensitiser. Consequently, the classification of copper diformate for skin sensitisation in in Category 1A can be excluded.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2020-05-04 to 2020-05-19
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: OECD TG 442E
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Details on the study design:
- Dose Finding Assay
A dose finding assay was performed to determine the CV75, being the test item concentration that results in 75% cell viability (CV) compared to the solvent/vehicle control.
The test article was dissolved at 100 mg/mL in saline then eight stock solutions were prepared by 2-fold serial dilutions using the corresponding solvent. The stock solutions were then further diluted 50-fold in culture medium (working solutions).
The working solutions were used for exposure by adding an equal volume of working solution to the volume of THP-1 cell suspension in the plate to obtain a final range of concentrations in the plate of 7.8-1000 µg/mL.
The test article was prepared shortly before testing. Preparation was conducted under subdued lighting with the aid of vortex mixing, ultrasonication (for approximately 4 minutes) and warming at 37°C.
CD86/CD54 Expression Measurement
Eight stock solutions of each test article were prepared by 1.2-fold serial dilutions using the corresponding solvent, and then further diluted 50-fold into the culture medium to give eight working solutions ranging from 0.335 x CV75 to 1.2 x CV75.
The working solutions were used for exposure by adding an equal volume of working solution to the volume of THP-1 cell suspension in the plate to obtain a final range of concentrations in the plate of 11.34-40.62 µg/mL.
The test article was prepared shortly before testing. Preparation was conducted under subdued lighting with the aid of vortex mixing, ultrasonication (for approximately 75 minutes) and warming at 37°C.
METHODS
Specifications
Human monocytic leukemia cell line, THP-1 (ATCC® TIB-202™, an immortalised human monocytic leukemia cell line, used as a surrogate for dendritic cells), was supplied by American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), Manassas, VA 20110 USA.
Identification
The test system was suitably labelled to clearly identify the study number, test article, test article concentration, positive and solvent/vehicle controls.
Cell Culture Maintenance
THP-1 cells were cultured in a humidified incubator set to 37ºC, 5% CO2, in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% heat inactivated (HI) foetal bovine serum (FBS), 0.05 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 100 units/mL penicillin and 100 µg/mL streptomycin. The cells were passaged every 2-3 days at a density of 0.1 to 0.2 x 10^6 cells/mL and maintained at a density from 0.1 x 10^6 to 0.8 x 10^6 cells/mL. Cell density did not exceed 1 x 10^6 cells/mL.
Reactivity Check
This was performed using DNCB (CAS no. 97-00-7, =99% purity), nickel sulphate (CAS no. 10101-97-0, =99% purity) and lactic acid (CAS no. 50-21-5, =85% purity) two weeks after thawing. DNCB and nickel sulphate should produce a positive response of both CD86 and CD54 and lactic acid should produce a negative response of both CD86 and CD54. Only cells which passed the reactivity check were used for the assay.
Plate Preparation
THP-1 cells were pre-cultured in culture flasks either at a density of 0.2 x 10^6 cells/mL for 48 hours or at a density of 0.1 x 10^6 cells/mL for 72 hours. On the days of testing, cells were harvested from the flasks and were resuspended with
fresh culture medium at 2 x 10^6 cells/mL. The cells were then distributed into a 24-well flat-bottom plate (500 µL/well) (expression assay) or a 96-well flat-bottomed plate (80 µL/1.6 x 10^5 cells per well) (DRF assay(s)).
Study Design
Dose Finding Assay
The test article working solutions or solvent controls were mixed 1:1 (v/v) with the cell suspensions in the 96-well plates. The plates were sealed and then incubated for 24 hours (incubator set to 37ºC, 5% CO2).
After the 24-hour incubation period, all cells from the 96-well flat-bottomed plate were transferred into a 96-well round-bottomed plate. The cells were washed at least twice in 200 µL of phosphate buffered saline containing 0.1% bovine serum albumin
(FACS buffer) and re-suspended in 190 µL of FACS buffer. 10 µL of propidium iodide solution (PI) was added just before FACS analysis (final concentration of PI = 0.625 µg/mL). PI uptake was analysed using flow cytometry with the acquisition channel FL-3. A total of 10,000 viable cells were acquired.
