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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 237-415-3 | CAS number: 13776-88-0
- 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
One study is available for the substance to be registered. This study has been performed in accordance with a suitable guideline (OECD 406) and under the conditions of GLP.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Remarks:
- Study was performed before Annex VII of the REACH Regulation was updated in 2016.
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 15 May - 03 Jul 2014
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- 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:
- Aluminium metaphosphate is an inorganic salt of the metal aluminium and metaphosphate (condensed orthophosphate). The water solubility of aluminium metaphosphate is low (31.5 mg/L at pH 7). Dermal absorption is therefore anticipated to be low (ECHA Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.7c: Endpoint specific guidance. Version 2.0, November 2014). Based on the identity/chemical structure and physicochemical properties, testing for skin sensitisation by means of a Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD 429) is considered to be inappropriate, as it may underestimate the skin sensitising potential of the test substance, leading to a false negative result, due to a low dermal absorption and hence low exposure. For this reason, the Guinea Pig Maximization Test, which involves intradermal injection of the test substance for induction thus ensuring exposure beneath the skin surface, is considered to be the most appropriate method for assessing the skin sensitising potential of this particular substance.
The skin sensitising potential of aluminium metaphosphate was therefore evaluated in a Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) conducted in accordance with OECD Guideline 406 and GLP (Grümmer, 2014). - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, Germany
- Age at study initiation: 4-6 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 312.6-398.6 g
- Housing: in groups of up to ten
- Diet: commercial feeding mixture (Mühle Knull, Rostock, Germany), ad libitum
- Water: tap water (drinking quality, supplemented with 1 g/L vitamin C), ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least 5 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20 ± 3
- Humidity (%): 30-70
- Air changes (per hr): 16
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 - Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Remarks:
- moistened with distilled water for topical applications
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal induction: 2.5% suspension in distilled water
Epicutaneous induction: 100% (moistened with distilled water)
Epicutaneous challenge: 100% (moistened with distilled water) - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Remarks:
- moistened with distilled water for topical applications
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal induction: 2.5% suspension in distilled water
Epicutaneous induction: 100% (moistened with distilled water)
Epicutaneous challenge: 100% (moistened with distilled water) - No. of animals per dose:
- 5 (control group) and 10 (test group)
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: The appropriate concentrations of the test material and the appropriate vehicle for the intradermal induction phase, topical induction phase and challenge phase were determined on additional 6 FCA (Freund’s Complete Adjuvant) treated animals.
The irritation response to intradermal injections of various concentrations of the test substance was examined in three guinea pigs. An area of the flanks was clipped free from hair with electric clippers. Amounts of 0.1 mL of selected test concentrations (5, 2.5, 1 and 0.5% suspensions of the test material in distilled water) were applied by intradermal injection.
24 and 48 h after injection, the animals were examined for signs of irritation according to the Magnusson and Kligman Grading Scale.
The concentration of 2.5% of the test material in distilled water (suspension) was systemically well-tolerated and caused a mild-moderate skin irritation. Therefore, this concentration was used for the main test (intradermal induction phase).
The irritation response to topical treatment of various concentrations of the test substance was examined in three further guinea pigs. The flanks of the animals were clipped. Filter paper fully-loaded with the test substance (100, 50 and 25 in distilled water) was attached to the skin of the guinea pigs and held in contact by an occlusive dressing for 24 h.
The animals were observed and examined for signs of irritation according to the Magnusson and Kligman Grading Scale approximately 24 and 48 h after removing the test material.
The concentration of 100% of test material moistened with distilled water was systemically well-tolerated and did not cause skin irritation. Therefore, this concentration was used for the main test (topical induction phase).
Because the test material was non-irritating, the skin of the test animals was pre-treated with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate in vaseline for 24 h.
