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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 608-454-7 | CAS number: 30290-53-0
- 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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 1993-06-14 - 1993-07-26
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Remarks:
- under GLP, sufficiently documented
- Justification for type of information:
- see target record
Cross-reference
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Remarks:
- target record
Reference
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 1993-06-14 - 1993-07-26
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Remarks:
- Klimisch 1 source record, but performed on read-across substance
- Justification for type of information:
- REPORTING FORMAT FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
The rational for the analogue approach is the high structural similarity between the source and the target substance. Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, potassium salt, and Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, sodium salt, are structurally identical except the inorganic counterion, potassium resp. sodium. This difference is considered very minor as both cations are ubiquitously present in the body fluids, and the organic moieties are identical containing three functional groups in the molecules which are considered more relevant for their toxicological behaviour, i.e. the alkine, ether and sulfo group.
2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
Source Chemical: Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, potassium salt, EC 618-959-4, CAS 93637-00-4, SMILES Code C#CCOCCCS(=O)(=O)[O-].[K+], molecular formula C6H9O4KS, Mol. Weight 216.2994 g/mol
Target Chemical: Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, sodium salt, EC 608-454-7, CAS 30290-53-0, SMILES Code C#CCOCCCS(=O)(=O)[O-].[Na+], molecular formula C6H9O4NaS, Mol. Weight 200.19 g/mol
Both substances do not contain impurities to an extent which is expected to alter the outcome of the experimental results or read-across approach.
3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
According to REACH Annex XI, chapter 1.5, “Substances whose physicochemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties are likely to be similar or follow a regular pattern as a result of structural similarity may be considered as a group, or "category" of substances.”… “The similarities may be based on:
1) a common functional group;
2) the common precursors and/or the likelihood of common breakdown products via physical and biological processes, which result in structurally similar chemicals…”.
Hence, Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, sodium salt was analyzed regarding these criteria in the order as stated above:
1) Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, sodium salt, is an organic salt with a sodium cation as inorganic counterion. The inorganic cation sodium (Na+) is widely distributed throughout the body and a normal constituent in the electrolyte system of vertebrates. Hence, it suggests itself to predominantly focus on the organic anion and regard it unchanged as a first step. So, the complete organic cation shall serve as a ‘functional group’ in this case. Further analogues can therefore be easily found by exchanging the inorganic counterion into a similar one of a similar size and low or no intrinsic toxic properties. Obvious here are e.g. potassium, hydrogen or ammonium.
2) Due to the ionic structure of all above mentioned salts, they all dissociate readily into the respective ions when getting into contact with water, which can be scientifically concluded. Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, sodium salt, is distributed as a 50% aqueous solution and hence very soluble in water; the registered substance containing water is fully miscible in water. A similar behaviour can be assumed for POPS-K. In consequence, both substances can be reasonably expected to be present completely dissociated in the body fluids predominantly consisting of water. So, the organic moiety is identical in both substances and can be regarded as common breakdown product according to the Regulation. The substances structurally only differ in their inorganic cation, which can be considered as a very minor difference as both cations are ubiquitously present in the body fluids.
The data matrix displays exemplarily the chlorides of the inorganic counterions in question, sodium and potassium. Both salts show mild to moderate irritating effects, data available on POPS-K indicate very minor irritating effects not sufficient for classification. In general, the observed effects can be considered as rather consistent given the magnitude of effects, ionic structure of the cations, the content of the cations in the actual source and target chemical and the available data quality.
In both RTECS and GESTIS Substance Database of the German IFA providing various information on hazardous substances at the workplace, no information is given that NaCl or KCl are sensitizing which is comprehensible out of the following reasons: both sodium and potassium are ubiquitously present in the body and no information is given on autoimmune diseases associated with these ions. Further, these cations are not capable to act as (pre-)haptene or allergen. Immune responses are associated with proteins, and those ion are neither a protein nor capable of binding on them or modify them in a manner that the immune system is capable of recognizing them. Hence, a immune response could maximally be caused by the organic anion, which is identical in both source and target substance.
With regard to acute toxicity, also here possible differences may only arise from the cation. As displayed in the data matrix, potassium is in general of higher toxicity compared to sodium. Hence, a read-across is unlikely to underestimate the actual hazard of the registered substance, and more likely to overestimate it. Hence, read-across does not pose a potential risk and can be justified.
