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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 939-350-2 | CAS number: 85409-22-9
- 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 results of the read across studies, the test substance is not considered to sensitising to skin.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Remarks:
- Buehler test
- Type of information:
- read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- From May 02, 2005 to October 04, 2005
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Remarks:
- KL2 due to RA
- Justification for type of information:
- Refer to the Quaternary ammonium salts (QAS) category or section 13 of IUCLID for details on the category justification.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Literature data demonstrates that an LLNA method is unreliable for surfactant substance, and may provide false positive results.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Test animals
- Source: Elm Hill Breeding Labs, Chelmsford, MA, USA
- Age at study initiation: Young adult animals
- Weight at study initiation: 327-399 g
- Housing: The animals were group housed in suspended stainless steel caging with mesh floors or plastic perforated bottom caging which conform to the size recommendations according to ‘Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals DHEW (NIH). Litter paper was placed beneath the cage and was changed at least three times/wk.
- Diet: Pelleted Purina guinea pig chow # 5025, ad libitum
- Water: Filtered tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 3-17d
Environmental conditions
- Temperature: 19-22°C
- Humidity: 31-58%
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12-h light/dark cycle
In-life dates: From: May 2, 2005 to: June 10, 2005 - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 1% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water (0.4 mL)
Challenge: 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water (0.4 mL) - Day(s)/duration:
- 6h exposure, observations 24 and 48h after exposure
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 1% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water (0.4 mL)
Challenge: 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water (0.4 mL) - Day(s)/duration:
- 6h exposure, observations 24 and 48h after exposure
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20 animals in the test substance group and 10 animals in the control group
- Details on study design:
- Range finding tests:
A preliminary irritation study was performed to determine the highest non-irritating concentration. 8 guinea pigs (5 males and 3 females) were exposed for 6 h period to various concentrations of the test substance as follows: 100, 75, 50, 25, 1.25, 1.0, 0.75, 0.25 and 0.10%.w/w in distilled water. The fur was removed by clipping the dorsal area and flanks of each guinea pig. The area was divided into two or four test sites on each animal. Two to four concentrations of the test substance were applied to the sites. 0.4 mL of each concentration was applied to a test site using a 25 mm Hill Top Chamber. The test sites were wrapped with non-allergenic adhesive tape. All animals were evaluated at approximately 24 hours, 2 days and one animal on Day 5. Each site was evaluated for erythema.
Main study
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Exposure period: 6h
- Test groups: One test group, including 20 guinea pigs
- Control group: No control animals were employed in induction phase
- Site: Left side of each animal
- Frequency of applications: Once a week for three consecutive weeks
- Duration: 6 h/application
- Concentrations: 1 % w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water (0.4 mL)
- Procedure for application: Once a week for three weeks, 0.4 mL of a 1% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water was applied to the left side of each animal. Due to residual irritation from the previous doses, the dose site was moved each induction. Approximately 24 and 48h after each induction exposure, the skin was evaluated for local reactions (erythema).
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: One
- Day(s) of challenge: Twenty-seven days after the first induction dose
- Exposure period: 6h
- Test groups: One test group (20 animals) exposed with 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- Control group: One naive control group (10 animals) exposed with 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- Site: The test substance was applied to a naïve site on the right side of each test animal.
- Concentrations: 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): These sites were evaluated for a sensitisation response approximately 24 and 48h after the challenge exposure.
Other: Historical Positive Control Validation Study: The procedures used in this study were validated using alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde Technical (HCA) grade as a positive control substance. A positive control validation study is run at no less than six months intervals at the testing laboratory. The results from the most recent positive control validation study performed on March 2005 are provided in the study report. - Challenge controls:
- 10 naive animals exposed with 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- alpha-hexylcinnamaldehyde
- Positive control results:
- Induction: Very faint to faint erythema (0.5-1.0) was noted for all of the positive control sites during the induction phase.