For the challenge phase, a concentration of 100% of the test material moistened with distilled water was used. This concentration was systemically well-tolerated and did not cause skin irritation.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 (intradermal and epicutaneous, respectively)
- Exposure period: single injection (intradermal) and 48 h (epicutaneous)
- Test groups:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections 0.1 mL):
Injection 1: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Injection 2: test substance
Injection 3: test substance in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Epicutaneous: test substance moistened with distilled water
- Control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections, each 0.1 mL):
Injection 1: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Injection 2: water
Injection 3: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Epicutaneous: water
- Site: anterior dorsal region of the thorax
- Frequency of applications: single
- Duration: Days 0-8 (on Day 6, one day prior to epicutaneous induction, the clipped skin of all animals in each group was treated with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate in vaseline)
- Concentrations: 2.5% suspension in distilled water (intradermal) and 100% moistened with distilled water (epicutaneous)
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 20
- Exposure period: 24 h
- Test groups: test substance
- Control group: test substance
- Site: flanks
- Concentrations: 100% moistened with distilled water
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 48 and 72 h - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0, routinely evaluated every 6 months)
- Positive control results:
- Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde induced skin sensitisation reactions in 90% of the treated animals after challenge (intradermal induction: 5% in paraffin oil; topical induction: 75% in vaseline; challenge: 55% in vaseline).
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- induction (intradermal): 2.5%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%
- 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: induction (intradermal): 2.5%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- induction (intradermal): 2.5%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%
- 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: induction (intradermal): 2.5%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- The test material did not induce any skin reactions in intradermally and topically induced guinea pigs after challenge treatment. Therefore, the material does not fulfil the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and is thus considered to be not skin sensitising.
Reference
Animal weights
Table 3: Individual animal weights (g) at start / test end (test group)
Animal |
Test start |
Test end |
Body weight change |
1 |
391.7 |
464.9 |
73.2 |
2 |
348.4 |
448.9 |
100.5 |
3 |
398.6 |
531.7 |
133.1 |
4 |
376.0 |
479.1 |
103.1 |
5 |
357.8 |
464.8 |
107.0 |
6 |
387.6 |
455.5 |
67.9 |
7 |
393.4 |
491.3 |
97.9 |
8 |
375.8 |
455.4 |
79.6 |
9 |
356.1 |
446.1 |
90.0 |
10 |
377.3 |
494.3 |
117.0 |
Individual weight of control group
Table 4: Individual animal weights (g) at test start and at test end (control group)
Animal |
Test start |
Test end |
Body weight change |
K1 |
379.9 |
456.5 |
76.6 |
K2 |
358.1 |
446.8 |
88.7 |
K3 |
332.3 |
454.7 |
122.4 |
K4 |
324.0 |
420.2 |
96.2 |
K5 |
312.6 |
395.8 |
83.2 |
Table 5: Skin reactions of test animals after treatment with the test material
Animal |
Numerical grading after |
|
24 h |
48 h |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
Table 6: Skin reactions of control animals after treatment with the test material
Animal |
Numerical grading after |
|
24h |
48h |
|
K1 |
0 |
0 |
K2 |
0 |
0 |
K3 |
0 |
0 |
K4 |
0 |
0 |
K5 |
0 |
0 |
Table 7: Skin reactions of animals after challenge treatment with HCA 55 % in vaseline
Animal |
Numerical grading after |
|
24 h |
48 h |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1-2 |
1-2 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
1-2 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
1-2 |
1-2 |
8 |
0-1 |
1 |
9 |
1-2 |
1 |
10 |
1 |
1 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
In accordance with Annex VII, Section 8.3, Column 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the first-choice method for in vivo testing of skin sensitisation. Only in exceptional circumstances should another test be used. Justification for the use of another test shall be provided.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of OECD Guideline 429 (as adopted on 22 July 2010) read as follows:
“4. The LLNA provides an alternative method for identifying potential skin sensitizing test substances. This does not necessarily imply that in all instances the LLNA should be used in place of guinea pig tests (i.e. TG 406) […], but rather that the assay is of equal merit and may be employed as an alternative in which positive and negative results generally no longer require further confirmation. The testing laboratory should consider all available information on the test substance prior to conducting the study. Such information will include the identity and chemical structure of the test substance; its physicochemical properties; the results of any other in vitro or in vivo toxicity tests on the test substance and toxicological data on structurally related test substances. This information should be considered in order to determine whether the LLNA is appropriate for the test substance (given the incompatibility of limited types of test substances with the LLNA- see paragraph 5) and to aid in dose selection.
