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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 629-767-5 | CAS number: 1228186-18-2
- 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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 17 September to 10 November 2003
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Proprietary guideline and GLP compliant study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 004
- Report date:
- 2004
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- This is the scientific justification for performing the OECD Test No. 406 for Skin Sensitisation, i.e. the Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT), instead of1he required OECD Test No. 429, i.e. Skin Senitisation according to the Local Lymph Node Assay.
In recently published articles in peer reviewed journals. see reference list, it is clearly demonstrated that surfactants are more likely to give rise to false positives in the LLNA. Consequently, in the evaluation of such substances for sensitizing properties the LLNA test is not an appropriate assay and would not represent an optimum use of test animals. It is therefore recommended that the Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) is used instead. This is also supported by the TG OECD 406 ”In addition, test substance classes or substances containing functional groups shown to act as potential confounders (Basketter et al., 2009) may necessitate
the use of guinea pig tests".
References:
Kreiling. R .. Hollnagel, H..M ; Hareng. L.. Eigler D. .. Lee. M.S . Griem. P .. Dreesen B,
Klebcr. M ., Albrecht. A.. Garcia. C .• Wendel, A (2008) ,Comparison of the skin
sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds and assessed by the murine
local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinca pig maximization test (GPMT).
Food Chem. Toxicol. 46. 1896 – 1904
D. Basketter. N. Ball. S. Cagen,. JC Carrillo. H. Certa. D. Eigler. H. Esch. C. Garcia, C. Graham. C.Haux. R.
Kreiling. A. Mehling. (2009) Application of a weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation
datasets: Jmplications for REACH. Reg Tox Pharrn. 55:90-96.
C. Garcia. . N. Ball. S. Cagen,. JC Carrillo. H. Certa. D. Eigler. H. Esch C. Graham.. C.Haux, R. Kreiling. A.
Mehling. (2010) Comparative testing for the identification of skin sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid
surfactants. Reg Tox Pharrn 58: 301-307
Note: Ref list not complete due to lack of space.
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- N-[2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethyl]C18-unsatured-alkylamide
- EC Number:
- 629-767-5
- Cas Number:
- 1228186-18-2
- Molecular formula:
- No molecular formula
- IUPAC Name:
- N-[2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethyl]C18-unsatured-alkylamide
- Test material form:
- other: liquid
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- The animals were male and nulliparous and non-pregnant female Hartley Crl: (HA) BR guinea pigs, Caesarian obtained, Barrier sustained - Virus Antibody Free (COBS - VAF). The guinea pigs were supplied by Charles River Laboratories, France, and acclimatised for at least 5 days. The guinea pigs were weighed and randomly allocated to groups the day before study initiation. On the first day of the study, the animals in the main test were 1-2 months old and had a mean body weight ± standard deviation of 366±17 g for the males and 321±16 g for the females. Individuals were identified by ear tattoo.
The animal rooom was maintained at a temperature of 22±2°C, relative humidity 30 to 70%, 12 hour light dark cycle with approximately 12 air changes per hour. During the acclimation period and throughout the study, the animals were housed individually in polycarbonate cages with stainless steel lid (48 cm x 27 cm x 20 cm) equipped with a polypropylene bottle. Each cage contained autoclaved sawdust (SICSA, France).
106 pelleted diet (SAFE, France) and filtered drinking water were provided ad libitum.
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- other: The vehicle for intradermal injections was corn oil. For topical applications the vehicles were: induction - an 80/20 (w/w) mixture of ethanol and purified water; challenge - acetone.
- Concentration / amount:
- Preliminary test: induction intradermal injections of 25, 10, 5, 1 and 0.1 % (w/w); cutaneous induction concentrations of 100, 50, 25 and 10% (w/w); cutaneous challenge: 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 and 1% (w/w).
Main test: induction intradermal injections of 1% (w/w); cutaneous induction: 10% (w/w); cutaneous challenge 5 and 1% (w/w).
Challengeopen allclose all
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: The vehicle for intradermal injections was corn oil. For topical applications the vehicles were: induction - an 80/20 (w/w) mixture of ethanol and purified water; challenge - acetone.
- Concentration / amount:
- Preliminary test: induction intradermal injections of 25, 10, 5, 1 and 0.1 % (w/w); cutaneous induction concentrations of 100, 50, 25 and 10% (w/w); cutaneous challenge: 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 and 1% (w/w).
Main test: induction intradermal injections of 1% (w/w); cutaneous induction: 10% (w/w); cutaneous challenge 5 and 1% (w/w).
- No. of animals per dose:
- Preliminary test: 5 males and 5 females.
