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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 203-987-8 | CAS number: 112-58-3
- 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
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:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- June - November 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Justification for type of information:
- Study was perfomed for the notification in non-EU regions not accepting in vitro studies nor read-across data.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- July 22, 2010
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- other: CBA/CaOlaHsd
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Enviigo, 5800 AN Vebray, The Netherlands
- Females (if applicable) nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Microbiological status of animals, when known: SPF
- Age at study initiation: 8 to 9 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 17 to 19.9 g
- Housing: IVC cages, type II L, polysophone cages on Altromin saw fibre bedding
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least 5 days
- Indication of any skin lesions: no
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 +/- 3 °C
- Humidity (%): 55 +/- 10 %
- Air changes (per hr): at least 10
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light) 12/12:
- IN-LIFE DATES: From: September 19, 2018 To: September 26, 2018 - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- 25, 50, 100 %
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Positive control substance(s):
- other: Phenylendiamine in AOO
- Positive control results:
- SI = 7.2 (+/- 1.0)
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 3.5
- Variability:
- +/- 0.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25 %
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 6.4
- Variability:
- +/- 1.1
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50 %
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 6.6
- Variability:
- +/- 0.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 100 %
- Key result
- Parameter:
- EC3
- Value:
- 22.18
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION
The proliferative response of lymph node cells was expressed as the number of radioactive disintegrations per minute per lymph node (DPM/NODE) and as the ratio of 3H-methyl thymidine - incorporation into lymph node cells of test group animals relative to that recorded for control group animals (STIMULATION INDEX). Before DPM/NODE values were determined, background values were subtracted.
EC3 CALCULATION
EC3 values were determined by linear interpolation, EC3=c+[(3-d)/(b-d)]x(a-c), between two points of the stimulation indices axis, one above (a,b) and one below (c,d) the stimulation index of three [11], [12]. If all measured points are above or below the stimulation index of three, no EC3 value can be stated.
In certain situations where the dose response does not incorporate a data point lying below the SI value of three, provided the data are of good quality (relatively close to an SI of three and evidence of a dose response), an EC3 value may be estimated by using the two doses closest to the SI value of three. The EC3 value is estimated by log-linear interpolation between these two points on a plane where the x-axis represents the dose level and the y-axis represents the SI. The point with the higher SI is denoted (a,b) and the point with the lower SI is denoted (c,d). The formula for the EC3 estimate is as follows: EC3=2^{(log2(c)+(3-d)/(b-d)*[(log2(a)-log2(c)]}, by log-transforming the doses, EC3 estimates will never fall below zero.
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS:
All animals survived throughout the study period without showing any clinical signs.
BODY WEIGHTS
all animals showed expected weight development. - Interpretation of results:
- Category 1B (indication of skin sensitising potential) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- The EC3 value (estimated by linear interpolation) was calculated to be at a test item concentration of 22.18%.
- Executive summary:
The test item was assessed for sensitising properties in the LLNA at concentrations of 25% (v/v), 50% (v/v) , each diluted with AOO 4:1 (v/v) and 100% (undiluted test item). Each of the three tested concentrations exceeded the stimulation index of 3 [SI (25%) = 3.5; SI (50%) = 6.4; SI (100%) = 6.6].
The EC3 value (estimated by linear interpolation) was calculated to be at a test item concentration of 22.18%. The substance is therefore considered to be a weak sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- January - August 2019
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Justification for type of information:
- Study was perfomed for the notification in non-EU regions not accepting in vitro studies nor read-across data.
As data on structurally related substances showed no skin sensitizing effects in guinea pig tests the result of the LLNA test showing only a weak sensitising potential was questioned. Experiences with the LLNA showed some limitations in the applicability domain of some substance groups therefore it was considered possible that the LLNA is not suitable for the reliable detection of skin sensitizing properties of dialkyl ethers. Hence an additional Magnusson & Kligman sensitisation test according to OECD Guideline 429 was performed in guinea pigs. - Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- July 17, 1992
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Test was done based on an authority study request from another region.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- other: ethanol
- Concentration / amount:
- 5 %
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone
- Concentration / amount:
- 50%
- No.:
- #2
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone
- Concentration / amount:
- 50 %
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20
- Details on study design:
- according to guideline
- Challenge controls:
- undiluted negative control (acetone)
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- historical control
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 8
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 erythema reactions
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 erythema reactions
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 erythema reactions
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 erythema reactions
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- 9 Grade 1 reaction; 1 Grade 2 reactions
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 reactions
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- 3 Grade 1 reactions; 1 Grade 2 reaction
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 reaction
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 reactions
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50 % test substance
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- Grade 1 reactions
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10% in 70/30 Acetone/PEG400
- No. with + reactions:
- 17
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10% in 70/30 (v/v) Acetone/PEG 400
- No. with + reactions:
- 13
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1B (indication of skin sensitising potential) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- 8 out of 20 treated animals exhibited weak erythemal reactions 48 hours post challenge application. The substance is therefore considered to be a weak sensitizer.