Cell viability was calculated according to OECD 442E.
The CV75 value, i.e. a concentration showing 75% of THP-1 cell survival (25% cytotoxicity), was calculated by log-linear interpolation accordint to OECD 442E.
CD54 Expression Measurement
One experiment (consisting of two independent runs) was needed to drive a prediction. Each independent run was performed on the same day provided that for each run:
a) Independent fresh stock solutions and working solutions of the test article and antibody solutions were prepared and
b) Independently harvested cells were used (i.e. cells were collected from different culture flasks). The cells may have come from the same passage.
On the days of testing, cells harvested from the flasks were resuspended with fresh culture medium at 2 x 10^6 cells/mL. The cells were then distributed into a 24-well plate (500 µL/1 x 10^6 cells per well).
The test article working solution or solvent control was mixed 1:1 (v/v) with the cell suspensions in the 24-well plates. The plates were sealed and then incubated for 24 hours (incubator set to 37ºC, 5% CO2).
After the 24-hour incubation period, the cells were transferred into sample tubes, collected by centrifugation (approximately 250 g, 5 minutes) and washed twice with 1 mL of FACS buffer. After washing, the cells were blocked with 600 µL of blocking solution (FACS buffer containing 0.01% (w/v) globulin) on ice for 15 minutes.
After blocking, the cells were split into three aliquots of 180 µL into a 96-well plate and centrifuged (approximately 250 g, 3 minutes).
After centrifugation, the cells were stained with 50 µL of FITC-labelled anti-CD86, anti-CD54 or mouse IgG1 antibodies on ice for 30 minutes.
The stained cells were washed three times with an excess of FACS buffer, resuspended in FACS buffer and 12.5 µg/mL PI solution was added (to give a final PI concentration of 0.625 µg/mL).
The expression levels of CD86 and CD54 and cell viability were analysed using flow cytometry.
Data Evaluation - Analysis of Results
Based on the geometric mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), the relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) of CD86 and CD54 for the positive control cells and test article-treated cells were calculated according to OECD 442E.
The cell viability from the isotype control cells (stained with mouse IgG1 antibodies) was calculated according to OECD 442E
Prediction model, calculation of effective concentration (EC) values and assay acceptance criteria according to OECD 442E. - Positive control results:
- RFI value for DNCB
CD86: EXP 1 = 404
CD86: EXP 2 = 270
CD54: EXP 1 = 563
CD54: EXP 2 = 795 - Key result
- Parameter:
- other: RFI for CD54
- Value:
- 214
- Key result
- Parameter:
- other: RFI for CD84
- Value:
- 51
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- - All acceptance criteria of the h-CLAT assay parameters were met in each experiment.
- The cell viabilities of medium and solvent/vehicle control were higher than 90% in each independent run.
- In the solvent control, RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 did not exceed the positive criteria (CD86 RFI =150% and CD54 RFI =200%).
- For both medium and solvent/vehicle controls, the MFI ratio of both CD86 and CD54 to isotype control was >105% on all occasions.
- For the positive control, RFI values were =150% for CD86 and =200% for CD54, and cell viability was >50% in each independent run.
- For the test article, the cell viability was more than 50% in all tested concentrations in each independent run - Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- The test article, Copper Diformate, was considered to be positive in the human Cell Line Activation Test.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2020-04-14 to 2020-04-30
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- Cell-ine: HaCaT human keratinocytes (immortalised adherent, stably transfected with a selectable plasmid)
Cell Culture: The cells used in this assay were the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™ with a stable insertion of the luciferase construct supplied by Givaudan (Dubendorf, Switzerland). The cells were routinely grown and subcultured in maintenance medium at 37 °C ± 2 °C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5 % CO2 in air. Maintenance medium was 500 mL Dulbecco’s Modified Eagles Medium containing GlutaMAX (DMEM) (Gibco, Cat No. 21885), supplemented with 50 mL foetal bovine serum (FBS) (Gibco, Cat No. 10500) and 5.5 mL Geneticin (Gibco, Cat No. 10131).
