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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 284-557-7 | CAS number: 84929-79-3 Extractives and their physically modified derivatives such as tinctures, concretes, absolutes, essential oils, oleoresins, terpenes, terpene-free fractions, distillates, residues, etc., obtained from Styrax benzoin, Styracaceae.
- 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
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
- Type of information:
- (Q)SAR
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model, but not (completely) falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
- Justification for type of information:
- QSAR prediction from an well known and acknowledged tool. See below under 'Overall remarks, attachments' for applicability domain and 'attached background material section' for methodology.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: REACH guidance on QSARs: Chapter R.6. QSARs and grouping of chemicals
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Since the test substance is a UVCB, the mutagenicity potential was predicted for the three major constituents (cinnamic acid, p-coumaryl cinnamate and coniferyl cinnamate), which correspond to more than 90% of the composition.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of assay:
- other: QSAR prediction
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- other: QSAR prediction from TEST v4.2.1
- Remarks:
- Ames Mutagenicity Test
- Metabolic activation:
- not specified
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Remarks:
- predicted for all three major constituents
- Remarks on result:
- no mutagenic potential (based on QSAR/QSPR prediction)
- Conclusions:
- Based on the negative mutagenicity predictions for the major constituents using the Consensus method of the T.E.S.T. v4.2.1 program, the test substance is overall considered to be non-mutagenic.
- Executive summary:
The mutagenicity potential of the test substance was predicted using the Consensus method of the T.E.S.T. v4.2.1 program. Since the test substance is a UVCB, the mutagenicity predictions were performed for the three major constituents (cinnamic acid, p-coumaryl cinnamate and coniferyl cinnamate), which correspond to more than 90% of the composition. SMILES codes were used as the input parameters. All three constituents were predicted to be negative for mutagenicity (US EPA, 2019), indicating that the test substance can be overall considered to be non-mutagenic. Applicability domain evaluation was performed by checking the descriptor and structural fragment domains of the individual QSAR methods (i.e., FDA, hierarchical clustering and nearest neighbour methods) underlying Consensus model predictions. Since an experimental value could be identified for cinnamic acid, the domain evaluation of the remaining two constituents indicated that they were within both descriptor and structural fragment domains of the FDA and hierarchical clustering methods, but not completely within domain for the structural fragments identified for the three nearest neighbours. Further, the prediction accuracy of the binary toxicity endpoints, can be evaluated in terms of the fraction of compounds that are predicted accurately and are described based on three statistical parameters: concordance, sensitivity, and specificity. In general, if the concordance is greater than or equal to 0.8, the model is considered to be valid. And both the leave-one-out sensitivity and specificity must be at least 0.5 to avoid using models which are heavily biased to predict either active or inactive scores. Based on respective scores for the three statistical parameters, which were above the required cut-offs the mutagenicity predictions for the 2 constituents can be considered to be accurate. Therefore, considering the applicability domain and prediction accuracy evaluations, the mutagenicity predictions for the two constituents based on Consensus method are overall considered to be reliable.
- Endpoint:
- in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- secondary literature
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 471 (Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of assay:
- bacterial reverse mutation assay
- Species / strain / cell type:
- S. typhimurium TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 100
- Species / strain / cell type:
- S. typhimurium TA 1538
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
- No details on concentrations; max non-toxic dose - 1000 mcg/plate
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium TA 1535
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- True negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium TA 1537
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- True negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium TA 98
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- True negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium TA 100
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- True negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- S. typhimurium TA 1538
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- not specified
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- True negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Executive summary:
A study was conducted to determine the mutagenic potential of the constituent in an Ames assay. S. typhimurium strains TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537 and TA 1538 were exposed to the constituent up to a maximum non-toxic dose of 1000 mcg/plate in a liquid pre-incubation method. Under the study conditions, the constituent was found to be non-mutagenic (Bickers, 2005).
Referenceopen allclose all
Results
TEST - Ames Mutagenicity Test |
||||||
Name |
SMILES |
Mutagenicity value |
Mutagenicity result |
Prediction statistics for similar chemicals - External and Training Dataset |
||
Concordance |
Sensitivity |
Specificity |
||||
p-Coumaryl cinnamate |
Oc1ccc(C=CCOC(=O)C=Cc2ccccc2)cc1 |
0.11 |
Negative |
0.90 and 0.80 |
0.80 and 0.50 |
1 and 0.88 |
Cinnamic acid |
C1=CC=C(C=C1)C=CC(=O)O |
0.00* |
Negative |
- |
- |
- |
Coniferyl cinnamate |
COc1cc(C=CCOC(=O)C=Cc2ccccc2)ccc1O |
0.16 |
Negative |
0.80 and 0.80 |
0.67 and 0.50 |
1 and 0.88 |
*Experimental result available. So no need to perfprm domain evaluation.
In general, if the concordance is greater than or equal to 0.8, the model is considered to be valid. In addition both the leave-one-out sensitivity and specificity must be at least 0.5 to avoid using models which are heavily biased to predict either active or inactive scores.
For more details on results, kindly refer the attached background material section of the IUCLID.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (negative)
Genetic toxicity in vivo
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Genetic toxicity in vitro
QSAR for three major constituents:
The mutagenicity potential of the test substance was predicted using the Consensus method of the T.E.S.T. v4.2.1 program. Since the test substance is a UVCB, the mutagenicity predictions were performed for the three major constituents (cinnamic acid, p-coumaryl cinnamate and coniferyl cinnamate), which correspond to more than 90% of the composition. SMILES codes were used as the input parameters. All three constituents were predicted to be negative for mutagenicity (US EPA, 2019), indicating that the test substance can be overall considered to be non-mutagenic. Applicability domain evaluation was performed by checking the descriptor and structural fragment domains of the individual QSAR methods (i.e., FDA, hierarchical clustering and nearest neighbour methods) underlying Consensus model predictions. Since an experimental value could be identified for cinnamic acid, the domain evaluation of the remaining two constituents indicated that they were within both descriptor and structural fragment domains of the FDA and hierarchical clustering methods, but not completely within domain for the structural fragments identified for the three nearest neighbours. Further, the prediction accuracy of the binary toxicity endpoints, can be evaluated in terms of the fraction of compounds that are predicted accurately and are described based on three statistical parameters: concordance, sensitivity, and specificity. In general, if the concordance is greater than or equal to 0.8, the model is considered to be valid. And both the leave-one-out sensitivity and specificity must be at least 0.5 to avoid using models which are heavily biased to predict either active or inactive scores. Based on respective scores for the three statistical parameters, which were above the required cut-offs the mutagenicity predictions for the 2 constituents can be considered to be accurate. Therefore, considering the applicability domain and prediction accuracy evaluations, the mutagenicity predictions for the two constituents based on Consensus method are overall considered to be reliable.
Experimental data:
A study was conducted to determine the mutagenic potential of the constituent in an Ames assay. S. typhimurium strains TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537 and TA 1538 were exposed to the constituent up to a maximum non-toxic dose of 1000 mcg/plate in a liquid pre-incubation method. Under the study conditions, the constituent was found to be non-mutagenic (Bickers, 2005).
Based on experimental data on one of the major constituents and QSAR predictions for the three major constituents (which constitute more than 90% of the composition), the substance is overall considered to be non-mutagenic.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on experimental data on one of the major constituents and QSAR predictions for the three major constituents (which constitute more than 90% of the composition), the substance is overall considered to be non-mutagenic and therefore, does not warrant classification according to EU CLP (1272/2008/EC) criteria.
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.