Registration Dossier

Toxicological information

Endpoint summary

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Description of key information

skin sensitization (OECD 406): not sensitizing

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Justification for type of information:
Refer to the Category Approach Justification document provided in IUCLID6 Section 13.
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
(1992)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Remarks:
(Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit)
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
Test was done before LLNA as first-choice method for in-vivo testing was set into force.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Crl: HA
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, 97633 Sulzfeld, Germany
- Age at study initiation: Approximately 6 weeks old
- Weight at study initiation: 396 - 492 g
- Housing: In groups
- Diet ad libitum: Altromin 3122 maintenance diet for guinea pigs
- Water ad libitum: tap water
- Acclimation period: at least five days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 +/- 3
- Humidity (%): 55 +/- 10
- Air changes (per hr): 10
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
other: vaseline
Concentration / amount:
intradermal induction: 2.5%
epicutaneous induction: 1.5%
No.:
#1
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: vaseline
Concentration / amount:
epicutaneous challenge: 0.5%
No. of animals per dose:
test group 10 animals; negative and positive control group 5 animals each
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A range finding test was performed with 10 animals. The concentrations used in the main experiment based on the results of this test.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 (intradermal and epicutaneous, respectively)
- Exposure period: single injection (intradermal) and 48 h (epicutaneous)
- Test groups:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: a 2.5% concentration of the test item in physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 3: a 2.5% concentration of the test item formulated in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: 1.5% in vaseline
- Negative control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: 100% physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 3: a 50% (v/v) formulation of physiological saline 0.9% NaCl in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: pure vaseline
- Positive control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: 2% mercaptobenzothiazole in cottonseed oil
Injection 3: a 50% (v/v) formulation of 2% mercaptobenzothiazole in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: 25% mercaptobenzothiazole
- Site: shoulder (intradermal + epicutaneous)
- Frequency of applications: Intradermal Day 0, epicutaneous Day 7

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day of challenge: day 20
- Exposure period: 24 hours
- Test groups: 0.5% of test item in vaseline
- Negative control group: vaseline
- Positive control group: 15% mercaptobenzothiazole
- Site: flank
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after removal of challenge patch.
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
mercaptobenzothiazole
Positive control results:
The positive control substance induced positive reactions in 5/5 animals (100%).
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
2%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
2%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
5
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
CLP: not classified
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
disregarded due to major methodological deficiencies
Reliability:
3 (not reliable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Methodological deficiencies.
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
GPMT
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
no positive or negative controls
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
Study was conducted prior to implementation of GLP.
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: albino
Sex:
male
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction: 5%
Epicutaneous induction: undiluted test material and pretreatment with SDS
No.:
#1
Route:
other: epicutaneous; no additional data
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Challenge: undiluted test material
No. of animals per dose:
10
Positive control substance(s):
no
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
neat material
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
neat material
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Justification for type of information:
Refer to the Category Approach Justification document provided in IUCLID6 Section 13.
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Crl: HA
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, 97633 Sulzfeld, Germany
- Age at study initiation: Approximately 6 weeks old
- Weight at study initiation: 396 - 492 g
- Housing: In groups
- Diet ad libitum: Altromin 3122 maintenance diet for guinea pigs
- Water ad libitum: tap water
- Acclimation period: at least five days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 +/- 3
- Humidity (%): 55 +/- 10
- Air changes (per hr): 10
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
other: vaseline
Concentration / amount:
intradermal induction: 2.5%
epicutaneous induction: 1.5%
No.:
#1
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: vaseline
Concentration / amount:
epicutaneous challenge: 0.5%
No. of animals per dose:
test group 10 animals; negative and positive control group 5 animals each
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A range finding test was performed with 10 animals. The concentrations used in the main experiment based on the results of this test.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 (intradermal and epicutaneous, respectively)
- Exposure period: single injection (intradermal) and 48 h (epicutaneous)
- Test groups:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: a 2.5% concentration of the test item in physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 3: a 2.5% concentration of the test item formulated in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: 1.5% in vaseline
- Negative control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: 100% physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 3: a 50% (v/v) formulation of physiological saline 0.9% NaCl in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: pure vaseline
- Positive control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections):
Injection 1: a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Injection 2: 2% mercaptobenzothiazole in cottonseed oil
Injection 3: a 50% (v/v) formulation of 2% mercaptobenzothiazole in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture FCA/physiological saline 0.9% NaCl
Epicutaneous: 25% mercaptobenzothiazole
- Site: shoulder (intradermal + epicutaneous)
- Frequency of applications: Intradermal Day 0, epicutaneous Day 7

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day of challenge: day 20
- Exposure period: 24 hours
- Test groups: 0.5% of test item in vaseline
- Negative control group: vaseline
- Positive control group: 15% mercaptobenzothiazole
- Site: flank
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after removal of challenge patch.
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
mercaptobenzothiazole
Positive control results:
The positive control substance induced positive reactions in 5/5 animals (100%).
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
2%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
2.5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
2%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
5
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
CLP: not classified
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vitro
Data waiving:
study scientifically not necessary / other information available
Justification for data waiving:
other:
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

No reliable data on sensitisation are available for AES (C9-11, 1-2.5 EO) Na (CAS 160901-28-0). Therefore this endpoint is covered by read-across to structurally related AES, i.e. AES (C8-10, 1-2.5 EO) Na. The AES reported within the category show similar structural, physico-chemical, environmental and toxicological properties. The approach of grouping different AES for the evaluation of their effects on human health and the environment was also made by the Danish EPA (2001) and HERA (2003), supporting the read-across approach between structurally related AES.

There is one study available addressing the skin sensitising properties of AES (C8-10, 1-2.5 EO) Na.

The skin sensitizing potential was assessed in a Guinea Pig Maximisation Test according to OECD Guideline 406 (Z&S, 2013). In this study 10 female guinea pigs were induced by intradermal and epicutaneous application of the test item at concentrations of 2.5% (intradermal induction) and 1.5% (epicutaneous induction). Challenge was performed with 0.5% test item. Vaseline was used as vehicle. The concentrations were chosen on basis of a preliminary range finding test. In the positive control group 5 of 5 animals (100%) showed a positive response at the 24 and 48 h reading. No positive response was observed in animals of the negative control and test item group at any observation time. Thus, the test item showed no sensitising potential within this study.

This lack of sensitising properties of AES is also supported by the evaluation of various AES reported in the HERA report (2003).

 

References:

Danish EPA - Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and Cosmetic Detergent Products (2001). Environmental Project No. 615, pp. 24-28

HERA (2003). Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of European household cleaning products Alcohol Ethoxysulphates, Human Health Risk Assessment Draft, 2003. http: //www. heraproject. com.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available
Additional information:

Study not required according to Annex VII-X of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

Justification for classification or non-classification

The available data on skin sensitisation do not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, and are therefore conclusive but not sufficient for classification.

No data available for respiratory sensitisation.