Positive control: Cinnamic aldehyde (Sigma, Cat No. 239968) was prepared by weighing between 20 – 40 mg into a tared glass container and diluted to a final concentration of 200 mM in DMSO
Test Item Solubility: The test item, Copper Diformate, was not found to be soluble in DMSO at 50 mM – 200 mM. Due to the limited solubility of the test item in DMSO, the solubility of Copper Diformate was tested in sterile water. The test item, Copper Diformate, was found to be soluble in sterile water at 200 mM, the highest concentration as recommended by the guideline this test follows.
Preparation of test item: A stock solution of the test item, Copper Diformate, was prepared by weighing the test item into a tared glass container and diluting to 200 mM in sterile water. The solution was sterilised by filtration using a 0.22 µM filter.
For test procedure please see below. - Positive control results:
- The results for the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde, are shown in Table 2, Table 4.
The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde, was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the tested concentrations (4 to 64 µM) in both tests.
The EC1.5 values of the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde, were 6.02 µM.
The average induction in the three replicates for cinnamic aldehyde at 64 µM were 4.62. - Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: Imax
- Value:
- 20.89
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: Imax
- Value:
- 23.93
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 [µM]
- Value:
- 3.71
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 [µM]
- Value:
- 3.31
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: IC30 [µM]
- Value:
- 201.72
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: IC30 [µM]
- Value:
- 219.54
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: IC50 [µM]
- Value:
- 238.32
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: IC50 [µM]
- Value:
- 263.03
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- It was concluded that the test item, Copper Diformate, gave a positive response in the ARENrf2 Luciferase Test (KeratinoSens™), supporting the prediction that the test item was likely to be a skin sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation, other
- Remarks:
- in silico
- Type of information:
- (Q)SAR
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- accepted calculation method
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- An estimate of the skin sensitisation potential of the substance copper diformate was made using three in silico toxicology models.
- Positive control results:
- not applicable
- Parameter:
- other: not applicable
- Remarks on result:
- other: not applicable
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- An estimate of the skin sensitisation potential of the substance copper diformate was made using three in silico toxicology models. Where it was possible to obtain a prediction in all three models, there was consensus that copper diformate is predicted to be a non-sensitiser.
Following expert review of the model outputs, it is concluded that copper diformate is concluded not to be a skin sensitiser. Consequently, the classification of copper diformate for skin sensitisation in in Category 1A can be excluded.
Referenceopen allclose all
The relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) values for the test article were calculated as follows:
Concentration (µg/mL) |
RFI (CD86) |
RFI (CD54) |
||
Exp 1 |
Exp 2 |
Exp 1 |
Exp 2 |
|
11.34 |
112 |
86 |
217 |
419 |
13.60 |
86 |
67 |
214 |
542 |
16.32 |
126 |
53 |
245 |
508 |
19.59 |
121 |
51 |
314 |
688 |
23.51 |
123 |
59 |
336 |
648 |
28.21 |
118 |
63 |
578 |
794 |
33.85 |
154 |
72 |
586 |
1105 |
40.62 |
131 |
77 |
693 |
1311 |
Solvent/vehicle control (culture medium) |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Positive control (DNCB) |
404 |
270 |
563 |
795 |
In both experiments, the RFI values for CD54 were >200% at all concentrations tested. The test article therefore gave a positive prediction with CD54.
The RFI values for CD84 were all <150%, except at one concentration in the first experiment, however, as the test article was predicted to be positive due to the results with CD54, it was not necessary to conduct a third experiment.
The EC200 value for CD54 calculated by linear regression of endpoint assay data was 9.01 µg/mL.
