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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 252-036-3 | CAS number: 34451-19-9
- 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
No study is available elucidating the skin sensitization potential of the target substance Butyl-S-lactate. Thus, available data from suitable read-across partners were used in a weight-of-evidence approach to assess the skin sensitizing potential of Butyl-S-lactate. The source substance L-lactic acid was tested negative for skin sensitization in a modified Buehler test. In a dermal sensitization study conducted according to OECD 429, female CBA mice were treated with concentrations of 5, 10 and 20% n-butanol in distilled water. Based on this study, the source substance n-butanol can be considered as not skin sensitizing. Supporting information is derived from a dermal sensitization study conducted equivalent to OECD 406 with the source substance propanol. In this study, 15 guinea pigs of the Hartley strain were tested using the method of Magnusson and Kligman. Based on this results from this study, the source substance propanol can be considered as not skin sensitizing. Furthermore, in a human maximization test performed the test item ethyl lactate showed no skin sensitizing potential (see IUCLID section 7.10.4)
Based on the available data from suitable read-across partners, the target substance can be considered as not skin sensitizing.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- For details and justification of read-across please refer to the read-across report attached to IUCLID section 13.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Positive control results:
- No data
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- 5 %
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10 %
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.4
- Test group / Remarks:
- 20 %
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION
: The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by beta scintillation counting was reported in disintegrations per minute. An SI was calculated for each chemical-treated group as the ratio of the disintegrations per minute in the treated group (or mean disintregrations per minute when individual animals were assesed) to the disintegrations per minute or mean disintegrations per minute of the concurrent vehicle control group.
EC3 CALCULATION : When the LLNA dose-response curve included concentrations that induced at least one SI greater than 3 and one SI less than 3, EC3 values were calculated by linear interpolation.For 1-butanol, no EC3 value was calculated since all SI values are < 3
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS:
BODY WEIGHTS: no data - Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- In a local lymph node assay in mice, 1-butanol was tested negative for skin sensitisation.
- Executive summary:
In a dermal sensitisation study conducted according to OECD 429, female CBA mice were treated with concentrations of 5, 10 and 20% 1-butanol in distilled water. Stimulation indices of 1.6 (test group 5%), 1.2 (test group 10%) and 1.4 (test group 20%) were measured. As the maximum stimulation index was < 3, 1-butanol can be considered as not skin sensitising.
This information is used in a read-across approach in the assessment of the target substance. For justification of read-across please refer to the read-across report (see IUCLID section 13).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- For details and justification of read-across please refer to the read-across report attached to IUCLID section 13.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Positive control results:
- Erythema and edema according to Draize (1979) and for other dermal reactions at 24 and 48 hours following each induction and challenge application. Results are presented for testing on 3 groups of 10 guinea pigs. In the first 24 hours of the challenge test, 8, 8 and 10 out of 10 animals showed positive sensitization reaction to the positive control (DNCB), and 48 hours after the beginning of the test, 8, 8 and 9 out of 10 animals still presented positive reaction to DNCB.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100% test material
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- All effects observed were deemed irritation, not sensitization
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100% test material
- No. with + reactions:
- 8
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- All effects observed were deemed irritation, not sensitization
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100% test material
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- All effects observed were deemed irritation, not sensitization
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100% test material
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- All effects observed were deemed irritation, not sensitization
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.5 mL of 0.1% DCNB
- No. with + reactions:
- 28
- Total no. in group:
- 30
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.5 mL of 0.1% DCNB
- No. with + reactions:
- 25
- Total no. in group:
- 30
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- In a dermal sentitisation test (modification of the Buehler closed patch technique), lactic acid was tested negative for skin sensitisation.
- Executive summary:
This study was conducted in guinea pigs of the Hartley strain to evaluate the contact dermal sensitisation potential of the test article, SY-83, using a method described in the EPA Guidelines, 1982 (modification of the Buehler Closed Patch Technique). No mortalities occurred and all animals gained body weight. The test article (100%) produced very slight erythema at three sites and very slight edema at one site after the first induction. Erythema grades increased in severity after the second induction application. One site was graded as severe erythema, however, this grade was given a 4 due to pinpoint pitting of the skin and scab formation, not for redness. Due to the increase of severity of the reactions, the concentration of the test article was reduced to 30% and the induction site was changed to the left flank. Very slight erythema was noted after the 5th induction application. Grades ranging from very slight to severe erythema were noted from the 7th to the 9th induction applications. Again, the severe (grade 4) reactions were given this grade due to pinpoint pitting of the skin and the eschar formation, not for redness.
