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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 247-045-4 | CAS number: 25498-49-1
- 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:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2009
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: GLP-study according to OECD guideline 429.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan (Indianapolis, Indiana)
- Age at study initiation: 9-12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: ca. 22-24 g
- Housing: Animals were housed up to six per cage in filter tubs containing corncob bedding, food pellets and a water bottle. On the day the animals were euthanized and following the injection of 3H-thymidine, each treatment group of mice was housed in shoebox cages containing corncob bedding, food pellets, and a crock filled with water. The mice were euthanized five hours later.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least one week
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22
- Humidity (%): 40-70
- Air changes (per hr): 12-15
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- screening study: 1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%
final study: 5%, 25%, and 100% - No. of animals per dose:
- 6
- Details on study design:
- Screening Study: Three daily topical applications of 1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% TPGME were given to one animal at each dose level. Erythema was absent and body weights were unaffected in all dose groups. Results from this study were used to determine the dosing concentrations for TPGME in the LLNA.
LLNA: Six female mice/group received 5%, 25%, or 100% TPGME, or vehicle (4:1 AOO) or 30% α-hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA; positive control) on days 1-3. On day 6, uptake of 3H-thymidine into the auricular lymph nodes draining the site of chemical application was measured five hours post administration. Proper conduct of the LLNA was confirmed via a positive response using 30% α-hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA), a moderate contact sensitizer, which elicited proliferation that was 6.4 in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. Erythema was absent and body weights were unaffected in all dose groups. TPGME at doses of 5%, 25%, and 100% elicited proliferative responses with stimulation indices (SI) that were respectively 1.3, 0.5, and 0.7, respectively, in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. TPGME did not demonstrate dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA as the lymph nodes draining the area of topical
application did not demonstrate a 3-fold increase in proliferation when compared to vehicle-treated mice.
Concentrations tested for the irritancy screen were selected based upon maximum miscibility in an appropriate LLNA vehicle while maintaining a solution suitable for application. Toxicity data regarding irritation potential were also taken into consideration. Concentrations tested in the LLNA were based on this information and previous dermal sensitization data. TPGME was combined with vehicle (4:1 AOO) to obtain concentrations of 5%, 25%, and 100%. Solutions were prepared daily just prior to dosing.
Prior to the LLNA study, several concentrations of the test material were evaluated for irritation potential as measured by erythema of the ears. Mice (one female/concentration) received one application of TPGME (1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%), on the dorsal surface of each ear (25 µl) on three consecutive days. Erythema was evaluated on days 2, 3, and 6. All mice were weighed on days 1 and 6. Erythema scores and body weight data following test material applications were compared to the response of the animals treated with vehicle alone. Irritation to the mouse ears is only relevant in the context of the LLNA and should not be interpreted as an indication of irritation potential in humans.
LLNA: the application of the test material (25 μl/ear) was made on the dorsal surface of both ears as described above. Six female mice/group received one of three concentrations of TPGME (5%, 25%, or 100%) or vehicle (4:1 AOO) once daily for three consecutive days. HCA at 30% (v/v) in vehicle was run concurrently as a positive dermal sensitization control. Ears were inspected prior to application of the test material solutions, and erythema was evaluated on days 2, 3, and 6. All mice were weighed on days 1 and 6. On day 6, all mice received a 250 μl intravenous injection (i.v.) via the lateral tail vein containing 20 μCi of 3H-thymidine (specific activity 2Ci/mmol; Amersham code TRA310, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom) diluted in phosphatebuffered saline (PBS). Approximately five hours post administration, the mice were euthanized via CO2 asphyxiation and both auricular lymph nodes located at the bifurcation of the jugular veins were excised and placed in PBS. A single cell suspension of the auricular lymph nodes from one mouse was prepared by gentle mechanical disaggregation using a tissue homogenizer (Stomacher 80 Lab System, Seward Ltd., London, United Kingdom). The cells were washed two times and were suspended in 3 ml of 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for approximately 18-70 hours. The suspended precipitates were centrifuged (200 x g for 10 minutes) and the supernatant removed. The pellet from each mouse was reconstituted in 1 ml of 5% TCA and subsequently transferred to a scintillation vial containing 10 ml of Aquasol-2 scintillation cocktail (Packard Instrument Company, Meridan, Connecticut). Two additional 2 ml aliquots of water were used to rinse the tubes and the rinses were added to the scintillation vials containing the 1 ml of pellet in TCA and cocktail. The radioactivity in each precipitate was measured using a beta-scintillation counter and reported as disintegrations per minute (dpm) per mouse. A mean dpm value + SD (standard deviation) was calculated for each experimental group. - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Statistics:
- The SI was calculated using the absolute dpm value for each mouse as the numerator and the mean dpm value from the vehicle control mice as the denominator; the mean SI + SD was calculated for each experimental group. Any test material that produces a SI of > 3 in the LLNA should be considered “positive” for contact sensitization (Kimber et al., 1994). While the criterion for a positive response (SI > 3) was originally developed empirically, a recent robust statistical evaluation indicated that it is an acceptable practical value for hazard identification (Basketter et al., 1999a). Furthermore, by determining EC3 values (estimated concentration resulting in a 3-fold SI), one can compare relative sensitization potency of chemicals and/or formulations (Basketter et al., 1999b). While a test material that produces a SI of > 3 in the LLNA should be considered “positive” for contact sensitization (Kimber et al., 1994), recent opinions have suggested circumstances in which the LLNA result and sensitization potential should be further considered in the context of additional scientific judgment (Ryan et al., 2000; Basketter et al., 1998; Basketter et al., 2006). The EC3 value is determined by interpolating between two values one above and one below the SI value of 3 (Statistics and Calculations).