Expression Assay: MFI and Cell Viability Values
Experiment 1
|
MFI (Geo Mean) |
Corrected MFI |
Viability |
|||||
Concerntration (µg/ml) |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype |
CD86 |
CD54 |
IgG |
CD86 |
CD54 |
11.34 |
874 |
651 |
423 |
451 |
228 |
94.9 |
93.4 |
94.3 |
13.60 |
777 |
655 |
430 |
347 |
225 |
93.1 |
93.2 |
93.8 |
16.32 |
943 |
690 |
433 |
510 |
257 |
91.6 |
89.1 |
89.5 |
19.59 |
932 |
774 |
444 |
488 |
330 |
85.7 |
82.4 |
85.6 |
23.51 |
956 |
813 |
460 |
496 |
353 |
82.9 |
82.4 |
82.2 |
28.21 |
982 |
1114 |
507 |
475 |
607 |
78.6 |
73.9 |
73.6 |
33.85 |
1153 |
1146 |
531 |
622 |
615 |
73.2 |
68.6 |
68.7 |
40.62 |
1056 |
1253 |
525 |
531 |
728 |
71.1 |
64.6 |
68.6 |
Culture medium |
821 |
522 |
417 |
404 |
105 |
98.2 |
97.7 |
96.8 |
DMSO 0.2% |
830 |
507 |
393 |
437 |
114 |
98.2 |
98.5 |
98.0 |
DNCB 4µg/ml |
2240 |
1118 |
476 |
1764 |
642 |
94.0 |
92.3 |
93.0 |
Experiment 2
|
MFI (Geo Mean) |
Corrected MFI |
Viability |
|||||
Concerntration (µg/ml) |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype |
CD86 |
CD54 |
IgG |
CD86 |
CD54 |
11.34 |
1220 |
852 |
462 |
758 |
390 |
87.8 |
85.6 |
87.0 |
13.60 |
1044 |
959 |
455 |
589 |
504 |
85.3 |
83.5 |
84.2 |
16.32 |
913 |
922 |
450 |
463 |
472 |
83.4 |
80.5 |
83.5 |
19.59 |
909 |
1097 |
457 |
452 |
640 |
79.7 |
77.2 |
76.9 |
23.51 |
1005 |
1085 |
482 |
523 |
603 |
76.5 |
72.4 |
71.2 |
28.21 |
1054 |
1239 |
501 |
553 |
738 |
71.9 |
65.6 |
65.6 |
33.85 |
1129 |
1525 |
497 |
632 |
1028 |
67.3 |
64.1 |
64.2 |
40.62 |
1200 |
1740 |
521 |
679 |
1219 |
75.0 |
64.6 |
60.9 |
Culture medium |
1311 |
524 |
431 |
880 |
93 |
97.7 |
96.7 |
97.5 |
DMSO 0.2% |
1205 |
530 |
412 |
793 |
118 |
98.0 |
98.1 |
98.0 |
DNCB 4µg/ml |
2602 |
1395 |
457 |
2145 |
938 |
92.4 |
91.8 |
91.9 |
The results for the test item, Copper Diformate, are shown in Table 1 and Table 3. The Imax for Copper Diformate was 20.89 in Test 1 and 23.93 in Test 2. The Imax for both tests was > 1.5-fold and statistically significant compared to the DMSO control. The EC1.5 was 3.71 µM and 3.31 µM for tests 1 and 2, respectively. The IC30 value was 201.72 µM in Test 1 and 219.54 µM in Test 2 and the IC50 values were 238.32 µM and 263.03 µM in Tests 1 and 2, respectively.
An overall dose-response for luciferase induction was determined.
The EC1.5 values of the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde, were 6.02 µM and 15.20 µM for Test 1 and 2, respectively, which lay within the historical control range for this laboratory (Table 5). The average induction in the three replicates for cinnamic aldehyde at 64 µM were 4.62 and 2.68 for Test 1 and 2, respectively, which met the acceptance criterion of between 2 and 8.
The average coefficient of variation of the luminescence reading for the negative solvent control (DMSO) was 19.4 % and 12.3 % for Test 1 and 2, respectively, which met the acceptance criterion of below 20%.
