Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Endpoint:
eye irritation, other
Type of information:
(Q)SAR
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
03 Oct 2017
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model and falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
Justification for type of information:
The (Q)SARs models used in this assessment have been evaluated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the scientific validity of each software established according to five principles recommended by OECD and ECHA for regulatory purposes (Annex XI of the REACH).
At present, a summary of appropriate information on the (Q)SAR models, based on the topics listed below, is not available in a specific reporting format.
• • Endpoint, algorithm
• • Domain of applicability
• • Measures related to goodness-of-fit
• • Robustness
• • Predictivity and mechanism

However, the adequacy and reliability of each (Q)SAR prediction was checked for each endpoint following the procedures outlined in REACH Annex XI (1.3) in terms of suitability of the model (reliability, relevance for the purpose), applicability of the model to the substance of interest and adequacy of the predicted endpoint for classification and labelling.

See attached justification for further information.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
other company data
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2017
Report Date:
2017

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
no guideline required
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Valid (Q)SAR models used - no guideline applicable
GLP compliance:
no

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent
Test material form:
other: In SIlico
Details on test material:
In silico test item
Specific details on test material used for the study:
In-Silico, test material specifics not applicable

Test animals / tissue source

Species:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no tissue dependance
Strain:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only
Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only

Test system

Vehicle:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only
Controls:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only
Amount / concentration applied:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no concentration dependance
Duration of treatment / exposure:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no time dependance
Observation period (in vivo):
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no time dependance
Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no time dependance
Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results
Irritation parameter:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only
Basis:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only
Time point:
other: Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, no time dependance
Reversibility:
not specified
Remarks:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only, reversibility not calculable
Remarks on result:
not determinable
Remarks:
Not Applicable (Q)SAR - structural analysis only. Results were either Negative or inconclusive. Therefore insufficient evidence to classify.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Remarks:
It was concluded based on the weight of evidence that it is not possible to classify the substance of interest for eye irritation/ corrosion.
Conclusions:
No eye irritation data was found in both in-house or external databases for the target and source molecules, although the HSDB database -occupational hazards- reports possible contact burns to the skin, related to the use of 1-nitronapthalene.

This substance is used in the industry as a corrosion inhibitor, which suggests an extreme acidity profile contrary to that determined experimentally for the target substance (pH = 5.7). Therefore, it is not appropriate to use pH as the sole criterion for read-across analyses. Consequently, decision logic relied on the following aspects was applied to support the classification of this endpoint: i) the target substance is not corrosive (measured pH of 5.8); ii) no eye irritation data from animal studies are available for the target or source molecules, and iii) the (Q)SAR predictions did not provide sufficient basis for the presence of irritating potential.
Overall, it was concluded based on the weight of evidence that it is not possible to classify the substance of interest for eye irritation/ corrosion.
Executive summary:

No eye irritation data was found in both in-house or external databases for the target and source molecules, although the HSDB database -occupational hazards- reports possible contact burns to the skin, related to the use of 1-nitronapthalene.

This substance is used in the industry as a corrosion inhibitor, which suggests an extreme acidity profile contrary to that determined experimentally for the target substance (pH = 5.7). Therefore, it is not appropriate to use pH as the sole criterion for read-across analyses. Consequently, decision logic relied on the following aspects was applied to support the classification of this endpoint: i) the target substance is not corrosive (measured pH of 5.8); ii) no eye irritation data from animal studies are available for the target or source molecules, and iii) the (Q)SAR predictions did not provide sufficient basis for the presence of irritating potential.

Overall, it was concluded based on the weight of evidence that it is not possible to classify the substance of interest for eye irritation/ corrosion.