According to the RTECS database, for both NaCl and KCl, there are positive effects noted in various assays related to mutagenicity. According to the GESTIS database however, „There are no indications that NaCl has any mutagenic effects. NaCl solutions of very low concentrations have been used as solvents for test substances in a variety of mutagenicity tests (because of their inactivity). Positive reactions found in isolated cases on cultivated mammalian cells or in microorganisms were probably caused by osmotic effects and are not attributable to mutagenicity. There are no indications that NaCl has any carcinogenic effects.“ (http://gestis-en.itrust.de/nxt/gateway.dll/gestis_en/000000.xml?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=gestiseng:sdbeng$3.0). For KCl, that information is not given, but expectable, as also potassium is contained in cell culturing media, and the same osmotic effects in higher concentrations are expectable. Summarizing, there is no indication given that the exchange of the cation (Na+ or K+) would result in a different outcome of gene mutation testing in bacteria, hence, read-across is justified.
An obvious difference is that the potassium salt may be isolated as solid, whereas the sodium salt undergoes slight changes during isolation, can hence not be isolated as such and so the water must be considered as stabilizer in its identification. However, when being dissolved resp. diluted in the body fluids predominantly consisting of water, this difference can be neglected.
4. DATA MATRIX
There is not sufficient data on both complete, non-dissociated substances available to allow a direct comparison. Further, QSAR estimation revealed identical phys.-chem. properties, as e.g. for EpiSuite (US EPA) estimations, the inorganic ion is not regarded. However, as stated above, both organic salts immediately dissociate into the respective ions. Hence, the toxicity of the more relevant organic anion, Propargyl 3-sulfopropyl ether, does not need to be regarded for depicting possible differences or similarities, as it is identical in both molecules, and it is sufficient to compare the different cations only. Exemplarily, sodium and potassium chloride are compared, data is derived from RTECS (http://ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/rtecs/search.html)
For the table, please refer to the attached justification - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981)1981) with particular reference to the following publications by B. Magnusson and A. M. Kligman: "The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test" (J. Invest. Dermatol., 52, 268-276, 1969) and "Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig" (Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois, 1970).
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Study was performed prior to the implementation of REACH and the acceptance of the guidelines for alternative methods, e.g. the LLNA.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: sponsor
STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: ambient, protected from light
- stable for at least 1 year - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: Pirbright white
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Firma Harlan Winkelmann, Versuchstierzucht, Gartenstr. 27, 33178 Borchen
- Females (if applicable) nulliparous and non-pregnant: not specified
- Weight at study initiation: male: 320 - 428 g, female: 304 - 443 g
- Housing: Collective housing up to a maximum of 5 animals per cage (Makrolon® type IV), Bedding: "LIGNOCEL 3/4 Fasern" from pure soft wood; dried, freed from dust and sterilized, by Rettenmaier & Söhne GmbH + Co., 73494 Ellwangen-Holzmühle
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Ssniff-G (Alleindiät für Meerschweinchen), pellets, 1.0 cm long, 0.5 cm diameter, by Ssniff Spezialdiäten GmbH, 59494 Soest/Westfalen, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): drinking water as for human consumption ad libitum from Makrolon® drinking bottles, Becker & Co., 44579 Castrop-Rauxel
- Acclimation period: Prior to test initiation, all animals were acclimatized to laboratory conditions for 34 days (range finding) and 12 and 16 days (main test).
- Indication of any skin lesions: none stated
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20±3°C
- Humidity (%):30-70%
Measurement: with thermohygrometer twice daily
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): artificial lighting (120 lux) from 7.00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m.
Date of receipt: May 19, 1993 (range finding); June 2 and 16, 1993 (main test - Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- aqua ad iniect.
- Concentration / amount:
- Test group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml test article diluted in aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
3. 0.1 ml test article diluted in FCA/aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
Control group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect.
3. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect. 50 % (w/w) diluted in FCA - Day(s)/duration:
- first day
- Adequacy of induction:
- other: in the range-finding study, no skin reactions were observed after the injection of the test article at the concentration of 5%.
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- aqua ad iniect
- Concentration / amount:
- Because the test article was non-irritating at the highest permissible concentration in the pilot study, the area was reclipped and pretreated with 10 % sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in vaseline 24 h before application of the test article at a concentration of 50 % in vaseline. The test article was spread in a thick layer [to saturation] over a 4 x 5 cm patch (filter paper). The latter was firmly secured over the previous injection sites by an occlusive dressing for 48 h. Control animals received a patch loaded with the vehicle alone.
