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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 223-228-4 | CAS number: 3775-90-4
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation, other
- Remarks:
- in vivo none LLNA
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Well documented GLP study to OECD guidelines study includes certificate of analysis for the testsubstance.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Animals
Species and strain: Dunkin-Hartley guinea-pigs.
Reason for this choice: species recommended by the international regulations for sensitization studies. The strain used has been shown to produce a satisfactory sensitization response using known positive sensitizers.
Breeder: Centre d'Elevage Lebeau, 78950 Gambais, France.
Number: 30 animals (15 males and 15 nulliparous and non-pregnant females).
Allocation of the animals to the groups: on day -1, the animals were weighed and randomly allocated to two groups: a control group 1 consisting of ten animals (five males and five females) and a treated group 2 consisting of 20 animals (ten males and ten females). Weight: on day 1, the animals were approximately three months old and had a mean bodyweight ± standard deviation of 374 ± 29 g for the males and 338 ± 18 g for the females.
Acclimatization: at least five days before the beginning of the study.
Identification of the animals: ear-tattoo.
Environmental conditions
During the acclimatization period and throughout the study, the conditions in the animal room were set as folIows:
temperature: 21 ± 2°C
relative hurnidity: 30 to 70%
light/dark cycle: 12 h/12 h
ventilation: about 12 cycles/hour of filtered, non-recycled air.
The temperature and relative humidity were recorded continuously and records retained.
The housing conditions (temperature, relative humidity and ventilation) were checked monthly.
During the acclimatization period and throughout the study, the animals were housed individually in polycarbonate cages (48 cm x 27 cm x 20 cm) equipped with a polypropylene bottle.
Dust-free sawdust was provided as litter (SICSA, 92142 Alfortville, France).
Bacteriological analysis of the sawdust and detection of possible contaminants (pesticides, heavy metals) are performed periodically. - Positive control results:
- See attached Appenix 4. at 0.1% intradermal induction and 1% cutaneous induction fowwoed by 0.5% challenge, vehicle was paraffin oil. 50% of the guinea pigs reacted.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- Challenge dose 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- well defined erythema
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: Challenge dose 50%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: well defined erythema.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- Challenge dose 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 6
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- well defined erythema
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: Challenge dose 50%. No with. + reactions: 6.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: well defined erythema.
- Interpretation of results:
- sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- Under the experimental conditions and according to the maximization method of Magnusson and Kligman, cutaneous reactions attributable to the sensitization potential of the test substance t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) (batch No. 1/96) were observed in 6/20 (30%) guinea-pigs. This results in a classification of Category 1B for skin sensitization by the EU CLP(GHS) criteria.
- Executive summary:
At the request of Elf Atochem S.A., Paris-Ia-Defense, France, the potential of the test substance
t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) (batch No. 1/96) to induce delayed contact hypersensitivity was evaluated in guinea-pigs according to the maximization method of Magnusson and Kligman and to O.E.C.D. (No. 406, 17th July 1992) and E.C. (92/69/E.E.C)., B6, 31 st July 1992) guidelines. The study was conducted in compliance with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice Regulations.
Methods
Thirty guinea-pigs were allocated to two groups: a control group 1 (five males and five females) and a treated group 2 (ten males and ten females). On day I, intradermal injections of Freund's complete adjuvant mixed with the test substance (treated group) or the vehicle (control group) were performed in the dorsal region between the shoulders. On day 7, the same region received a topical application of sodium lauryl sulfate in Vaseline (10% w/w) in order to induce local irritation.
On day 8, this same test site was treated by topical application of the test substance (treated group) or the vehicle (control group) and was covered by an occlusive dressing for 48 hours. On day 22, after a rest period of 12 days, all animals of the treated and control groups were challenged by a topical application of the test substance to the right flank. The left flank served as control and received the vehicle only. Test substance and vehicle were maintained under an occlusive dressing for 24 hours. Skin reactions were evaluated approximately 24 and 48 hours later.
Test substance concentrations were as follows:
Induction (treated group)
intradermal injections: t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) at 1% (w /w) in paraffin oil
topical application: t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) at 50% (w/w) in paraffin oil.
Challenge (all groups)
topical application: t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) at 50% (w/w) in paraffin oil.
At the end of the study, animals were killed and cutaneous sampIes were taken from the challenge application sites from all the animals. No histological examinations were performed.
The sensitivity of the guinea-pigs in C.I.T. experimental conditions was checked with a positive sensitizer: 2,4-DINITRO CHLOROBENZENE. During induction period, the positive substance was applied at 0.1% (w/w) (day 1) and 1% (w/w) (day 8) concentrations. At cutaneous challenge application, a 0.5% (w/w) concentration was tested on the right flank.
Results
No clinical signs and no deaths were noted during the study. After the cutaneous challenge application, no cutaneous reactions were noted in the control group. In the treated group, at the 24-hour reading, a very slight or well-defined erythema was noted in 11120 and4/20animals, respectively. At the 48-hour reading, a very slight or well-defined erythema was still observed in5120and6/20animals, respectively. Dryness of the skin was also observed in5/20animals, and crusts in2120animals.
