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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

Based on read-across within the category approach, it can be assumed that APD has no skin sensitisation potential.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in chemico
Type of information:
read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: see 'Remark'
Remarks:
GLP-guideline study, tested with the source substance 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (CAS 115-69-5). In accordance to the ECHA guidance document "Practical guide 6: How to report read-across and categories (March 2010)", the reliability was changed from RL1 to RL2 to reflect the fact that this study was conducted on a read-across substance.
Justification for type of information:
The justification for category approach/read-across has been attached in section 13 of this IUCLID. In the enclosed document arguments are given for a category approach for four 2-amino-1,3-propane-diols. These substances share a common propane backbone with an amine group at 2-carbon position and primary alcohols at 1 and 3 positions. The members of the aminopropanediol category are: 2-amino-1,3-propanediol (APD, CAS No. 534-03-2), 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propane-diol (AMPD, CAS No. 115-69-5), 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD, CAS No. 115-70-8), and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (trometamol, CAS No. 77-86-1).
Principles of method if other than guideline:
To test direct peptide reactivity which is a key pathway leading to skin sensitisation, the test substance was investigated for peptide depletion by chemical reaction. The assay method established by Natsch and Gfeller (2008) was validated and improved in the testing facility and utilised in this study.
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
other: peptide binding assay
Details on the study design:
Test system: The test system consists of a model peptide selected from an endogenous human protein expressed in skin tissue. The peptide consists of 7 amino acids and has an acetylated N-terminus. Sequence: Ac-NKKCDLF; Purity: 95.9% (HPLC-UV)
Key result
Remarks on result:
other: Under the test conditions, there is no evidence that the test substance contains direct protein reactivity which would cause skin sensitisation.

The test substance was completely soluble in acetonitrile and was not precipitated by mixing with peptide solutions. After 24 h incubation, there was no colour change or a precipitate observed from the test substance.

The test article did not have any UV absorbance at 220 nm through entire HPLC chromatography and therefore there was no interference with HPLC-UV analyses for peptides. Furthermore, the test substance did not interfere with the MS detections used in the test system that were monitoring higher than 700.0 m/z.

Using the established calibration curve, the concentrations of free peptide were calculated for each sample (Table 1). Average peptide depletion by the test substance was 4.22 ± 1.84%. Negative and positive controls resulted in 4.83 ± 1.66% and 96.13 ± 0.21% peptide depletion, respectively. These results confirmed the assay was valid. Because there was no peptide depletion by the test substance, no further analysis was performed to measure dimerized- or oxidized-peptide by the test substance.

 

Table 1: Individual data from free peptide quantitation and average peptide depletion

Group

 Replicate#

Analyte Peak Area (counts)

 Peptide conc. (mM)

Peptide depletion (%)

 Average depletion (%)

Test substance

1

15300000

98.03

1.97

4.22 ± 1.84

2

15200000

97.37

2.63

3

14700000

94.07

5.93

4

14700000

94.07

5.93

5

14900000

95.39

4.61

Negative control

1

14600000

93.40

6.60

4.83 ± 1.66

2

14900000

95.39

4.61

3

15100000

96.71

3.29

Positive control

1

1030000

3.78

96.22

96.13 ± 0.21

2

1080000

4.11

95.89

3

1020000

3.71

96.29
Interpretation of results:
other: Under the test conditions, there is no evidence that the test substance contains direct protein reactivity which would cause skin sensitisation.
Remarks:
Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
Conclusions:
Under the test conditions, there is no evidence that the test substance contains direct protein reactivity which would cause skin sensitisation.
Executive summary:

The test system consists of a model peptide selected from an endogenous human protein expressed in skin tissue. The peptide consists of 7 amino acids and has an acetylated N-terminus. Sequence: Ac-NKKCDLF; Purity: 95.9% (HPLC-UV). The test substance was completely soluble in acetonitrile and was not precipitated by mixing with peptide solutions. After 24 h incubation, there was no colour change or a precipitate observed from the test substance. The test article did not have any UV absorbance at 220 nm through entire HPLC chromatography and therefore there was no interference with HPLC-UV analyses for peptides. Furthermore, the test substance did not interfere with the MS detections used in the test system that were monitoring higher than 700.0 m/z.