After the challenge application, the test article (100%) produced grade 4 erythema in up to 6 test animals. These grades were very similar in character as those seen during the induction applications, that is, pinpoint pitting of the skin and eschar formation, very little redness. These reactions were considered to be irritation reactions, not sensitization reactions. Other reactions noted at challenge for the test animals were very slight to moderate erythema, and very slight to moderate edema. The test article (100%) produced grade 4 erythema in up to 8 naive control animals. These grades were also pinpoint pitting of skin and eschar formation with very little redness. These reactions were considered to be irritation reactions, not sensitization reactions. Other reactions noted for the naive control animals were very slight to moderate erythema and very slight to moderate edema. The reactions seen in the naive control animals at the challenge application were similar to the reactions seen for the test group animals and the test article, SY-83, was not considered to be a contact dermal sensitizer.
This information is used in a read-across approach in the assessment of the target substance. For justification of read-across please refer to the read-across report (see IUCLID section 13).
Referenceopen allclose all
Range finding trials:
Preliminary range-finding trials revealed very slight erythema and edema at the 100% concentration of the test article. No other dermal reactions were noted for the other concentrations (3, 10, and 30%). Therefore, the 100% concentration of the test article was utilised in the main study testing for contact dermal sensitisation potential.
Main study:
No mortalities occurred and all animals gained body weight. The test article (100%) produced very slight erythema at 3 sites and very slight edema at l site after the 1st induction. Erythema grades increased in severity after the 2nd induction application. One site was graded as severe erythema, however, this grade was given a 4 due to pinpoint pitting of the skin and scab formation, not for redness. Due to the increase of severity of the reactions, the concentration of the test article was reduced to 30% and the induction site was changed to the left flank. Very slight erythema was noted after the 5th induction application. Grades ranging from very slight to severe erythema were noted from the 7th to the 9th induction applications. Again, the severe (grade 4) reactions were given this grade due to pinpoint pitting of the skin and the eschar formation, not for redness. After the challenge application, the test article (100%) produced grade 4 erythema in up to 6 test animals. These gradings were very similar in character as those seen during the induction applications, that is, pinpoint pitting of the skin and eschar formation, very little redness. These reactions were considered to be irritation reactions, not sensitization reactions. Other reactions noted at challenge for the test animals were very slight to moderate erythema, and very slight to moderate edema. The test article (100%) produced grade 4 erythema in up to 8 naive control animals. These gradings were also pinpoint pitting of skin and eschar formation with very little redness. These reactions were considered to be irritation reactions, not sensitization reactions. Other reactions noted for the naive control animals were very slight to moderate erythema and very slight to moderate edema. The reactions seen in the naive control animals at challenge were similar to the reactions seen for the test group animals and the test article, SY-83, was not considered to be a contact dermal sensitizer.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Due to the rapid, enzymatically catalyzed hydrolysis of Butyl-S-lactate into n-butanol and L-lactic acid, the toxicology of Butyl-S-lactate can be understood in terms of the toxicology of n-butanol and L-lactic acid. Lactic acid is a ubiquitous and integral element of mammalian metabolism and therefore of minor toxicological relevance in comparison to n-butanol which is, as an alcohol, more important for the toxicological assessment. No study is available elucidating the skin sensitization potential of the target substance. Thus, available data from suitable read-across partners were used in a weight-of-evidence approach to assess the skin sensitizing potential of Butyl-S-lactate. The source substance L-lactic acid was tested negative for skin sensitization in a modified Buehler test. In a dermal sensitization study conducted according to OECD 429, female CBA mice were treated with concentrations of 5, 10 and 20 % n-butanol in distilled water. Based on this study, the source substance n-butanol can be considered as not skin sensitizing. Supporting data is available from the source substances propanol and ethyl lactate. In a dermal sensitization study (equivalent to OECD 406) with the source substance propanol, 15 guinea pigs of the Hartley strain were tested using the method of Magnusson and Kligman. Based on this study, the source substance propanol can be considered as not skin sensitizing. Furthermore, in a human maximization test performed the test item ethyl lactate showed no skin sensitizing potential (see IUCLID section 7.10.4)
Based on the available data from suitable read-across partners, the target substance can be considered as not skin sensitizing.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the negative results from suitable read-across partners, classification for Butyl-S-lactate for skin sensitization is not warranted.
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.