The guinea-pigs showed a satisfactory sensitization response in 50% animals using a positive
Sensitizer (Appendix 4).
Conclusion
Under our experimental conditions and according to the maximization method of Magnusson
and Kligman, cutaneous reactions attributable to the sensitization potential of the test substance
t-BUTYLAMINOETHYL METHACRYLATE (MATBAE) (batch No. 1196) were observed in
6/20(30%) guinea-pigs. This results in a classification of Category 1B for skin sensitization by the EU CLP(GHS) criteria.
Reference
Challenge application
No residual test substance was observed after removal of the dressing.
Skin reactions were as follows:
Sex |
Animal number |
Control Group |
|||||||||
24 hours |
48 hours |
||||||||||
|
|
Erythema |
Oedema |
Erythema |
Oedema |
||||||
|
|
LF |
RF |
LF |
FR |
LF |
RF |
LF |
RF |
||
Male |
26 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
28 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
29 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Female |
41 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
42 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
43 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
44 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
45 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Sex |
Animal number |
Treated Group |
|||||||||
24 hours |
48 hours |
||||||||||
|
|
Erythema |
Oedema |
Erythema |
Oedema |
||||||
|
|
LF |
RF |
LF |
FR |
LF |
RF |
LF |
RF |
||
Male |
31 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
32 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
33 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2/A |
0 |
0 |
||
|
34 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
35 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
36 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
37 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1/S |
0 |
0 |
||
|
38 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1/S |
0 |
0 |
||
|
39 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1/S/A |
0 |
0 |
||
|
40 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1/S |
0 |
0 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Female |
46 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
47 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
48 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
49 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
50 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
51 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
52 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
53 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
54 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2/S |
0 |
0 |
||
|
55 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
LF: left flank (control)
RF: right flank (treated)
S : dryness of the skin
A : crusts
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
There is a Klimisch 1, GLP compliant Guinea pig maximization study (Magnusson and Kligman) on t-butylaminoethyl methacrylate CAS No 3775-90-4 which follows the OECD guideline 406. In this study a consistent sensitization reaction was seen which increased in intensity from the 24hour to the 48 hour challenge which indicates a true sensitization reaction. The result of 6/20 animals with well defined erythema at the 48 hour challenge indicates a need for classification, but as it just meets the 30% classification criteria it only a relatively weak skin sensitizer in the guinea pig.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
There is a Klimisch 1, GLP compliant Guinea pig maximization study (Magnusson and Kligman) which follows the OECD guideline 406 and clearly identifies the test substance as t-butylaminoethyl methacrylate (2-tert butylaminoethyl methacrylate CAS No 3775-90-4). This study showed a maximum response of 6/20 animals.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
There is a Klimisch 1, GLP compliant Guinea pig maximization study (Magnusson and Kligman) on t-butylaminoethyl methacrylate, CAS No 3775-90-4 which follows the OECD guideline 406. In this study a consistent sensitization reaction was seen which increased in intensity from the 24hour to the 48 hour challenge which indicates a true sensitization reaction. The result of 6/20 animals with well defined erythema at the 48 hour challenge indicates a need for classification as a skin sensitiser.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
There is no standard validated animal test available to detect respiratory sensitisers. All respiratory sensitisers of human significance are also skin sensitisers, however not all skin sensitisers are respiratory sensitisers. There is no known evidence that 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is a respiratory sensitizer, therefore as 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is only a relatively weak skin sensitizer in guinea pigs it is considered unlikely to have respiratory sensitizing potential.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
There is no standard validated animal test available to detect respiratory sensitisers. 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is a relatively weak skin sensitiser .
Justification for selection of respiratory sensitisation endpoint:
There is no standard validated animal test available to detect respiratory sensitisers. All respiratory sensitisers of human significance are also skin sensitisers, however not all skin sensitisers are respiratory sensitisers. There is no known evidence that 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is a respiratory sensitizer.
Justification for classification or non-classification
2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate was studied in an OECD406 Guinea pig maximization test, which was fully GLP compliant. This study showed sensitization with scores for erythema of 2 for 4/20 (20%) at 24 hours which increased to 6/20 (30%). This pattern of an increased response from 24 hours to 48 hours indicates a true sensitization reaction. However this reaction only just reached the 30% limit for classification under EU CLP(GHS) requirements, which indicates that 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is not a strong skin sensitizer in guinea pigs. As the intradermal induction dose was 1 % and the response was 30% therefore less than 60% this corresponds to a classification of EU CLP 1B for skin sensitization. There is no known evidence that 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is a respiratory sensitizer, therefore as 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate is only a relatively weak skin sensitizer in guinea pigs it is considered unlikely to have respiratory sensitizing potential. Therefore 2-tert-butylaminoethyl methacrylate does not meet the criteria for classification as a respiratory sensitizer.
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.