Main test: 10 males and 10 females in the test group; 5 males and 5 females in the control group. - Details on study design:
- Preliminary test: A preliminary test was conducted in order to determine the concentrations to be tested in the main study.
By intradermal route (tested concentrations: 25%, 10%, 5%, 1% and 0.1% (w/w)): intradermal injections of the dosage form preparations (0.1 ml) were performed in the interscapular region, local reactions were evaluated approximately 24, 48 hours and 6 days after the injections.
By cutaneous route: under the conditions of the induction phase (tested concentrations: 100%, 50%, 25% and 10% (w/w)): a filter paper (approximately 8 cm2) was fully-loaded with a dosage form preparation and was then applied to the clipped area of the skin. The filter paper was held in place by means of an occlusive dressing for 48 hours, cutaneous reactions were evaluated 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing. Under the conditions of the challenge phase (tested concentrations: 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5% and 1% (w/w)): the filter paper of a chamber (Finn Chamber) was fully-loaded with a dosage form preparation. The chamber was then applied to the clipped area of the skin (one concentration per flank). The chamber was held in place by means of an occlusive dressing for 24 hours, cutaneous reactions were evaluated 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressings.
Main test:
Intradermal route induction: On day 1, six injections were made deep into the dermis of a 4 cm x 2 cm clipped interscapular area, using a needle (diameter: 0.50 x 16 mm) mounted on a 1 ml plastic syringe (0.01 ml graduations). Three injections of 0.1 ml were made into each side of this interscapular region (i.e. three pairs of sites; Table 1). The anterior and middle pairs of injections were performed close to each other and nearest the head, while the posterior pair was performed towards the caudal part of the test area.
Cutaneous route induction: As the test item was shown to be irritant during the preliminary test, a topical application of sodium lauryl sulfate was not necessary on day 7. On day 8, a pad of filter paper (approximately 8 cm2) was fully-loaded with the test item at the concentration of 10% (w/w) and was then applied to the interscapular region of the animals of the treated group. The animals of the control group received an application of the vehicle alone under the same experimental conditions. The pad was held in place for 48 hours by means of an adhesive hypoallergenic dressing and an adhesive anallergenic waterproof plaster. On removal of the dressing (day 10), no residual test item was observed. A local irritation was recorded in all the animals of the control and treated groups.
First challenge application: On day 22, the animals of treated and control groups received an application of the test item and vehicle. The filter paper of a chamber (Finn Chamber) was fully-loaded with the test item at the concentration of 5% (w/w) and was then applied to a clipped area of the skin of the posterior right flank of all animals. The vehicle was applied under the same experimental conditions to the skin of the posterior left flank. The chambers were held in contact with the skin for 24 hours by means of an adhesive anallergenic waterproof plaster. As equivocal cutaneous reactions were noted, a second challenge application was performed after a rest period of 13 days.
Second challenge application: On day 36, the animals of treated and control groups received an application of the test item at the concentration of 1% (w/w) to the median left flank and the vehicle to the median right flank, under the same experimental conditions as for the first challenge application.
The animals were observed at least once a day to check for clinical signs and mortality. Individual body weights were recorded on the day of group allocation, the first study day (day 1), on day 25 and day 39. - Challenge controls:
- See Table 1.
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- Under our experimental conditions and according to the Magnusson and Kligman method, the test item Mercaptobenzothiazole induced positive skin sensitization reactions in 100% (10/10) guinea pigs.
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 5% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 5% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- in addition, one animal that scored negative showed 'dryness of skin'.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- Mercaptobenzothiazole 20% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- Mercaptobenzothiazole 20% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 12
- Total no. in group:
- 19
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 14
- Total no. in group:
- 19
- Clinical observations:
- In one animal scoring was masked by dryness of the skin
- Remarks on result:
- not determinable
- Remarks:
- In order to determine whether the observed cutaneous reactions are attributable to delayed contact hypersensitivity or to an irritant effect of the test item, a second challenge application was performed. For this second challenge application, the lower concentration of 1% (w/w) was chosen.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 1% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 1% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 12
- Total no. in group:
- 19
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1% (w/w)
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 19
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
Any other information on results incl. tables
Preliminary test: In order to respect the criteria for the selection of concentrations (the concentrations should be well-tolerated systemically and locally, cutaneous application for the induction should cause at most weak or moderate skin reactions or be the maximal practicable concentration, cutaneous application for the challenge phase should be the highest concentration which does not cause irritant effect), the concentration chosen for the topical application of the induction phase (day 8) was 10% (w/w). For the challenge application (day 22), it was 5% (w/w).