Table 1: Results for the test item - Test 1
Test item conc (µM)
|
0.98 |
1.95 |
3.91 |
7.81 |
15.63 |
31.25 |
62.5 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
2000
|
Mean fold induction |
0.89 |
1.24 |
1.53 |
1.83 |
2.30 |
2.94 |
5.13 |
20.18 |
20.89 |
5.76 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
Statistically significant |
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
N/A |
N/A |
Viability (%) |
123.05 |
126.01 |
128.08 |
134.90 |
136.60 |
155.54 |
169.27 |
111.92 |
43.62 |
6.19 |
4.67 |
4.04 |
Imax |
20.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EC1.5 (µM) |
3.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IC30 (µM) |
201.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IC50 (µM) |
238.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Determination criteria for the skin sensitisation potential of the test item |
Result |
Is the Imax > 1.5-fold and statistically significant |
Yes |
Is the cellular viability > 70 % at the EC1.5 determining concentration |
Yes |
Is the EC1.5 value < 1000 µM |
Yes |
Is there an apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction |
Yes |
KeratinoSens™ prediction |
Positive |
Table 2: Results for Cinamic Aldehyde and DMSO Control - Test 1
Positive control conc. |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
64 |
Mean fold induction |
1.34 |
1.65 |
1.82 |
2.77 |
4.62 |
Statistically Significant |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Viability (%) |
112.37 |
113.90 |
115.69 |
118.47 |
113.27 |
Imax |
4.62 |
|
|
|
|
EC1.5 (µM) |
6.02 |
|
|
|
|
IC30 (µM) N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
IC50 (µM) |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
DMSO Control |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Mean fold induction |
0.75 |
0.89 |
0.94 |
0.99 |
1.25 |
1.19 |
Viability (%) |
103.31 |
105.46 |
97.47 |
94.24 |
98.01 |
101.51 |
Test Acceptance Criteria |
Result |
|
Luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the test concentrations |
Yes |
Pass |
Average induction of positive control at 64 µM between 2 – 8 |
Yes (4.62) |
Pass |
EC1.5 of positive control within two standard deviations of the historical mean (-2.36 to 28.67) |
Yes (6.02 µM) |
Pass |
CV% of blank values < 20% |
Yes (19.4 %) |
Pass |
Table 3: Results for the test item - Test 2
Test item conc (µM)
|
0.98 |
1.95 |
3.91 |
7.81 |
15.63 |
31.25 |
62.5 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
2000
|
Mean fold induction |
0.86 |
1.29 |
1.59 |
1.78 |
2.05 |
2.50 |
3.97 |
16.36 |
23.93 |
6.69 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
Statistically significant |
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
N/A |
N/A |
Viability (%) |
103.58 |
115.70 |
127.11 |
122.19 |
135.09 |
145.09 |
146.35 |
124.46 |
52.46 |
5.32 |
3.91 |
3.28 |
Imax |
23.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EC1.5 (µM) |
3.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IC30 (µM) |
219.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IC50 (µM) |
263.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Determination criteria for the skin sensitisation potential of the test item |
Result |
Is the Imax > 1.5-fold and statistically significant |
Yes |
Is the cellular viability > 70 % at the EC1.5 determining concentration |
Yes |
Is the EC1.5 value < 1000 µM |
Yes |
Is there an apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction |
Yes |
KeratinoSens™ prediction |
Positive |
Table 4:Results for Cinamic Aldehyde and DMSO Control - Test 2
Positive control conc. |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
64 |
Mean fold induction |
1.14 |
1.32 |
1.52 |
2.00 |
2.68 |
Statistically Significant |
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Viability (%) |
102.25 |
107.34 |
102.25 |
105.69 |
107.34 |
Imax |
2.68 |
|
|
|
|
EC1.5 (µM) |
15.20 |
|
|
|
|
IC30 (µM) N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
IC50 (µM) |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
DMSO Control |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Mean fold induction |
0.87 |
0.92 |
0.99 |
1.12 |
1.03 |
1.07 |
Viability (%) |
91.54 |
104.05 |
98.50 |
100.14 |
105.22 |
100.53 |
Test Acceptance Criteria |
Result |
|
Luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the test concentrations |
Yes |
Pass |
Average induction of positive control at 64 µM between 2 – 8 |
Yes (2.68) |
Pass |
EC1.5 of positive control within two standard deviations of the historical mean (-2.36 to 28.67) |
Yes (15.20) |
Pass |
CV% of blank values < 20% |
Yes (12.3 %) |
Pass |
Table 5: Historical Control Data for Cinnamic Aldehyde
|
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
Laboratory Historical Data Range (Mean +/-2xSD)
|
EC1.5 (µM) |
13.16 |
7.76 |
-2.36 to 28.67 |
Data from 106 testing occasions performed from 21 July 2017 until 13 February 2020
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on all available data and according to a weight of evidence approach the substance is classified for skin sensitisation Category 1B.
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.