5. The LLNA is an in vivo method and, as a consequence, will not eliminate the use of animals in the assessment of allergic contact sensitizing activity. It has, however, the potential to reduce the number of animals required for this purpose. Moreover, the LLNA offers a substantial refinement (less pain and distress) of the way in which animals are used for allergic contact sensitization testing. The LLNA is based upon consideration of immunological events stimulated by chemicals during the induction phase of sensitization. Unlike guinea pig tests (i.e. TG 406) […] the LLNA does not require that challenge-induced dermal hypersensitivity reactions be elicited. Furthermore, the LLNA does not require the use of an adjuvant, as is the case for the guinea pig maximisation test […]. Thus, the LLNA reduces animal pain and distress. Despite the advantages of the LLNA over TG 406, it should be recognised that there are certain limitations that may necessitate the use of TG 406 […] (e.g. false negative findings in the LLNA with certain metals, false positive findings with certain skin irritants [such as some surfactant type chemicals] […], or solubility of the test substance). In addition, test substance classes or substances containing functional groups shown to act as potential confounders […] may necessitate the use of guinea pig tests (i.e. TG 406) […]. Further, based on the limited validation database, which consisted primarily of pesticide formulations, the LLNA is more likely than the guinea pig test to yield a positive result for these types of test substances […]. However, when testing formulations, one could consider including similar test substances with known results as benchmark test substances to demonstrate that the LLNA is functioning properly […]. Other than such identified limitations, the LLNA should be applicable for testing any test substances unless there are properties associated with these test substances that may interfere with the accuracy of the LLNA.”
Aluminium metaphosphate is an inorganic salt of the metal aluminium and metaphosphate (condensed orthophosphate). The water solubility of aluminium metaphosphate is low (31.5 mg/L at pH 7). Dermal absorption is therefore anticipated to be low (ECHA Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.7c: Endpoint specific guidance. Version 2.0, November 2014). Based on the identity/chemical structure and physicochemical properties, testing for skin sensitisation by means of a Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD 429) is considered to be inappropriate, as it may underestimate the skin sensitising potential of the test substance, leading to a false negative result, due to a low dermal absorption and hence low exposure. For this reason, the Guinea Pig Maximization Test, which involves intradermal injection of the test substance for induction thus ensuring exposure beneath the skin surface, is considered to be the most appropriate method for assessing the skin sensitising potential of this particular substance.
The skin sensitising potential of aluminium metaphosphate was evaluated in a Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) conducted in accordance with OECD Guideline 406 and GLP (Grümmer, 2014). Preliminary tests were conducted to determine the test substance concentrations for intradermal and epicutaneous applications in the main study. Test animals (10 female Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs) were intradermally induced with the test substance as a 2.5% suspension in water (Day 0), and topically induced with the test substance at 100% moistened with water (Day 7) for 48 h. Control animals (5 females) were treated similarly with distilled water. Control and test animals were challenged by topical application of the test substance at 100% moistened in water (Day 20) for 24 h. For topical induction and challenge applications, the skin of the test animals was pre-treated with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate in vaseline for 24 h, respectively. Skin reactions were examined and evaluated 24 and 48 h after challenge patch removal (i.e. 48 and 72 h after challenge application). No skin reactions were noted at the challenge sites of the control and test animals at the observation time points. Hence, the test material did not induce any skin reactions in intradermally and topically induced guinea pigs after challenge treatment.
Therefore, the test material does not fulfil the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and is thus considered to be not skin sensitising.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Skin sensitisation: not sensitising (OECD 406 (GPMT), GLP)
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Only one study available (OECD Guideline and GLP)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
This information is not available.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Respiratory sensitisation: no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
The available data indicate that the substance does not meet the classification criteria in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
CLP
Skin sensitisation: not classified
Respiratory sensitisation: data lacking
GHS
Skin sensitisation: not classified
Respiratory sensitisation: data lacking
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.