Custom Red #2

Skin sensitisation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

11 August - 06 September 2010

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: This study has been performed according to OECD and/or EC guidelines and according to GLP principles.

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2011

Report date:

2011

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 3

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Details on test material:

- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Custom Red #2
- Substance type: Violet powder
- Physical state: Solid
- Lot/batch No.: C50APR0805D
- Stability under storage conditions: Stable
- Storage condition of test material: At room temperature in the dark
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: 08 January 2011

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:

mouse

Strain:

other: CBA/J

Sex:

female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River France, L‟Arbresle Cedex, France.
- Age at study initiation: Young adult animals (approx. 9 weeks old)
- Weight at study initiation: Body weight variation was within +/- 20% of the sex mean.
- Housing: Individual housing in labeled Macrolon cages (MI type; height 12.5 cm) containing sterilized sawdust as bedding material (Litalabo, S.P.P.S., Argenteuil, France). Paper (Enviro-dri, Wm. Lillico & Son (Wonham Mill Ltd), Surrey, United Kingdom) was supplied as cage-enrichment. The paper was removed on Day 1 prior to dosing and was supplied again after scoring of the ears on Day 3. The acclimatization period was at least 5 days before the start of treatment under laboratory conditions.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Free access to pelleted rodent diet (SM R/M-Z from SSNIFF® Spezialdiäten GmbH, Soest, Germany).
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): Free access to tap water.
- Acclimation period: The acclimatization period was at least 5 days before the start of treatment under laboratory conditions.
- Health inspection: A health inspection was performed prior to treatment, to ensure that the animals are in a good state of health. Special attention was paid to the ears, which were intact and free from any abnormality.

Results of analysis for diet (nutrients and contaminants), sawdust, paper and water were assessed and did not reveal any findings that were considered to have affected the study integrity. All certificates and results of analysis are retained in the NOTOX archives.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20.8 - 23.1ºC
- Humidity (%): 36 - 81%
Deviations from the maximum and minimum level of relative humidity occurred. Evaluation: Laboratory historical data do not indicate an effect of the deviations.
- Air changes (per hr): approximately 15 air changes per hour- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 hours artificial fluorescent light and 12 hours darkness per day.

IN-LIFE DATES: From: 11 August - 06 September 2010

Study design: in vivo (LLNA)

Vehicle:

acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)

Concentration:

0, 5, 10, 25%

No. of animals per dose:

5

Details on study design:

The vehicle was selected based on trial formulations performed at NOTOX and on test substance data supplied by the sponsor.

RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A preliminary irritation study was conducted in order to select the highest test substance concentration to be used in the main study. In principle, this concentration should be well tolerated systemically by the animals and may give moderate irritation at the highest concentration.

Two test substance concentrations were tested; a 10% and 25% concentration. The highest concentration was the maximum concentration that could technically be applied. The test system, procedures and techniques were identical to those used during Days 1 to 3 of the main study unless otherwise specified. Two joung adult animals were selected (in the range of 8 to14 weeks old, source: Harlan, Horst, The Netherlands). Each animal was treated with one concentration on three consecutive days. Approximately 3-4 hours after the last exposure, the irritation of the ears was assessed. In order to facilitate scoring, the ears were cleaned of residual test substance with tap water. Bodyweights were determined on Day 3. The animals were sacrificed after the final observation and no necropsy was performed.

MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: Local Lymph Node Assay
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: DPM values are presented for each animal and for each dose group. A Stimulation Index (SI) is
calculated for each group. The SI is the ratio of the DPM/group compared to DPM/vehicle control group. If the results indicate a SI ≥ 3, the test substance may be regarded as a skin sensitizer, based on the test guideline and recommendations done by ICCVAM (Ref 1). The results were evaluated according to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) of the United Nations (2007) and the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures. Consideration was given to the EC3 value (the estimated test substance concentration that will give a SI =3) (Ref 2).

Ref 1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, The Murine Lymph Node Assay: A test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. Independent peer review by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), NIH publication; No 99-4494, February 1999.
Ref 2. Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Dickens A, Briggs, D, Pate I, Dearman RJ and Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999;19:261-266.

ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT
Three groups of five animals were treated with one test substance concentration per group. One group of five animals was treated with vehicle.

TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Test substance preparation: The test substance formulations (w/w) were prepared within 4 hours prior to each treatment. No adjustment was made for specific gravity of the vehicle. Homogeneity was obtained to visually acceptable levels.
Rationale for vehicle: The vehicle was selected based on trial formulations performed at NOTOX and on test substance data supplied by the sponsor.