- Executive summary:
A test according to the Magnusson and Kligman method was performed with the test article to investigate the sensitizing potential with female guinea pigs, strain Hartley albino. The test substance was applied as a 5% dilution in ethanol for the intracutaneous and undiluted for the epicutaneous induction. The challenge application was performed undiluted 14 days following completion of the epicutaneous induction. Concentration for the challenge was 50% in acteone. 8 out of 20 treated animals exhibited weak erythemal reactions 48 hours post challenge application. Concurrent negative controls showed no skin reaction (0/10). Each one vehicle control of the test and control groupd showed weak erythemal reactions. Following rechallenge with 50 % test substance in acetone in the treastment group 9 animals showed weak and one animal moderate erythemal reactions. In the concurrent negative control group three animals showed weak and one animal moderate erythemal reactions. For the vehicle control three animals in the treatment group and one animal in the control group showed weak erythemal reactions. The substance is therefore considered to be a weak sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: guideline study, klimisch criteria
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- 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:
- Pirbright-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- according to guideline
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- paraffin oil
- Concentration / amount:
- intracutaneous induction: 2%
epicutanous induction: 10%
challenge: 5%
rechallenge: 3% - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- paraffin oil
- Concentration / amount:
- intracutaneous induction: 2%
epicutanous induction: 10%
challenge: 5%
rechallenge: 3% - No. of animals per dose:
- 20
- Details on study design:
- according to guideline
- Positive control substance(s):
- no
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 14
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 14.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 5.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 3%
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 3%. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 3%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 3%. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Both controls and treated animals exhibited weak reactions that were attributed to irritation. Following rechallenge, no distinct dermal effects were observed.
- Executive summary:
A test according to the Magnusson and Kligman method was performed with the test article to investigate the sensitizing potential with female guinea pigs, strain Pirbright White. The test substance was applied as a 2% dilution in paraffin perliquid for the intracutaneous and as a 10% dilution for the epicutaneous induction. Concentration for the challenge was 5%. 24 hours after the removal of the challenge patches the test substance solution did not cause any dermal reactions, which could be attributed to allergic reactions. The substance is therefore not considered to be a sensitizer.
Referenceopen allclose all
POS | CPM | Test item | Animal number | DPM | DPM mean background | DPM/Node | Stimulation index |
56 |
1925.0* | Negative control | 101 | 3883.0* | n.d. | n.d. | |
57 | 263.0 | Negative control | 102 | 528.0 | 514.8 | 257.4 | |
58 | 763.0 | Negative control | 103 | 1532.0 | 1518.8 | 759.4 | |
59 | 345.0 | Negative control | 104 | 692.0 | 678.8 | 339.4 | |
60 | 576.0 | Negative control | 105 | 1162.0 | 1148.8 | 574.4 | |
MV | 486.8 | Negative control | MV | 978.5 | 965.3 | 482.7 | 1.0 |
SD | 196.5 | Negative control | SD | 395.3 | 395.3 | 197.7 | |
41 | 2011.0 | 25% test substance in AOO | 1 | 4063.0 | 4049.8 | 2024.9 | 4.2 |
42 | 2219.0 | 25% test substance in AOO | 2 | 4468.0 | 4454.8 | 2227.4 | 4.6 |
43 | 1838.0 | 25% test substance in AOO | 3 | 3691.0 | 3677.8 | 1838.9 | 3.8 |
44 | 1087.0 | 25% test substance in AOO | 4 | 2183.0 | 2169.8 | 1084.9 | 2.2 |
45 | 1176.0 | 25% test substance in AOO | 5 | 2370.0 | 2356.8 | 1178.4 | 2.4 |
MV | 1666.2 | 25% test substance in AOO | MV | 3355.0 | 3341.8 | 1670.9 | 3.5 |