- Day(s)/duration:
- 7 days after the intradermal injections for 48 hours.
- Adequacy of induction:
- non-irritant substance, but skin pre-treated with 10% SDS
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: vaseline
- Concentration / amount:
- Both control and test animals were subjected to a challenge exposure. The challenge test was performed on a 5 x 5 cm clipped area on each flank. The maximal non-irritating concentration of the test article (50 % in vaseline) was applied to the left flank and the vehicle to the right in a volume of 0.5 g using the patch technique described above. In each case the duration of exposure was 24 h under an occlusive dressing.
- Day(s)/duration:
- 14 days after epidermal induction
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20 test and 20 control animals
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
Pilot study (range finding)
Intradermal Injection:
The test article was diluted with aqua ad iniect. and Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA; Sigma, 80241 Deisenhofen) to give a final concentration of 5 %. Two animals were employed, skin reactions being recorded 48 h after treatment.
Dermal Application:
The test article was incorporated in vaseline to provide a final concentration of 50 % (w/w). A closed patch exposure was effected by means of an occlusive bandage using Hill-Top Chambers (Hill Top, Cincinnati, USA) and non-irritating tape Elastoplast® (Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg), which enveloped the whole of the animal's trunk. Two animals were employed and skin reactions were recorded 48 h post applicationem.
MAIN STUDY
The main study was performed on 20 test and 20 control animals. On the basis of the results of the range finding the concentrations of 5 % of the test article was considered to be suitable for intradermal injection and the concentration of 50 % for dermal application.
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2
- Exposure period: 1st day & seven days later for 48h
Induction Procedure
First stage - an area of 4 x 6 cm over the shoulders was clipped short with electric clippers and cleaned with 70 % (v/v) ethanol. Three pairs of intradermal injections were then made symmetrically in two rows on either side of the spine;
Test group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml test article diluted in aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
3. 0.1 ml test article diluted in FCA/aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
Control group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect.
3. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect. 50 % (w/w) diluted in FCA
Second stage - 7 days after the intradermal injections, dermal application was initiated. Because the test article was non-irritating at the highest permissible concentration in the pilot study, the area was reclipped and pretreated with 10 % sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in vaseline 24 h before application of the test article at a concentration of 50 % in vaseline. The test article was spread in a thick layer [to saturation] over a 4 x 5 cm patch (filter paper). The latter was firmly secured over the previous injection sites by an occlusive dressing for 48 h. Control animals received a patch loaded with the vehicle alone.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2
- Day(s) of challenge: 14 days
Both control and test animals were subjected to a challenge exposure 14 days after the second stage of induction. The challenge test was performed on a 5 x 5 cm clipped area on each flank. The maximal non-irritating concentration of the test article (50 % in vaseline) was applied to the left flank and the vehicle to the right in a volume of 0.5 g using the patch technique described above. In each case the duration of exposure was 24 h under an occlusive dressing.
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after patch removal, the treated skin areas were evaluated on a numerical scale according to Draize.
OTHER: EVALUATIONS OF SKIN REACTIONS (according to Draize)
Erythema and Eschar Formation Value
no erythema 0
very slight erythema (barely perceptible) 1
well-defined erythema 2
moderate to severe erythema 3
severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth) 4
Oedema Formation Value
no oedema 0
very slight oedema (barely perceptible) 1
slight oedema (edges of area well defined by definite raising) 2
moderate oedema (raised approximately 1 mm) 3
severe oedema (raised more than 1 mm and extending beyond area of exposure) 4
Classification: According to the OECD guideline for testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981), if no animal showed an allergic response the test article may be classified as a "non-sensitizer". - Challenge controls:
- control animals
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- The reaction to the positive control substances 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (extreme sensitizer) and benzocaine (mild sensitizer) is tested periodically.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% test item
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% test item
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- no additional information given
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- The study was conducted according to OECD 406 under GLP and is sufficiently documented. Hence, the available study is sufficiently reliable to assess the skin sensitizing potential of propargyl-3-sulfopropyl ether, potassium salt, and the given scoring data allows classification acc. GHS. In the available study (GPMT), none of the animals showed any reaction after challenge. According to Regulation 1272/2008, when an adjuvant type guinea pig test method for skin sensitisation is used, a response of at least 30 % of the animals is considered as positive. Hence, no classification as skin sensitizer is required.