Challenge: Four of nine positive control animals exhibited signs of skin sensitisation response 24 and 48h after exposure. Very faint erythema was observed for four other sites after challenge. Very faint erythema was observed in three of five positive control naive test sites after 24h. Irritation persisted at one of these sites through 48h. - Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- No animals with positive response
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- No animals with positive response
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- No animals with positive response
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- No animals with positive response
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 75% w/w alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA) in mineral oil
- No. with + reactions:
- 8
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: CLP criteria not met
- Remarks:
- (non sensitising)
- Conclusions:
- Under the study conditions, the read across substance was determined to be non-sensitising in a Buehler test when applied topically to albino Hartley guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, C12-16 ADBAC (80.9% active in water/alcohol) according to OECD Guideline 406 and US EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Buehler test), in compliance with GLP. The study was conducted in two phases, with induction and challenge exposures. To determine the highest non-irritating concentration (HNIC) for the challenge phase, a preliminary irritation study was performed with 8 guinea pigs. The concentrations used were 100, 75, 50, 25, 1.25, 1.0, 0.75, 0.25 and 0.10%. w/w in distilled water. After treatment, the application sites were evaluated and scored. During the induction phase of the main study, 0.4 mL of a 1% w/w mixture of the read across substance in distilled water was applied to the left side of each animal, once per week for three weeks. Twenty-seven days after the first induction dose, 0.4 mL of a 0.25% w/w (HNIC) mixture of the read across substance in distilled water was applied to a naïve site on the right side of each test animal for challenge exposure. Ten additional animals exposed with 0.25% w/w mixture of the read across substance in distilled water served as naive control group in the challenge phase only. Approximately 24 and 48 h after each induction and challenge dose, the animals were scored for erythema. Very faint to faint erythema (0.5 to 1) was observed in all test animals during induction. None of the test animals exhibited a positive skin sensitisation response (score greater than 0.5) at 24 or 48 h after challenge. Under the test conditions, the read across substance was determined to be non-sensitising when applied topically to albino Hartley guinea pigs (Durando, 2005). Based on the results of the read across study, a similar non-sensitising potential can be expected for the test substance.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Remarks:
- Modified Draize test
- Type of information:
- read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 1974
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Justification for type of information:
- Refer to the Quaternary ammonium salts (QAS) category or section 13 of IUCLID for details on the category justification.
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- Cited as Directive 84/449/EEC, B.6
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- other: Modification of the Draize technique (Draize, Woodward and Calvery 1944 NAS-NRC 1964).
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA; TG 429) was adopted in 2002.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction 0.1% intracutaneous
Challenge 0.1% intracutaneous - Day(s)/duration:
- 1 day
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction 0.1% intracutaneous
Challenge 0.1% intracutaneous - Day(s)/duration:
- 1 day
- No. of animals per dose:
- 6
- Details on study design:
- - 1st application: Induction 0.1 % intracutaneous
- 2nd application: Challenge 0.1 % intracutaneous
For the induction phase, 0.1 mL of a concentration of 0.1% of test substance in water was injected intradermally into the back of each six guinea pigs. This procedure was repeated every other days, using a different injection site on each occasion, until a total of nine injections had been given. Injection sites were examined 24h after each injection and scored for erythema and oedema using the Draize scale.
After completion of this series of priming injections the animals remained untreated for two weeks, and were then given a single challenge intradermal injection of the same concentration and volume as for induction. Injection sites were examined 24h after this challenge dose as before for erythema and oedema. The effects were compared to those produced by the priming doses in order to determine whether sensitisation had been produced. - Positive control substance(s):
- no
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.1%
- Remarks on result:
- other: See 'Any other information on results incl. tables'
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Group:
- negative control
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Interpretation of results:
- other: CLP criteria not met
- Remarks:
- (non sensitising)
- Conclusions:
- Under the study conditions, the read across substance was not considered sensitizing to guinea pig skin.
- Executive summary:
A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, C12 -16 ADBAC (50% active in water) according to EU Method B.6 (modified Draize test). For the induction phase, 0.1 mL of 0.1% read across substance in water was injected intradermally into the back of each six guinea pigs. This procedure was repeated every other day, using a different injection site on each occasion, until a total of nine injections had been given. Injection sites were examined 24 h after each injection and scored for erythema and oedema using the Draize scale. After a two week interval, a single challenge intradermal injection of the same concentration and volume was given as for induction. Injection sites were examined 24 h after this challenge dose as before for erythema and oedema. The effects were compared to those produced by the priming doses in order to determine whether sensitisation had been produced. The priming injections elicited very slight to well defined erythema, and very slight to slight oedema on all occasions. The challenge dose produced a well-defined erythema and very slight oedema in all occasions. However, the challenge doses did not produce any greater reaction in any animal. Under the study conditions, the read across substance was not considered sensitizing to guinea pig skin (Thomas, 1974). Based on the results of the read across study, a similar non-sensitising potential can be expected for the test substance.
Referenceopen allclose all
Summary of results in the main study:
- Induction Phase: Very faint to faint erythema (0.5-1.0) was observed for all sites during the induction phase.
- Challenge Phase:
Test group: None of the test animals exhibited a positive skin sensitisation response (score greater than 0.5) at 24 or 48h after challenge. Very faint erythema (0.5) was noted in 9 out of 20 test animals at 24h after challenge. Similar irritation persisted at two sites through 48h.
Naive Control group: Very faint erythema (0.5) was observed in 5 out of 10 test animals at 24h after challenge. Similar irritation persisted at two sites through 48h.
Table 1. The severity index of test and control group
Treatment |
Severity |
|
24 h |
48 h |
|
Test |
0.23 |
0.05 |
Control |
0.25 |
0.10 |
Modified Draize test:
-
The priming injections elicited very slight to well defined
erythema, and very slight to slight oedma on all occasions.
- The challenge dose produced a well defined erythema and very
slight oedema in all occasions.
As the challenge doses did not produce any greater reaction
in any animal, it may be concluded that is not a sensitising
agent under the conditions of this experiment.
For result tables, kindly refer to the attached background material section of the IUCLID.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Study 1: A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, C12 -16 ADBAC (50% active in water) according to EU Method B.6 (modified Draize test). For the induction phase, 0.1 mL of 0.1% read across substance in water was injected intradermally into the back of each six guinea pigs. This procedure was repeated every other day, using a different injection site on each occasion, until a total of nine injections had been given. Injection sites were examined 24 h after each injection and scored for erythema and oedema using the Draize scale. After a two-week interval, a single challenge intradermal injection of the same concentration and volume was given as for induction. Injection sites were examined 24 h after this challenge dose as before for erythema and oedema. The effects were compared to those produced by the priming doses in order to determine whether sensitisation had been produced. The priming injections elicited very slight to well defined erythema, and very slight to slight oedema on all occasions. The challenge dose produced a well-defined erythema and very slight oedema in all occasions. However, the challenge doses did not produce any greater reaction in any animal. Under the study conditions, the read across substance was not considered sensitizing to guinea pig skin (Thomas, 1974).
Study 2: A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, C12 -16 ADBAC, according to OECD Guideline 406 and US EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Buehler test), in compliance with GLP. The study was conducted in two phases, with induction and challenge exposures. To determine the highest non-irritating concentration (HNIC) for the challenge phase, a preliminary irritation study was performed with 8 guinea pigs. The concentrations used were 100, 75, 50, 25, 1.25, 1.0, 0.75, 0.25 and 0.10% w/w in distilled water. After treatment, the application sites were evaluated and scored. During the induction phase of the main study, 0.4 mL of a 1% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water was applied to the left side of each animal, once per week for three weeks. Twenty-seven days after the first induction dose, 0.4 mL of a 0.25% w/w (HNIC) mixture of the test substance in distilled water was applied to a naïve site on the right side of each test animal for challenge exposure. Ten additional animals exposed with 0.25% w/w mixture of the test substance in distilled water served as naive control group in the challenge phase only. Approximately 24 and 48 h after each induction and challenge dose, the animals were scored for erythema. Very faint to faint erythema (0.5 to 1) was observed in all test animals during induction. None of the test animals exhibited a positive skin sensitisation response (score greater than 0.5) at 24 or 48 h after challenge. Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance is considered to be non-sensitising when applied topically to albino Hartley guinea pigs (Durando, 2005). Based on the results of the read across study, a similar non-sensitising potential can be expected for the test substance.
The biocides assessment reports available from RMS Italy on C12-16 ADBAC, published by the Italian authorities in June 2015, concluded that the test substance is not a skin sensitiser under the experimental conditions tested. Although no experimental data is available, C12-16-ADBAC/BKC is not expected to be a respiratory sensitizer (ECHA biocides assessment report, 2015).
Overall, based on the available information from the read across studies and in line with the biocides assessment report, the test substance is considered to be non-sensitising to the skin.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the results of the read across studies, the test substance does not warrant a classification for the skin sensitisation endpoint, according to the EU CLP criteria (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.