Using the established calibration curve, the concentrations of free peptide were calculated for each sample (Table 1). Average peptide depletion by the test substance was 4.22 ± 1.84%. Negative and positive controls resulted in 4.83 ± 1.66% and 96.13 ± 0.21% peptide depletion, respectively. These results confirmed the assay was valid. Because there was no peptide depletion by the test substance, no further analysis was performed to measure dimerized- or oxidized-peptide by the test substance.

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
30 Mar - 10 Sep 1981
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
Justification for type of information:
The justification for category approach/read-across has been attached in section 13 of this IUCLID. In the enclosed document arguments are given for a category approach for four 2-amino-1,3-propane-diols. These substances share a common propane backbone with an amine group at 2-carbon position and primary alcohols at 1 and 3 positions. The members of the aminopropanediol category are: 2-amino-1,3-propanediol (APD, CAS No. 534-03-2), 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propane-diol (AMPD, CAS No. 115-69-5), 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD, CAS No. 115-70-8), and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (trometamol, CAS No. 77-86-1).
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
-limited documentation
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
Buehler test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The Buehler test was already conducted before the LLNA test became available.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Hartley
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Murphy Breeding Laboratories, Inc., Plainfield, Illinois, USA
- Age at study initiation: at least 4 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: at least 200 g
- Housing: 5 per cage
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Purina Guinea Pig Chow #5026, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least one week
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: water and saline
Concentration / amount:
induction:
group I (treatment group): 0.5 mL of a 0.5% aqueous solution of AEPD (first 5 applications); 0.5 mL of a 0.05% aqueous solution of AEPD (last 5 applications)
group IV (positive control group): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group V, VII, VIII (negative control groups): 0.5 mL of saline

challenge:
group I (treatment group): 0.5 mL of a 0.05% and a 1% aqueous solution of AEPD
group V (negative control group for AEPD): 0.5 mL of a 0.05% and a 1% aqueous solution of AEPD
group IV (positive control): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in acetone instead of alcohol)
group VIII (negative control group for DNCB): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in acetone instead of alcohol)
group VII (negative control): 0.5 mL of saline
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: water and saline
Concentration / amount:
induction:
group I (treatment group): 0.5 mL of a 0.5% aqueous solution of AEPD (first 5 applications); 0.5 mL of a 0.05% aqueous solution of AEPD (last 5 applications)
group IV (positive control group): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group V, VII, VIII (negative control groups): 0.5 mL of saline

challenge:
group I (treatment group): 0.5 mL of a 0.05% and a 1% aqueous solution of AEPD
group V (negative control group for AEPD): 0.5 mL of a 0.05% and a 1% aqueous solution of AEPD
group IV (positive control): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in acetone instead of alcohol)
group VIII (negative control group for DNCB): 0.5 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in acetone instead of alcohol)
group VII (negative control): 0.5 mL of saline
No. of animals per dose:
50 (10 per group)
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
The test material was topically applied, at different concentrations on the skin of a guinea pig according to the occlusive patch technique for 24 h. After 24 h, the patches were removed and the skine sites were examined for irritation. The concentration of the test material which produces minimal irritation will be used for the test.
In the initial test, all animals in the test and the negative controls developed skin rashes and the skin sensitisation reactions could not to be evaluated. Therefore the test was repeated with a new batch of animals.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 10
- Exposure period: ca. 3 weeks
- Test groups: epicutaneous; 0.5 mL aqueous solution of AEPD
- Control group: 0.5 mL saline
- Site: the animals´ backs and flanks
- Frequency of applications: 2 to 3 times a week
- Duration: 24 h
- Concentrations: 0.5% (the first 5 applications) and 0.05% (the last 5 applications) solution of AEPD

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 1 day (24 h)
- Exposure period: 1 day
- Test groups: 0.5 mL of aqueous solution of AEPD
- Control group: 0.5 mL of aqueous solution of AEPD
- Site: the animals´ backs and flanks
- Concentrations: 0.05 and 1% solution of AEPD
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h

OTHER:
Induction period:
After 24 h exposure the patches were removed, the treated skin sites cleaned and scored at 24 and 48 h for erythema and edema according to Draize.
At 48 h the topical application procedure was repeated with each group of animals two to three times a week until a total of 10 applications have been made. After the last application, the animals were allowed to rest for two weeks.
Challenge:
After 24 h exposure, the patches were removed and the skin sites cleaned. The challenge sites were depilated with Nair (a hair removal product with the active ingredients: calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide). 3 h after removal of the hair, the challenge sites were scored for inflammatory skin reactions (erythema and edema) according to Draize. Theses sites were scored again at 48 h.