SD | 453.8 | 25% test substance in AOO | SD | 916.2 | 916.2 | 458.1 | 0.9 |
46 | 2382.0 | 50 % test substance in AOO | 6 | 4788.0 | 4774.8 | 2387.4 | 4.9 |
47 | 3389.0 | 50 % test substance in AOO | 7 | 6838.0 | 6824.8 | 3412.4 | 7.1 |
48 | 3798.0 | 50 % test substance in AOO | 8 | 7646.0 | 7632.8 | 3816.4 | 7.9 |
49 | 3353.0 | 50 % test substance in AOO | 9 | 6732.0 | 6718.8 | 3359.4 | 7.0 |
50 | 2492.0 | 50 % test substance in AOO | 10 | 5065.0 | 5051.8 | 2525.9 | 5.2 |
MV | 3082.8 | 50 % test substance in AOO | MV | 6213.8 | 6200.6 | 3100.3 | 6.4 |
SD | 551.1 | 50 % test substance in AOO | SD | 1101.1 | 1101.1 | 550.5 | 1.1 |
51 | 3073.0 | 100 % test substance in AOO | 11 | 6223.0 | 6209.8 | 3104.9 | 6.4 |
52 | 3332.0 | 100 % test substance in AOO | 12 | 6728.0 | 6714.8 | 3357.4 | 7.0 |
53 | 1612.0* | 100 % test substance in AOO | 13 | 3246.0* | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
54 | 3240.0 | 100 % test substance in AOO | 14 | 6540.0 | 6526.8 | 3263.4 | 6.8 |
55 | 3088.0 | 100 % test substance in AOO | 15 | 6212.0 | 6198.8 | 3099.4 | 6.4 |
MV | 3183.3 | 100 % test substance in AOO | MV | 6425.8 | 6412.6 | 3206.3 | 6.6 |
SD | 107.9 | 100 % test substance in AOO | SD | 218.6 | 218.6 | 109.3 | 0.2 |
66 | 9.0 | Background Szinti and TCA | 18.0 | ||||
67 | 5.0 | Background Szinti and TCA | 10.0 | ||||
68 | 6.0 | Background Szinti and TCA | 10.0 | ||||
69 | 6.0 | Background Szinti and TCA | 12.0 | ||||
70 | 8.0 | Background Szinti and TCA | 16.0 | ||||
MV | 6.8 | Background Szinti and TCA | MV | 13.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
SD | 1.5 | Background Szinti and TCA | SD | 3.2 |
POS = position in counter; CPM = counts per minute; Conc. = concentration; DPM = disintegrations per minute; * = outlier, failed Grubbs, Nalimov and Dixon; n.d. = not determined; MV = mean value; SD = standard deviation; Szinti = scintillation fluid; TCA = trichloroacetic acid
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
For the assessment of the sensitising properties of dihexyl ether a local lymph node assay (LLNA) was performed according to OECD Guideline 429 at concentrations of 25% (v/v), 50% (v/v), each diluted with AOO 4:1 (v/v) and 100% (undiluted test item). For each of the three tested concentrations the stimulation index of 3 was exceeded [SI (25%) = 3.5; SI (50%) = 6.4; SI (100%) = 6.6]. The EC3 value (estimated by linear interpolation) was calculated to be at a test item concentration of 22.18%.
As data on structurally related substances showed no skin sensitizing effects in guinea pig tests the result of this test showing only a weak sensitising potential was questioned. Experiences with the LLNA showed some limitations in the applicability domain of some substance groups therefore it was considered possible that the LLNA is not suitable for the reliable detection of skin sensitizing properties of dialkyl ethers. Hence a Magnusson & Kligman sensitisation test according to OECD Guideline 406 was performed in guinea pigs.
In the maximasation test dihexyl ether was applied as a 5% dilution in ethanol for the intracutaneous and undiluted for the epicutaneous induction. The challenge application was performed undiluted 14 days following completion of the epicutaneous induction. Concentration for the challenge was 50% in acteone. 8 out of 20 treated animals exhibited weak erythemal reactions 48 hours post challenge application. Concurrent negative controls showed no skin reaction (0/10). Each one vehicle control of the test and control group showed weak erythemal reactions. Following rechallenge with 50 % test substance in acetone in the treatment group 9 animals showed weak and one animal moderate erythemal reactions. In the concurrent negative control group three animals showed weak and one animal moderate erythemal reactions. For the vehicle control three animals in the treatment group and one animal in the control group showed weak erythemal reactions.
Based on these results the substance dihexyl ether is considered to be a weak sensitizer.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Animal studies performed according to the OECD Guidelines show that dihexyl ether is a weak 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.