- Parameter:
- SI
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Remark
- Remarks:
- TPGME at doses of 5%, 25%, and 100% elicited proliferative responses with stimulation indices (SI) that were respectively 1.3, 0.5, and 0.7, respectively, in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. TPGME did not demonstrate dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA as the lymph nodes draining the area of topical application did not demonstrate a 3-fold proliferation when compared to vehicle-treated mice. Proper conduct of the LLNA was demonstrated via the positive response from the positive control, 30% HCA, which elicited a stimulation index (SI) that was 6.4 in comparison to vehicle-treated mice.
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: See attached table for DPM data.
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Tripropylene glycol methyl ether (TPGME) did not elicit a stimulation index (SI) that met the 3X threshold, thus indicating a lack of dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA.
- Executive summary:
The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) was conducted to assess the potential of tripropylene glycol methyl ether (TPGME) to cause contact sensitization by measuring lymphocyte proliferative responses from auricular lymph nodes following topical application of the test material to the mouse ear. Screening Study: Three daily topical applications of 1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% TPGME were given to one animal at each dose level. Erythema was absent and body weights were unaffected in all dose groups. Results from this study were used to determine the dosing concentrations for TPGME in the LLNA. LLNA: Six female mice/group received 5%, 25%, or 100% TPGME, or vehicle (4:1 AOO) or 30% α-hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA; positive control) on days 1-3. On day 6, uptake of 3Hthymidine into the auricular lymph nodes draining the site of chemical application was measured five hours post administration. Proper conduct of the LLNA was confirmed via a positive response using 30% α-hexylcinnamaldehyde (HCA), a moderate contact sensitizer, which elicited proliferation that was 6.4 in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. Erythema was absent and body weights were unaffected in all dose groups. TPGME at doses of 5%, 25%, and 100% elicited proliferative responses with stimulation indices (SI) that were respectively 1.3, 0.5, and 0.7, respectively, in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. TPGME did not demonstrate dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA as the lymph nodes draining the area of topical application did not demonstrate a 3-fold increase in proliferation when compared to vehicle-treated mice.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
TPGME at doses of 5%, 25%, and 100% elicited proliferative responses with stimulation indices (SI) that were respectively 1.3, 0.5, and 0.7, respectively, in comparison to vehicle-treated mice. TPGME did not demonstrate dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA as the lymph nodes draining the area of topical application did not demonstrate a 3-fold increase in proliferation when compared to vehicle-treated mice.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
A GLP-study according to OECD guideline 429 is available for tripropylene glycol methyl ether.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
The study was conducted according to OECD TG 429 and in accordance with the Principles of GLP.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
Based on the absence of skin sensitising potential, genotoxicity and irritancy, tripropylene glycol methyl ether is not expected to be a respiratory tract sensitizer.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
No studies on respiratory sensitization are available for tripropylene glycol methyl ether but an assessment of sensitising potential was made using the skin sensitization and genotoxicity data.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether did not demonstrate dermal sensitization potential in the mouse LLNA as the lymph nodes draining the area of topical application did not demonstrate a 3-fold increase in proliferation when compared to vehicle-treated mice. Hence, no classification for skin and respiratory sensitizer is required.
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.