Challenge controls:
Negative controls:
group VII: true negative control group
group V: negative control group for AEPD
group VIII: negative control group for DNCB
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
induction: 0.3% solution of dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) in alcohol:saline (20:80); challenge: 0.3% solution of dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) in acetone instead of alcohol
Positive control results:
Positive control responded as expected with a clear sensitising response at 24 h (8 of 10 animals) and 48 hours (8 of 10 animals).
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
4
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
8
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 8.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
8
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 8.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
other: negative control for AEPD
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
6
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 6.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
other: negative control for AEPD
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
6
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 6.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
other: negative control for AEPD
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
8
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 8.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
other: negative control for AEPD
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
6
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 6.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
other: negative control for DNCB
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: negative control for DNCB. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
other: negative control for DNCB
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: negative control for DNCB. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 5.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
saline
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: saline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
saline
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: saline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.

During the induction period (initial ten applications) some of the animals in the test group showed mild erythema when treated with 0.5% solution of P-1050, so the last 5 applications were made with 0.05% solution. The animals in the positive control group showed mild skin reactions during the entire induction period.

Interpretation of results:
ambiguous
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
10 Mar - 16 Apr 1980
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
Justification for type of information:
The justification for category approach/read-across has been attached in section 13 of this IUCLID. In the enclosed document arguments are given for a category approach for four 2-amino-1,3-propane-diols. These substances share a common propane backbone with an amine group at 2-carbon position and primary alcohols at 1 and 3 positions. The members of the aminopropanediol category are: 2-amino-1,3-propanediol (APD, CAS No. 534-03-2), 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propane-diol (AMPD, CAS No. 115-69-5), 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD, CAS No. 115-70-8), and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (trometamol, CAS No. 77-86-1).
Qualifier:
no guideline followed
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Guinea pigs were injected into dermis with test substance or positive/negative control substance every 48 h for totally 10 applications. The animals were challenged at 2 weeks after final injection with injection of test material at a virgin site. Scores for erythema and edema were evaluated at 24 and 48 h post challenge to assess sensitising response.
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
intracutaneous test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The study was already conducted before the LLNA test became available.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Hartley
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Weight at study initiation: 250 - 300 g
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
induction:
group XIV (treatment group): 0.05 mL of a 1% solution of AEPD in saline (first 5 injections); 0.05 mL of a 0.05% solution of AEPD in saline (last 5 injections)
group V (positive control group): 0.05 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group XVI, XVII (negative control groups): 0.05 mL of saline

challenge:
group XIV (treatment group): 0.1 mL of a 0.05% and 0.01% solution of AEPD in saline
group XVII (negative control for AEPD): 0.1 mL of a 0.05% and 0.01% solution of AEPD in saline
group V (positive control): 0.1 mL of a 0.03% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of acetone instead of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group XVI: (negative control DNBC): 0.1 mL of a 0.03% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of acetone instead of alcohol and made to volume with saline)

Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
induction:
group XIV (treatment group): 0.05 mL of a 1% solution of AEPD in saline (first 5 injections); 0.05 mL of a 0.05% solution of AEPD in saline (last 5 injections)
group V (positive control group): 0.05 mL of 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group XVI, XVII (negative control groups): 0.05 mL of saline

challenge:
group XIV (treatment group): 0.1 mL of a 0.05% and 0.01% solution of AEPD in saline
group XVII (negative control for AEPD): 0.1 mL of a 0.05% and 0.01% solution of AEPD in saline
group V (positive control): 0.1 mL of a 0.03% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of acetone instead of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
group XVI: (negative control DNBC): 0.1 mL of a 0.03% dinitrochlorobenzene solution (DNCB, solubilised in a minimum volume of acetone instead of alcohol and made to volume with saline)

No. of animals per dose:
10 per group
Details on study design:
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 10
- Exposure period: ca. 3 weeks
- Test groups: 10 injections with AEPD
- Control group: 10 injections with saline
- Site: the animals´ backs and flanks
- Frequency of applications: 2 to 3 times a week
- Concentrations: 1% (the first 5 injections) and 0.05% (the last 5 injections) solution of AEPD

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 1 day (24 h)
- Exposure period: 1 day
- Test groups: injection with AEPD
- Control group: injection with AEPD
- Site: the animals´ backs and flanks
- Concentrations: 0.05 and 0.01% solution of AEPD
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h

OTHER:
Induction period:
After 24 and 48 h, the injected sites were scored for erythema and edema according to Draize. At 48 h, the intradermal injection procedure was repeated for each group with 0.1 mL of each solution 2 or 3 times a week until a total of 10 injections have been made. Thereafter the animals were allowed to rest for two weeks.
Challenge:
24 h after the challenge injection, the injected sites were depilated with Nair (a hair removal product with the active ingredients: calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide). 3 h after removal of the hair, the injected sites were scored for inflammatory skin reactions (erythema and edema) according to Draize. Theses sites were scored again at 48 h.

Challenge controls:
Negative controls:
group XVI: negative control group for DNCB
group XVII: negative control group for APED
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
induction: dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) 0.3% solution (solubilised in minium volume of alcohol and made to volume with saline); challenge: 0.03% DNCB (solubilised in minimum volume of acetone instead of alcohol and made to volume with saline)
Positive control results:
DNCB gave an expected positive response scored at 24 h (10 of 10 animals) and at 48 h (9 of 10 animals).
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.01%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.01%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.01%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
0.3%
No. with + reactions:
9
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 0.3%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0.05%
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: negative control for AEPD. Dose level: 0.05%. No with. + reactions: 10.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0.01%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0.01%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
other: negative control for DNCB
Dose level:
0.03%
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: negative control for DNCB. Dose level: 0.03%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
other: negative control for DNCB
Dose level:
0.03%
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: negative control for DNCB. Dose level: 0.03%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.

During the induction phase the guinea pigs in the test group showed some skin reactions with AEPD (P-1050). The first five injections

were made with 1% solution and the last five injections were made with 0.05% solution.

None of the negative control animals showed any skin reactions. The positive control animals showed mild to necrotic skin reactions during the entire induction period.

Interpretation of results:
ambiguous
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

There are no data available on skin sensitisation of 2-amino-1,3-propanediol (APD). However, there are reliable data for another member of the chemical category APD belongs to.Therefore, read-across was performed based on a category approach.Within this chemical category, the members are APD, 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (AMPD) and 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (AEPD), collectively called aminopropanediols. All the members contain a propane backbone carrying the same functional groups, one primary amine group and two hydroxyl groups, at the same position. The three category members differ only in the length of the alkyl side chain, which contains 0, 1 or 2 carbon atoms for APD, AMPD and AEPD, respectively.The modelling of potential metabolites via the OECD QSAR toolbox v.2.0 (2010) did not predict relevant metabolites of the category members. Based on the chemical structure of the parental compounds, no metabolism is expected. Therefore, it can be assumed that aminopropandiols will not show reactive properties under in vitro and in vivo test conditions.

Furthermore, the results of the acute studies as well as the repeated dose studies indicate that the main cause of toxicity was mainly governed by the intrinsic alkalinity of the category members at the site of contact. By modelling interactions of the category members with skin proteins, no structural alerts were found. Therefore, no interactions of AEPD with skin proteins are expected and the read-across between the category members based on molecular similarity and absence of suspicious substructures is justified for the endpoint skin sensitisation.In conclusion, as APD, AEPD and AMPD were shown to form a robust chemical category, it is considered appropriate to read-across from AMPD (CAS 115-69-5) and AEPD (CAS 115-70-8) to APD.