Induction - Days 1, 2 and 3:
The dorsal surface of both ears was topically treated (25 μL/ear) with the test substance concentration, at approximately the same time on each day. The concentrations were mixed thoroughly using a vortex mixer immediately prior to dosing. The control animals were treated in the same way as the experimental animals, except that the vehicle was administered instead of the test substance.

Excision of the nodes - Day 6:
Each animal was injected via the tail vein with 0.25 mL of sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) containing 20 μCi of 3H-methyl thymidine (PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, Boston, MA, US). After approximately five hours, all animals were killed by intraperitoneal injection with Euthasol® 20% (AST Farma BV, Oudewater, The Netherlands). The draining (auricular) lymph node of each ear was excised. The relative size of the nodes (as compared to normal) was estimated by visual examination and abnormalities of the nodes and surrounding area were recorded. The nodes were pooled for each animal in approximately 3 mL PBS.

Tissue processing for radioactivity - Day 6:
A single cell suspension of lymph node cells (LNC) was prepared in PBS by gentle separation through stainless steel gauze (diameter 125 μm). LNC were washed twice with an excess of PBS by centrifugation at 200g for 10 minutes at 4ºC. To precipitate the DNA, the LNC were exposed to 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) stored in the refrigerator until the next day.

Radioactivity measurements - Day 7
Precipitates were recovered by centrifugation, resuspended in 1 mL TCA and transferred to 10 mL of Ultima Gold cocktail (PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, Boston, MA, US) as the scintillation fluid. Radioactive measurements were performed using a Packard scintillation counter (2800TR). Counting time was to a statistical precision of ± 0.2% or a maximum of 5 minutes whichever came first. The scintillation counter was programmed to automatically subtract background and convert Counts Per Minute (CPM) to Disintegrations Per Minute (DPM).

Observations:
Mortality/Viability: Twice daily.
Body weights: On Day 1 (pre-dose) and Day 6 (prior to necropsy).
Irritation: On Day 3 (3-4 hours after treatment), the skin reactions were assessed.
Skin reactions were graded according to the following numerical scoring system. Furthermore descriptions of all other (local) effects were recorded.

Grading Irritation Reactions:
Erythema and eschar formation:
0: No erythema
1: Very slight erythema (barely perceptible)
2: Well-defined erythema
3: Moderate to severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth)
4: Severe erythema (beet redness) to eschar formation preventing grading of erythema

Oedema formation:
0: No oedema
1: Slight oedema (barely perceptible)
2: Moderate oedema
3: Severe oedema

No necropsy was performed according to protocol.

Positive control substance(s):

hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)

Statistics:

Not performed.

Results and discussion

Positive control results:

The six-month reliability check with Alpha-hexylcinnamicaldehyde indicates that the Local Lymph Node Assay as performed at NOTOX is an appropriate model for testing for contact hypersensitivity. See attached document 'Reliability check'.

In vivo (LLNA)

Results

Results 1

Parameter:

SI

Remarks on result:

other: The SI values calculated for the substance concentrations 5, 10 and 25% were 0.9, 0.9 and 0.7 respectively.

Results 2

Parameter:

other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)

Remarks on result:

other: Mean DPM/animal values for the experimental groups treated with test substance concentrations 5, 10 and 25% were 632, 660 and 503 DPM respectively. The mean DPM/animal value for the vehicle control group was 717 DPM.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Tables and figures of the Pre-screen test and Main study have been included in the attached document "LLNA tables and figures".

Results Pre-screen test:

Purple staining by the test substance prevented scoring for erythema. As no signs of necrosis or oedema were present, a 25% concentration was selected as the highest concentration that could be used in the main study.

Other results - main study:

Skin reactions / Irritation: No irritation of the ears was observed in any of the animals examined. Purple staining by the test substance prevented scoring for erythema on the test substance treated animals. No oedema was observed in any of the animals examined.

Macroscopy: All auricular lymph nodes of the animals of the experimental and control groups were considered normal in size. No macroscopic abnormalities of the surrounding area were noted in any of the

animals.

Body weights: Body weights and body weight gain of experimental animals remained in the same range as controls over the study period. The slight body weight loss, noted in some animals, was considered not

toxicologically significant.

Toxicity and mortality: No mortality occurred and no symptoms of systemic toxicity were observed in the animals of the main study.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

not sensitising

Remarks:

Migrated information

Conclusions:

Since there was no indication that the test substance elicits an SI ≥ 3 when tested up to 25%, Custom Red #2 was considered not to be a skin sensitizer. It was established that the EC3 value (the estimated test substance concentration that will give a SI =3) (if any) exceeds 25%.

Based on these results Custom Red #2 is not a skin sensitizer and therefore does not have to be classified and has no obligatory labelling requirement for sensitization by skin contact according to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) of the United Nations (2007) and the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures.