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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 943-834-9 | CAS number: -
- 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
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 luciferase KeratinoSens™
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
The sensitisation potential of the UVCB -Dried Sludge from domestic wastewater was tested in vitro and in vivo:
The results of the in vitro skin sensitisation test were inconclusive due to the solubility properties of the substance and therefore the second in vitro skin sensitisation test (OECD TG 442E - h-CLAT method) was waived as inconclusive results were also expected for the same reason. The test item did not show any sensitisation potential in the in vivo test conducted.
In Vitro Skin Sensitisation Test:
An in vitro skin sensitisation test according to OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 luciferase KeratinoSens™ test method was performed to assess the sensitisation potential of Dried Sludge from domestic wastewater.
The test item was diluted in DMSO. Maximal final tested concentrations of the test item were 12.5 µg/mL in the 1st experiment, 400 µg/mL in the 2nd experiment and 300 µg/mL in the 3rd experiment. In each experiment there were used KeratinoSens Assay Ready Cells, which do not need to be cultivated before experiments. The KeratinoSensTM cells were seeded into two 96-well plates. Three independent experiments were performed. All experiments fulfilled acceptance criteria and they were used for evaluation. In all experiments, 12 test item concentrations were tested. The concentration range of the test item was (final tested concentrations): 0.006 – 12.5 µg/mL, 0.2 – 400 µg/mL and 0.2 – 300 µg/mL. All experiments included corresponding positive controls (PC = Cinnamic aldehyde), negative controls (NC = untreated wells with cells and 1% DMSO) and blank of the negative controls (BL = untreated wells without cells with 1% DMSO).
Under the experimental design described above, the luciferase induction at the highest non-cytotoxic concentration is < 1.5 threshold in all acceptable experiments, EC1.5 is < 200 µg/mL and there is no clear-dose response. However, the test item is not fully soluble and the maximal tested concentrations of the test item were tested as a stable dispersions or soluble parts of solution. The result of the testing of the test item, Dried Sludge from domestic wastewater, was inconclusive predicted by the ARE Nrf2 Luciferase KeratinoSens™ Test Method.
Therefore, the effect of the test item Dried Sludge from domestic wastewater predicted by the ARE Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method to sensitisation potential was inconclusive.
In Vivo Skin Sensitisation Test:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the skin sensitization potential of the product “Dried sludge from domestic wastewater” intended to be used as fuel. For this purpose, Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) was performed. LLNA is a validated and accepted method used for the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. It is the initial requirement for sensitization testing within the new REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical substances) regulations in the European Union. Due to its high dissolubility, exaggerated extraction with a polar and and a non polar solvent was performed. Extracts were applied to the dorsum of mice ears and lymph node proliferation was assessed by measuring the level of radioactivity. Both extracts of the product exhibited Stimulation Index < 3 and the product should not be considered as a skin sensitizer according to the results of Murine Local Lymph Node Assay.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- From 13 July 2022 to 20 July 2022
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- Adopted 22th July 2010
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- Balb/c
- Sex:
- female
- Vehicle:
- other: - Vehicle control groups: i) 4:1 Acetone-Olive Oil (AOO) ii) sesame oil iii) water
- Concentration:
- 0.2g of test material per ml of solvent at (37 ± 1) °C for (72 ± 2) h
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- Method
The LLNA identifies contact allergens as a function of proliferative responses induced in draining lymph nodes following topical exposure of mice to test chemicals. The mechanistic basis for selection of this endpoint is that the acquisition of skin sensitization is dependent upon, and correlates quantitatively with, T lymphocyte proliferation induced in regional lymph nodes draining the site of encounter with a contact allergen. Using the standard LLNA for the purposes of hazard identification, chemicals are classified as contact allergens if they elicit, at one or more test concentrations, a three-fold or greater increase in draining lymph node cell (LNC) proliferation compared with concurrent vehicle controls (a stimulation index [SI] of 3 or more).
Test Procedures
The experimental design of the assay is as follows:
Exaggerated extraction was performed in clean, chemically inert, closed containers with minimum dead space using 0.2g of test material per ml of solvent at (37 ± 1) °C for (72 ± 2) h; Double-distilled water was chosen as the polar solvent, whereas refined sesame oil as the non-polar solvent.
Τhe treatment groups, which consist of at least five mice, were the following:
- Vehicle control groups: i) 4:1 Acetone-Olive Oil (AOO) ii) sesame oil iii) water
- Positive control group (25% w/w α-Hexyl cinnamaldehyde in 4:1 AOO)
- Test material non-polar extract (aqueous)
- Test material polar extract (sesame oil)
A dose of 25μL/day of test material / positive control solution/ solvents was applied to the dorsal side of both ears of designated mice for three consecutive days.
Observation period: Daily (from Day 0 to Day 6)
Observations: Mortality, morbidity: at least once daily. Clinical signs, irritation: individual observation at least once daily for 6 days; body weight: on Day 1 and Day 6.
The protocol for determining the level of lymph node cell proliferation is described in ASOP and is in accordance with OECD 429 guideline.
- Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Positive control results:
- Concurrent positive control’s SI index was 3.60. The value was in accordance with the laboratory historical data of positive control.
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- < 3
- Test group / Remarks:
- Test group’s SI (non-polar extract) 0.95
Test Group’s SI (polar extract) 1.20 - Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation based on QSAR/QSPR prediction
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- “Dried sludge from domestic wastewater” should not be considered as a skin sensitizer according to the results of Murine Local Lymph Node Assay.
- Executive summary:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the skin sensitization potential of the product “Dried sludge from domestic wastewater” intended to be used as fuel. For this purpose, Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) was performed. LLNA is a validated and accepted method used for the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. It is the initial requirement for sensitization testing within the new REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical substances) regulations in the European Union. Due to its high dissolubility, exaggerated extraction with a polar and and a non polar solvent was performed. Extracts were applied to the dorsum of mice ears and lymph node proliferation was assessed by measuring the level of radioactivity. Both extracts of the product exhibited Stimulation Index < 3 and the product should not be considered as a skin sensitizer according to the results of Murine Local Lymph Node Assay.
Reference
Appendix 1
NEGATIVE CONTROL GROUP | POSITIVE CONTROL GROUP | |||
Mouse ID # | Individual dpm | |||
| raw data | w/o blank | raw data | w/o blank |
1 | 7259.71 | 4646.415 | 15704.8 | 13091.505 |
2 | 6253.59 | 3640.295 | 16701.4 | 14088.105 |
3 | 5821.47 | 3208.175 | 13178 | 10564.705 |
4 | 7632.12 | 5018.825 | 17301.2 | 14687.905 |
5 | 4286.66 | 1673.365 |
|
|
Average dpm | ||||
3637.415 | 13108.055 | |||
Standard Deviation | ||||
1319.860055 | 1818.912418 | |||
Stimulation Index (SI) | ||||
N/A | 3.603673213 | |||
| ||||
VEHICLE CONTROL GROUP | TEST GROUP | |||
SESAME OIL | OILY EXTRACT | |||
Mouse ID # | Individual dpm | |||
| raw data | w/o blank | raw data | w/o blank |
1 | 13185.7 | 10572.405 | 10408.6 | 7795.305 |
2 | 12738.9 | 10125.605 | 10502.1 | 7888.805 |
3 | 12995.1 | 10381.805 | 15754.2 | 13140.905 |
4 | 12885.9 | 10272.605 | 12000.9 | 9387.605 |
5 | 11705.4 | 9092.105 |
|
|
Average dpm | ||||
10088.905 | 9553.155 | |||
Standard Deviation | ||||
580.5741727 | 2500.630215 | |||
Stimulation Index (SI) | ||||
N/A | 0.946897111 | |||
| ||||
The product is not considered a sensitizer. | ||||
VEHICLE CONTROL GROUP | TEST GROUP | |||
WATER | AQUEOUS EXTRACT | |||
Mouse ID # | Individual dpm | |||
| raw data | w/o blank | raw data | w/o blank |
1 | 6204.12 | 3590.825 | 4440.21 | 1826.915 |
2 | 5402.73 | 2789.435 | 5435 | 2821.705 |
3 | 5333.77 | 2720.475 | 6226.17 | 3612.875 |
4 | 3221.94 | 608.645 | 5731.25 | 3117.955 |
5 |
|
| 5869.84 | 3256.545 |
Average dpm | ||||
2427.345 | 2927.199 | |||
Standard Deviation | ||||
1275.197993 | 677.6359791 | |||
Stimulation Index (SI) | ||||
N/A | 1.205926228 | |||
| ||||
The product is not considered a sensitizer. |
Appendix 2
Weight | |||||||
Group | Mouse | Day 1 | Day 6 | ||||
1 (Negative Control) | 1 | 20.68 |
|
| 21.6 |
|
|
| 2 | 21.35 | 22.27 |
| |||
| 3 | 20.15 | AVERAGE | 20.756 | 20.86 | AVERAGE | 22.012 |