- Executive summary:
The potential skin sensitizing properties of "POPS" were assessed in the guinea pig maximization test using 20 test and 20 control animals in a OECD 406 study under GLP. Following induction exposure to the test article or the vehicle, the animals were subjected two weeks later to a challenge exposure with the test article. The treated skin areas were evaluated 24 and 48 h after the end of the exposure period.
Classification: According to the OECD guideline for testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981), since no animal showed an allergic response, the test article "POPS" applied as a 50 % preparation, may be classified as a "non-sensitizer".
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 993
- Report date:
- 1993
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981)1981) with particular reference to the following publications by B. Magnusson and A. M. Kligman: "The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test" (J. Invest. Dermatol., 52, 268-276, 1969) and "Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig" (Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois, 1970).
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Study was performed prior to the implementation of REACH and the acceptance of the guidelines for alternative methods, e.g. the LLNA.
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- potassium 3-(prop-2-yn-1-yloxy)propane-1-sulfonate
- EC Number:
- 618-959-4
- Cas Number:
- 93637-00-4
- Molecular formula:
- C6H9O4KS
- IUPAC Name:
- potassium 3-(prop-2-yn-1-yloxy)propane-1-sulfonate
- Test material form:
- solid: particulate/powder
- Remarks:
- yellowish
Constituent 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: sponsor
STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: ambient, protected from light
- stable for at least 1 year
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: Pirbright white
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Firma Harlan Winkelmann, Versuchstierzucht, Gartenstr. 27, 33178 Borchen
- Females (if applicable) nulliparous and non-pregnant: not specified
- Weight at study initiation: male: 320 - 428 g, female: 304 - 443 g
- Housing: Collective housing up to a maximum of 5 animals per cage (Makrolon® type IV), Bedding: "LIGNOCEL 3/4 Fasern" from pure soft wood; dried, freed from dust and sterilized, by Rettenmaier & Söhne GmbH + Co., 73494 Ellwangen-Holzmühle
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Ssniff-G (Alleindiät für Meerschweinchen), pellets, 1.0 cm long, 0.5 cm diameter, by Ssniff Spezialdiäten GmbH, 59494 Soest/Westfalen, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): drinking water as for human consumption ad libitum from Makrolon® drinking bottles, Becker & Co., 44579 Castrop-Rauxel
- Acclimation period: Prior to test initiation, all animals were acclimatized to laboratory conditions for 34 days (range finding) and 12 and 16 days (main test).
- Indication of any skin lesions: none stated
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20±3°C
- Humidity (%):30-70%
Measurement: with thermohygrometer twice daily
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): artificial lighting (120 lux) from 7.00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m.
Date of receipt: May 19, 1993 (range finding); June 2 and 16, 1993 (main test
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- aqua ad iniect.
- Concentration / amount:
- Test group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml test article diluted in aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
3. 0.1 ml test article diluted in FCA/aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
Control group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect.
3. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect. 50 % (w/w) diluted in FCA - Day(s)/duration:
- first day
- Adequacy of induction:
- other: in the range-finding study, no skin reactions were observed after the injection of the test article at the concentration of 5%.
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- aqua ad iniect
- Concentration / amount:
- Because the test article was non-irritating at the highest permissible concentration in the pilot study, the area was reclipped and pretreated with 10 % sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in vaseline 24 h before application of the test article at a concentration of 50 % in vaseline. The test article was spread in a thick layer [to saturation] over a 4 x 5 cm patch (filter paper). The latter was firmly secured over the previous injection sites by an occlusive dressing for 48 h. Control animals received a patch loaded with the vehicle alone.
- Day(s)/duration:
- 7 days after the intradermal injections for 48 hours.
- Adequacy of induction:
- non-irritant substance, but skin pre-treated with 10% SDS
Challenge
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: vaseline
- Concentration / amount:
- Both control and test animals were subjected to a challenge exposure. The challenge test was performed on a 5 x 5 cm clipped area on each flank. The maximal non-irritating concentration of the test article (50 % in vaseline) was applied to the left flank and the vehicle to the right in a volume of 0.5 g using the patch technique described above. In each case the duration of exposure was 24 h under an occlusive dressing.
- Day(s)/duration:
- 14 days after epidermal induction
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20 test and 20 control animals
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
Pilot study (range finding)
Intradermal Injection:
The test article was diluted with aqua ad iniect. and Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA; Sigma, 80241 Deisenhofen) to give a final concentration of 5 %. Two animals were employed, skin reactions being recorded 48 h after treatment.