Main test: One animal of the treated group was found dead on day 2; no clinical signs were observed prior to death. As such spontaneous mortality is sometimes observed in this species, it was not attributed to treatment with the test item. No clinical signs and no deaths related to treatment were observed during the study. The body weight gain of the treated animals was similar to that of controls.
First challenge application: A discrete erythema (grade 1) was observed in 2/10 animals of the control group at the 48-hour reading. Dryness of the skin was recorded in 1/10 animals at the 48-hour reading. In the treated group, at the 24-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema (grade 1 or 2), together with crusts in one animal, was noted in 10/19 and 2/19 animals, respectively. At the 48-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema (grade 1 or 2) was recorded in 6/19 and 8/19 animals, respectively. Dryness of the skin, which masked the evaluation of the erythema in one animal, was observed at the 48-hour reading in 14/19 animals. Crusts in one animal and oedema in another one were also noted. In order to determine whether the observed cutaneous reactions are attributable to delayed contact hypersensitivity or to an irritant effect of the test item, a second challenge application was performed. For this second challenge application, the lower concentration of 1% (w/w) was chosen.
Second challenge application: No cutaneous reactions were recorded in the animals of the control group. In the treated group, at the 24-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema (grade 1 or 2) was observed in 11/19 and 1/19 animals, respectively. At the 48-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema (grade 1 or 2), together with an oedema and/or dryness of the skin in four animals, was noted in 6/19 and 3/19 animals, respectively. The persistent cutaneous reactions observed in 9/19 animals of the treated group after the second challenge application were attributed to delayed contact hypersensitivity.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- According to the classification criteria laid down in Council Directive 67/548/EEC (and subsequent adaptations) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labeling of dangerous substances, the test item CECABASE 280 should be classified as sensitizing to the skin and assigned the symbol Xi, the indication of danger "Irritant" and the risk phrase R 43: "May cause sensitisation by skin contact".
- Executive summary:
The potential of CECABASE 280 (CAS: 71820 -35 -4) to induce delayed contact hypersensitivity was evaluated in guinea pigs according to the maximisation method of Magnusson and Kligman.
On day 1, three pairs of intradermal injections were performed in the interscapular region of all animals: Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA) diluted to 50% (v/v) with 0.9% NaCl (both groups); test item at the concentration of 1% in corn oil (treated group) or vehicle alone (control group); test item at the concentration of 1% in a mixture FCA/0.9% NaCl (50/50, w/w) (treated group) or vehicle at the concentration of 50% (w/v) in a mixture FCA/0.9% NaCl (50/50, v/v) (control group). On day 8, the animals of the treated group received a topical application of the test item at the concentration of 10% (w/w) in ethanol/water (80/20) to the same test site, which was then covered by an occlusive dressing for 48 hours. The animals of the control group received an application of the vehicle under the same experimental conditions. On day 22, all animals of both groups were challenged by a cutaneous application of the test item at the concentration of 5% (w/w) in acetone to the right flank. The test item was maintained under an occlusive dressing for 24 hours. The vehicle was applied to the left flank under the same experimental conditions. Skin reactions were evaluated approximately 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing. As equivocal cutaneous reactions were noted after the first challenge, a second challenge application was performed on day 36. The test item at the concentration of 1% (w/w) in acetone was applied to the left flank and the vehicle to the right flank of the animals of both groups, under the same experimental conditions as for the first challenge application.
No clinical signs and no deaths related to treatment were noted during the study. After the first challenge application, a discrete erythema was observed in 2/10 animals of the control group at the 48-hour reading. Dryness of the skin was recorded in an additional animal at the 48-hour reading. In the treated group, at the 24-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema, together with crusts in one animal, was noted in 10/19 and 2/19 animals, respectively. At the 48-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema was recorded in 6/19 and 8/19 animals, respectively. Dryness of the skin, which masked the evaluation of the erythema in one animal, was observed at the 48-hour reading in 14/19 animals. Crusts in one animal and oedema in another one were also noted.
After the second challenge application, no cutaneous reactions were recorded in the animals of the control group. In the treated group, at the 24-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema was observed in 11/19 and 1/19 animals, respectively. At the 48-hour reading, a discrete or moderate erythema, together with an oedema and/or dryness of the skin in four animals, was noted in 6/19 and 3/19 animals, respectively. The persistent cutaneous reactions observed in 9/19 animals of the treated group after the second challenge application were attributed to delayed contact hypersensitivity.
Under the conditions of the study, and according to the maximisation method of Magnusson and Kligman, the test substance induced delayed contact hypersensitivity in 9/19 (47%) guinea pigs and should therefore be considered as a moderate skin sensitiser.
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.