| 4 | 20.9 | SD | 0.387226 | 22.36 | SD | 0.721426 |
| 5 | 20.7 | % VARIATION | 1.87% | 22.97 | % VARIATION | 3.28% |
2 (Positive Control) | 1 | 21.94 |
|
| 22.26 |
|
|
| 2 | 20.1 | 21.22 |
| |||
| 3 | 22.41 | AVERAGE | 21.81 | 22.99 | AVERAGE | 22.236 |
| 4 | 22.05 | SD | 0.883878 | 21.72 | SD | 0.698014 |
| 5 | 22.55 | % VARIATION | 4.05% | 22.99 | % VARIATION | 3.14% |
3 (Aqueous Excipient) | 1 | 22.09 |
|
| 20.11 |
|
|
| 2 | 20.68 | 22.1 |
| |||
| 3 | 21.39 | AVERAGE | 21.338 | 22 | AVERAGE | 21.672 |
| 4 | 21.3 | SD | 0.450395 | 22.56 | SD | 0.839748 |
| 5 | 21.23 | % VARIATION | 2.11% | 21.59 | % VARIATION | 3.87% |
4 (Oily Excipient) | 1 | 20.92 |
|
| 21.34 |
|
|
| 2 | 22.18 | 20.45 |
| |||
| 3 | 23.11 | AVERAGE | 21.698 | 23.82 | AVERAGE | 21.664 |
| 4 | 21.06 | SD | 0.832692 | 21.53 | SD | 1.13836 |
| 5 | 21.22 | % VARIATION | 3.84% | 21.18 | % VARIATION | 5.25% |
5 (Aqueous Extract) | 1 | 21.73 |
|
| 21.8 |
|
|
| 2 | 23.13 | 24.67 |
| |||
| 3 | 20.84 | AVERAGE | 22.442 | 20.44 | AVERAGE | 22.658 |
| 4 | 25 | SD | 1.480451 | 24.69 | SD | 1.718713 |
| 5 | 21.51 | % VARIATION | 6.60% | 21.69 | % VARIATION | 7.59% |
6 (Oily Extract) | 1 | 23 |
|
| 23.54 |
|
|
| 2 | 22 | 22.1 |
| |||
| 3 | 23.67 | AVERAGE | 23.286 | 24.26 | AVERAGE | 23.778 |
| 4 | 23.69 | SD | 0.729509 | 23.75 | SD | 1.024 |
| 5 | 24.07 | % VARIATION | 3.13% | 25.24 | % VARIATION | 4.31% |
AVERAGE | 21.88833 | 22.33667 | |||||
SD | 1.185943 | 1.303954 | |||||
% VARIATION | 5.42% | 5.84% |
T-test analysis: Mice weights on Day 6 vs Day 1
Group | Day 6 vs Day 1 | |||
Mean of differences | 95% CI | P value | ||
All | 0.4483 | 0,1227 to 0,7740 | 0.0087 | ↑ |
1 (Negative Control) | 1.256 | 0,4722 to 2,040 | 0.0113 | ↑ |
2 (Positive Control) | 0.426 | -0,2217 to 1,074 | 0.1419 | - |
3 (Aqueous Excipient) | 0.334 | -1,363 to 2,031 | 0.6137 | - |
4 (Oily Excipient) | -0.034 | -1,258 to 1,190 | 0.9423 | - |
5 (Aqueous Extract) | 0.216 | -0,7521 to 1,184 | 0.5692 | - |
6 (Oily Extract) | 0.492 | -0,06740 to 1,051 | 0.0711 | - |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
“Dried sludge from domestic wastewater” should not be considered as a skin sensitizer according to the results of Murine Local Lymph Node Assay.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
There is no information available for respiratory sensitisation. Therefore, there is a data gap in this respect. However, the data gap cannot be fulfilled with experimental data, since there is no internationally accepted animal model for respiratory sensitisation.
The LLNA is a fully validated method for the identification of skin sensitizers, but it has been found that most, if not all, chemical respiratory sensitizers elicit a positive response on this assay (Arts et al. 2008; Dearman et al. 2013). Since the assay is based on the ability of the allergen to stimulate the activation and the proliferation of T lymphocytes in the draining lymph node, it is not surprising that both skin and respiratory chemical sensitizers result positive in the LLNA as both skin and respiratory chemical sensitizers are able to trigger T cell response. Skin and respiratory sensitizers only differ from the quality of the T cell response by inducing a TH1 or TH2 response, respectively. Therefore, LLNA is not able to discriminate skin from respiratory sensitizers, but this assay could be useful to determinate whether a chemical is able to induce sensitization. A chemical failing to induce a positive response in the LLNA could be safely regarded as lacking ability to induce both skin and
respiratory sensitization (Basketter et al. 2017). Based on the negative results of skin sesnitization, dried sludge from domestic water is not expected to have any respiratory sesnisitazing potential.In case human data for respiratory sensitisation emerges, this will be taken into account.
Justification for classification or non-classification
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.