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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 305-897-5 | CAS number: 95193-83-2
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Genetic toxicity in vitro
Description of key information
- Bacteria reverse mutation assay (with and without metabolic activation): negative.
- In vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test (with and without metabolic activation): negative.
- In vitro gene mutation study in mammalian cells (with and without metabolic activation): negative.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (negative)
Additional information
Several studies are available for the evaluation of the genotoxicity potential of the substancein vitro.
Three reverse mutation studies in bacteria are available. All three studies were performed with and without metabolic activation. In a study performed after 1997 and according to the OECD Guideline 471, the genotoxic potential of the substance was evaluated in S. typhimurium TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537 and E. coli WP2 uvr A strains at dose concentrations ranging from 33 to 5000 µg/plates(SCCNFP, 2004). In another study reported by Blevins et al. (Blevins R. D., 1982), the substance was tested on S. typhimurium TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537 and TA 1538 strains at only one dose level equal to 50 µg/plate. In the study reported by Hollstein et al (Hollstein M., 1978), the reverse mutation study was performed on TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, and TA 1537 strains at three dose levels (10 µg, 100 µg, and 1 mg per plate). Under the conditions of the three studies, the substance did not show mutagenic potential.
An in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test (Research Toxicology Centre S.p.A, 2013) was performed on the substance according to the OECD 487 using Chinese hamster lung fibroblast (V79) and dose concentrations equal to 5000, 3850, 2960, 2280, 1750, 1350, 1040, 797 and 613 μg/mL. Under the conditions of the test, the substance did not induce micronuclei neither in presence nor in absence of S9 metabolic activation.
The potential of the test item to induce mutagenicity/clastogenicity in mammalian cells in vitro was evaluated with a mouse lymphoma assay following the OECD Guideline 476 using the thymidine kinase target gene (SCCNFP, 2004). The study was conducted using concentrations of the test item in the range 118-3800 µg/ml, with and without S9 metabolic activation. Under the conditions of the test, the substance did not induce mutagenicity/clastogenicity in mouse lymphoma cells.
Moreover, the substance was tested using the in vitro micronucleus assay and the comet assay in two cell types: human lymphocytes and Vicia faba root cells. The substance was tested only in the absence of metabolic activation, at two concentrations (86.7 and 867 μg/mL), both showing some cytotoxicity. A statistically significant and concentration-dependent response was reported in the micronucleus assay in both cell systems, while the comet assay was positive only at the highest concentration (Macioscek V.K. and Kononowicz A.K, 2004). The significance of these results is questionable. No information on the purity of the test item is reported. The assay on Vicia faba is not a standard test and the experiments on human lymphocytes were conducted before the publication of the relevant OECD Guideline and shows several deficiencies in the experimental design (no GLP experiment) and in the data reporting. Furthermore, several oral long-term carcinogenicity studies with the substance revealed no evidence of carcinogenicity (SCCNFP, 2004) (WHO, 2017) (EFSA, 2009). EFSA Panel 2009 (EFSA, 2009) therefore considered that the results of Macioszek and Kononowicz were of uncertain biological significance.
An in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test was performed on NMRI mice. The substance was administered at the dose levels of 500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg. The treatment lasted 24 hours for the 500 and 1000 mg/kg doses and 48 hours for the 2000 mg/kg dose. The substance did not induce micronuclei in a frequency higher than the deionized water-treated animals (vehicle control). Nevertheless, the SSCNFP Committee (SCCNFP, 2004) considered the study inadequate for the evaluation as there is no demonstration that the substance has reached the target cells.
- Blevins R. D. (1982). Mutagenicity screening of twenty‐five cosmetic ingredients with the salmonella/microsome test. Journal of Environmental Science and Health . Part A: Environmental Science and Engineering: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 1982, 17(2), 217-239.
- EFSA. (2009). Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive.
- Hollstein M. (1978). Quinoline: Conversion to a Mutagen by Human and Rodent Liver. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1978, 60(2), 405-410.
- Macioscek V.K. and Kononowicz A.K. (2004). The evaluation of the genotoxicity of two commonly used food colours: Quinoline Yellow (E 104) and Brilliant Black BN (E 151). Cellular and Molecular Biology Letters, 9(1):107-122.
- Research Toxicology Centre S.p.A. (2013). E104 Quinoline yellow in vitro micronucleus test in chinese hamster V79 cells.
- SCCNFP. (2004). Opinion of the scientific committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers concerning Acid Yellow 3 - Colipa n° C54.
- WHO. (2017). Safety Evaluation of Certain Food Additives Prepared by the eighty-second meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES: 73, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2017.
Justification for classification or non-classification
The susbtance resulted to be not genotoxic in the bacteria reverse mutation assay (with and without metabolic activation), in the in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test (with and without metabolic activation) and in the in vitro gene mutation study in mammalian cells (with and without metabolic activation. In the light of the above, the substance shall not be classified for genetic toxicity according to the CLP Regulation (EC) No. 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.