There are two skin sensitisation studies available for AEPD. The first skin sensitisation study was conducted similar to OECD 406 (Parekh, 1982). The Buehler´s procedure was used to test sensitisation potential of AEPD via the topical route. During the induction period some of the guinea pigs in the test group showed mild erythema when treated with 0.5% solution of AEPD (first 5 applications), so the last 5 applications were made with 0.05% solution. The animals in the positive control group showed mild skin reactions during the entire induction period. When challenged with 0.05% AEPD, one animal in the test group showed skin reactions at 48 h and 6 animals in the negative control group at 24 h as well as at 48 h. A solution of 1% APED led to skin reactions in more animals of the negative control group (8/10) than of the test group (4/10) at the 24 h scoring. Also at the second reading, more animals of the negative control group (6/10) than of the test group (1/10) showed skin reactions. At challenge with 0.3% dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) solution, the positive control gave a valid response. Because more animals of the negative control group of AEPD than of the test group showed skin reactions at challenge, therefore it is not possible to judge the skin sensitisation potential of AEPD based on this study only. In the skin sensitisation study of Parekh (1982) no data on the pH value is given but from skin irritation studies (Parekh, 1982), it is known that the pH value in a 1% solution of AEPD was 11.18 and at undiluted was 11.78. Therefore, due to the alkaline pH value, it is likely that the skin reactions observed in the present study could be attributed to irritation rather than sensitisation. In the second study, the skin sensitisation potential of AEPD was tested via the intradermal route (Parekh, 1982). During the induction phase the guinea pigs in the test group showed some skin reactions with AEPD. The first 5 injections were made with 1% solution and the last 5 injections were made with 0.05% solution. None of the negative control animals showed any skin reactions. The positive control animals showed mild to necrotic skin reactions during the entire induction period. At challenge with 0.05% AEPD, all animals in the test group (10/10) and in the negative control group (10/10) showed skin reactions, but none of the animals in either group showed skin reactions with 0.01% solution. The DNCB (0.03%) eluted positive skin reactions in the positive control group and in some animals in the negative control group.

In conclusion, it is not possible to distinguish between a skin reaction caused by irritation or a skin reaction due to sensitisation. Therefore, the skin sensitisation potential of AEPD can not be judged based on this study only. There are reliable data for AMPD. To assess the skin sensitisation potential of AMPD, an in vitro assay method established by Natsch and Gfeller (2008) and modified by Jeong (2011) was used to determine the direct peptide reactivity, which is a key pathway leading to skin sensitisation. In this assay, a standard peptide consisting of one cysteine, two lysines and 4 other amino acids was incubated with the test substance in neutral pH condition to test for peptide depletion by chemical reactions (Jeong, 2011). After 24 h incubation, the test substance showed no peptide depletion similar to negative control, while the positive control depleted most of free peptides. Under the in vitro test conditions, there was no evidence that the test substance exhibits direct protein reactivity which would cause skin sensitisation.

 

Human data

Human data on skin sensitisation are available for AEPD. In a human skin sensitisation study, dermatitis patients with present or past occupational exposure to water-based metalworking fluids (MWF) were patch tested with 13 – so far untested – MWF components including AEPD. Only 1 of 160 patients reacted positively to AEPD. This patient did not react to other MWF components, in particular not to monoethanolamine and diethanolamine. Hence, no clinical relevance of the positive test reaction to AEPD could be found. However, not all the MWFs previously used by this patient could be identified. Therefore, previous occupational exposure and relevance could be regarded as possible. The lack of positive test reactions to AEPD may be due to its low sensitising potential or to a relatively low patch test concentration (1% aq.).

In order to assess skin sensitisation a weight of evidence approach using all available data is applied. Two skin sensitisation studies are available in guinea pigs using the analogue substance AEPD. However, due to the outcome of both studies, it was not possible to distinguish between a skin reaction caused by irritation and a skin reaction based on skin sensitisation. Also human data on skin sensitisation are available for AEPD. The human data showed no clinical relevance of a positive test reaction to AEPD. In addition, the skin sensitisation potential of AMPD was investigated in an in vitro assay, determining the direct peptide reactivity, which is a key pathway leading to skin sensitisation. This assay performed with AMPD resulted in a negative result and was found to be valid. By modelling interactions of APD, AEPD and APD with skin proteins, no structural alerts were detected. Taking into account all available data on skin sensitisation, APD is considered to have no skin sensitisation potential.

Based on read-across within the category approach, it can be assumed that APD has no skin sensitisation potential.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on read-across within the chemical category, it is expected that APD has no skin sensitisation potential. The available data on skin sensitisation do not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 or Directive 67/548/EEC, and are therefore conclusive but not sufficient for classification.