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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 200-665-9 | CAS number: 67-71-0
- 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
The EC3 of the test chemical couldnot be calculated as the mean SI value was less than 3.0.
Based on the SI values, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
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:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Justification for type of information:
- data is from peer reviewed journals
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- To evaluate the potential of the test chemical for inducing allergic contact dermatitis in mice
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Details on test animal
TEST ANIMALS
- Age at study initiation: 7-12 weeks - Vehicle:
- dimethyl sulphoxide
- Concentration:
- 25 µL of 1.0,10.0,25.0 w/v in vehicle
- No. of animals per dose:
- groups of female mice (number not specified)
- Details on study design:
- Details on study design
Pre –screen tests : No data
MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: LLNA
- Criteria used to consider a positive response:
A substance was classified as a skin sensitizer if it induced a threefold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity at one or more test concentrations when compared with concurrent vehicle-treated controls (SI≥3). Dose response data were used to measure the relative skin sensitization potency of all of the chemicals that were positive. 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 chemicals that induced an SI greater than or equal to 3 at all concentrations tested, an EC3 value was extrapolated from the two lowest doses used. For this extrapolation method to work, a dose response should be evident. The relative sensitizing potencies of the chemical allergens were categorized via a recently proposed arbitrary classification scheme.
TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION: groups of CBA female mice (7–12 weeks of age) were exposed topically on the dorsum of both ears to 25 µL of test material or to an equal volume of the relevant vehicle alone. Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days. Five days after the initiation of exposure, all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250 µL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 20 µCi of tritiated thymidine. Mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by beta scintillation counting was reported in disintegrations per minute (dpm). A stimulation index (SI) was calculated for each chemical-treated group as the ratio of the dpm of the treated group (or mean dpm when individual animals were assessed) to the dpm or mean dpm of the concurrent vehicle control group. - Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Statistics:
- no data available
- Key result
- Parameter:
- EC3
- Test group / Remarks:
- test group
- Remarks on result:
- other: Couldnot be calculated as SI values were below 3
- Remarks:
- Not sensitizing
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- The EC3 of the test chemical couldnot be calculated as the mean SI value was less than 3.0.
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
- The EC3 of the test chemical couldnot be calculated as the mean SI value was less than 3.0.
Based on the SI values, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin. - Executive summary:
The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemicalwas evaluated in a mouse local lymphnode assay(LLNA). The study was performed as per OECD 429 Guidelines. Groups of female CBA mice (7-12 weeks of age) were exposed topically on the dorsum of both ears to 25µl of the test material or to an equal volume of relevant vehicle only. Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days.Five days after the initiation of exposure, all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250 µL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 20 µCi of tritiated thymidine. Mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by beta scintillation counting was reported in disintegrations per minute (dpm). A stimulation index (SI) was calculated for each chemical-treated group as the ratio of the dpm of the treated group (or mean dpm when individual animals were assessed) to the dpm or mean dpm of the concurrent vehicle control group.The approach to estimation of the relative skin sensitization potential was based on the mathematical estimation of the concentration of chemical necessary to obtain a threshold positive response (SI = 3); this is termed as the EC3 value.A substance was classified as a skin sensitizer if it induced a threefold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity at one or more test concentrations when compared with concurrent vehicle-treated controls (SI≥3).
The EC3 of the test chemical couldnot be calculated as the mean SI value was less than 3.0.
Based on the SI values, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
Reference
Table: Chemical Structures, Molecular Weights, LLNA Data, Potency Categorizations, and Reaction Mechanistic Domains
CAS |
Vehicle |
LLNA% |
LLNA% |
LLNA% |
LLNA% |
LLNA% |
LLNA SI |
LLNA SI |
LLNA SI |
LLNA SI |
LLNA SI |
LLNA EC3 |
Relative Potency |
Reaction mechanism domain |
67-71-0 |
DMSO |
1.0 |
10.0 |
25.0 |
|
|
1.2 |
1.5 |
0.7 |
|
|
NC |
Non sensitizer |
NR |
DMSO = Dimethylsulphoxide; LLNA – Local lymph node assay (LLNA% = weight per volume concentration); EC3 – Mathematically estimated concentration of the test chemical necessary to induce a threefold stimulation index; NR= non reactive
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Various studies have been reviewed to evaluate the dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo experimental studies performed on guinea pigs, mice for the testchemical. The results are summarized below:
The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemicalwas evaluated in a mouse local lymphnode assay(LLNA). The study was performed as per OECD 429 Guidelines. Groups of female CBA mice (7-12 weeks of age) were exposed topically on the dorsum of both ears to 25µl of the test material or to an equal volume of relevant vehicle only. Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days.Five days after the initiation of exposure, all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250 µL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 20 µCi of tritiated thymidine. Mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by beta scintillation counting was reported in disintegrations per minute (dpm). A stimulation index (SI) was calculated for each chemical-treated group as the ratio of the dpm of the treated group (or mean dpm when individual animals were assessed) to the dpm or mean dpm of the concurrent vehicle control group.The approach to estimation of the relative skin sensitization potential was based on the mathematical estimation of the concentration of chemical necessary to obtain a threshold positive response (SI = 3); this is termed as the EC3 value.A substance was classified as a skin sensitizer if it induced a threefold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity at one or more test concentrations when compared with concurrent vehicle-treated controls (SI≥3).
The EC3 of the test chemical couldnot be calculated as the mean SI value was less than 3.0.
Based on the SI values, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
This is suppprted by the results of a Guinea pig maximization test performed to determine the dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical.
Dunkin Hartley albino guinea pigs were sensitized by intradermal injection of a 4% solution of the test chemical. After a rest period of 2 weeks, the animals were subjected to the challenge exposure. The challenge was completed by epicutaneous application of the test article (16%) under occlusive dressing.
The injection of the test article at 4% caused slight irritation during the induction phase. No animals showed positive reactions at the challenge.
Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not sensitizing to guinea pig skin.
These studies are further supported by the results of another guinea pig maximization test performed according to Magnusson and Kligman method to evaluate the sensitization potential of the test chemical. 10 Female albino guinea pigs of the Hartley strain were used in the study. 21 days after the initial intradermal injection (induction), 0.1 mL aliquots of various concentrations of the test substance were applied on the flank of each animal for challenge. The challenge was done by open patch test method, the chemical was left in place for 24h. For the induction phase, the undiluted DMSO was tested by intradermal injection whereas for challenge phase, the undiluted DMSO (0.1 mL aliquots) was tested by topical application. Dinitrochlorobenzene was used as positive control substance. Dermal response of each challenge site was evaluated 48 h after the challenge application.
No skin reactions were observed. Thus, from the study it can be considered that the test chemical was not sensitizing to skin.
Based on the available results, the test chemical can be considered to lack the potential to cause dermal sensitization. Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the available results, the test chemical can be considered to lack the potential to cause dermal sensitization. Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
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.