Dermal Application:
The test article was incorporated in vaseline to provide a final concentration of 50 % (w/w). A closed patch exposure was effected by means of an occlusive bandage using Hill-Top Chambers (Hill Top, Cincinnati, USA) and non-irritating tape Elastoplast® (Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg), which enveloped the whole of the animal's trunk. Two animals were employed and skin reactions were recorded 48 h post applicationem.
MAIN STUDY
The main study was performed on 20 test and 20 control animals. On the basis of the results of the range finding the concentrations of 5 % of the test article was considered to be suitable for intradermal injection and the concentration of 50 % for dermal application.
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2
- Exposure period: 1st day & seven days later for 48h
Induction Procedure
First stage - an area of 4 x 6 cm over the shoulders was clipped short with electric clippers and cleaned with 70 % (v/v) ethanol. Three pairs of intradermal injections were then made symmetrically in two rows on either side of the spine;
Test group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml test article diluted in aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
3. 0.1 ml test article diluted in FCA/aqua ad iniect. (final concentration: 5 %)
Control group:
1. 0.1 ml FCA 50 % (w/w) diluted in aqua ad iniect.
2. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect.
3. 0.1 ml aqua ad iniect. 50 % (w/w) diluted in FCA
Second stage - 7 days after the intradermal injections, dermal application was initiated. Because the test article was non-irritating at the highest permissible concentration in the pilot study, the area was reclipped and pretreated with 10 % sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in vaseline 24 h before application of the test article at a concentration of 50 % in vaseline. The test article was spread in a thick layer [to saturation] over a 4 x 5 cm patch (filter paper). The latter was firmly secured over the previous injection sites by an occlusive dressing for 48 h. Control animals received a patch loaded with the vehicle alone.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2
- Day(s) of challenge: 14 days
Both control and test animals were subjected to a challenge exposure 14 days after the second stage of induction. The challenge test was performed on a 5 x 5 cm clipped area on each flank. The maximal non-irritating concentration of the test article (50 % in vaseline) was applied to the left flank and the vehicle to the right in a volume of 0.5 g using the patch technique described above. In each case the duration of exposure was 24 h under an occlusive dressing.
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after patch removal, the treated skin areas were evaluated on a numerical scale according to Draize.
OTHER: EVALUATIONS OF SKIN REACTIONS (according to Draize)
Erythema and Eschar Formation Value
no erythema 0
very slight erythema (barely perceptible) 1
well-defined erythema 2
moderate to severe erythema 3
severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth) 4
Oedema Formation Value
no oedema 0
very slight oedema (barely perceptible) 1
slight oedema (edges of area well defined by definite raising) 2
moderate oedema (raised approximately 1 mm) 3
severe oedema (raised more than 1 mm and extending beyond area of exposure) 4
Classification: According to the OECD guideline for testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981), if no animal showed an allergic response the test article may be classified as a "non-sensitizer". - Challenge controls:
- control animals
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- The reaction to the positive control substances 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (extreme sensitizer) and benzocaine (mild sensitizer) is tested periodically.
Results and discussion
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% test item
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 0
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% test item
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- no adverse reactions stated
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- no additional information given
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- The study was conducted according to OECD 406 under GLP and is sufficiently documented. Hence, the available study is sufficiently reliable to assess the skin sensitizing potential of propargyl-3-sulfopropyl ether, potassium salt, and the given scoring data allows classification acc. GHS. In the available study (GPMT), none of the animals showed any reaction after challenge. According to Regulation 1272/2008, when an adjuvant type guinea pig test method for skin sensitisation is used, a response of at least 30 % of the animals is considered as positive. Hence, no classification as skin sensitizer is required.
- Executive summary:
The potential skin sensitizing properties of "POPS" were assessed in the guinea pig maximization test using 20 test and 20 control animals in a OECD 406 study under GLP. Following induction exposure to the test article or the vehicle, the animals were subjected two weeks later to a challenge exposure with the test article. The treated skin areas were evaluated 24 and 48 h after the end of the exposure period.
Classification: According to the OECD guideline for testing of chemicals (OECD 406, May 12, 1981), since no animal showed an allergic response, the test article "POPS" applied as a 50 % preparation, may be classified as a "non-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.