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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 204-508-5 | CAS number: 121-92-6
- 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
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Remarks:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Justification for type of information:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- other: Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- other: 1.CBA; 2.CBA/J; 3. CBA/Ca
- Sex:
- female
- Vehicle:
- other: 1.Acetic acid in olive oil (4:1) ; 2.Acetone; 3.
- Concentration:
- 1.25µl
2. 12.5 microliters of 5, 10, 20% test chemical in acetone was used as test concentrations.
3. 25µl - No. of animals per dose:
- 4
- Details on study design:
- The data is based on weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- > 3
- Test group / Remarks:
- test group
- Remarks on result:
- other: not sensitizing
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.- Executive summary:
The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.
The skin sensitizing potential of the test chemical was assessed by using the Mouse Local Lymphnode Assay. The study was conducted as per OECD 429 Guidelines.
The LLNA was conducted on groups of CBA mice (7-12 weeks of age) by mean of topical application of chemical on the dorsum of both ears at a dose of 25µl or to an equal volume of relevant vehicle (Acetic acid in olive oil (4:1))only. Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days. Five days after initiation of exposure all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250µl of PBS containing 20µCi of tritiatied thymidine. The mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and draining the auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by β-scintillation counting and was reported in disintegrations /minute. An SI was calculated for each chemical group as the ratio of disintegrations/minute of the treated group to the disintegrations/minute of the concurrent vehicle control group.
A substance was classified skin sensitizer, if at one or more than one concentrations, it induced a three-fold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity when treated with the concurrent vehicle treated controls (SI ≥3) The approach to estimation of the relative skin sensitization potential is 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.
The relative potency index of the test chemical was not calculated since the SI were less than 3.
Based on the relative potency, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to mice skin.
This is supported by the results of a study whose objective was to evaluate the utility of the LLNA assay to determine the contact sensitization potential of the test chemical. 5, 10, 20% test chemical in acetone was used as test concentrations.
Female CBA/J mice 8-9 weeks old were used for the study. 12.5 microliters of test material or vehicle applied to each side of both ears (25 microliter total/ear). Five animals per test group were used. Eighteen to 24 hr after the fourth induction treatment, 20 microCi of [methyl-[3H]thymidine ([3H]TdR; 5.0 curies/mmol sp act, Amersham Corp., IL), in 0.25 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; GIBCO, NY), was injected into the tail vein of each mouse. The mice were euthanized 5 hr after [‘H]TdR injection. The bilateral auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each mouse.
A single cell suspension was prepared from the lymph nodes of each mouse by gently rubbing the nodes through a nylon mesh filter (100 micrometer pore size, The Spectra Co., CA). The cell suspensions were washed with 10 ml PBS, re-suspended in 1 ml PBS and a 20-/11 sample of the cell suspension taken for cell number determination using an automated cell counter (Coulter Model ZM; Coulter Electronics, Inc., FL).Following a second wash in PBS, the cell pellet was re- suspended in 3 ml of 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA; Sigma) and left overnight (- 18 hr) at 0-4°C.
The samples were centrifuged, the supernatant was decanted, and the pellet was re-suspended in 2 ml of 5% TCA. The cells were transferred to vials containing 10 ml liquid scintillation cocktail (Ready Safe; Beckman Instruments, CA). The [3H] disintegrations per minute (dpm) were determined by counting for 5 to 10 min on a liquid scintillation counter (Beckman Model LS5000TD, Beckman Instruments, Inc., CA).
A chemical was considered positive (a sensitizer) in the local lymph node assay if two criteria were met. First, exposure to at least one concentration of the chemical resultedin a 2-fold or greater increase in [3H]TdR (expressed as dpm)incorporation compared to vehicle-treated control mice.
Second, this mean dpm value was statistically different from vehicle-treated mice (p > 0.0 1). Test materials that failed to cause a greater than a 2-fold elevation of [3H]TdR incorporation were regarded as negative in the local lymph node assay. For ranking purposes, a chemical was considered in the moderate to strong sensitization category if it demonstrated a >30-fold increase in [3H]TdR incorporation over vehicle-treated mice. A chemical in the 2- to 30-fold range of increased [3H]TdR incorporation was classified as a weak to- moderate sensitizer.
The mean dpm values for 5%,10% and 20% test chemical in acetone were 0.042, 0.05 and 0.0427 respectively. The test chemical failed to stimulate a greater than 2-fold response.
Hence, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to mice skin.
The above results are further supported by another Mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) was performed in 4 female CBA/Ca mice to assess the skin sensitization potential of test chemical.
In this assay, 4 animals were inducted by daily topical application of 2.5 – 15.0 % for three consecutive days. Five days after the initiation of exposure, [3H] methyl thymidine was injected and the labeling in lymph node cells was measured. The ratio of labeling incorporation by tested lymph node cells to that recorded for control lymph node cells, (T/C) ratio was 0.6 – 1.5 (more than 3.0 is positive).
Since the (T/C) ratio was less than 3, the test chemical was considered to be non-sensitizing in Mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA).
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.
The skin sensitizing potential of the test chemical was assessed by using the Mouse Local Lymphnode Assay. The study was conducted as per OECD 429 Guidelines.
The LLNA was conducted on groups of CBA mice (7-12 weeks of age) by mean of topical application of chemical on the dorsum of both ears at a dose of 25µl or to an equal volume of relevant vehicle (Acetic acid in olive oil (4:1))only. Treatment was performed daily for 3 consecutive days. Five days after initiation of exposure all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250µl of PBS containing 20µCi of tritiatied thymidine. The mice were sacrificed 5 hours later, and draining the auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group or each individual animal. The incorporation of tritiated thymidine measured by β-scintillation counting and was reported in disintegrations /minute. An SI was calculated for each chemical group as the ratio of disintegrations/minute of the treated group to the disintegrations/minute of the concurrent vehicle control group.
A substance was classified skin sensitizer, if at one or more than one concentrations, it induced a three-fold or greater increase in local lymph node proliferative activity when treated with the concurrent vehicle treated controls (SI ≥3) The approach to estimation of the relative skin sensitization potential is 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.
The relative potency index of the test chemical was not calculated since the SI were less than 3.
Based on the relative potency, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to mice skin.
This is supported by the results of a study whose objective was to evaluate the utility of the LLNA assay to determine the contact sensitization potential of the test chemical. 5, 10, 20% test chemical in acetone was used as test concentrations.
Female CBA/J mice 8-9 weeks old were used for the study. 12.5 microliters of test material or vehicle applied to each side of both ears (25 microliter total/ear). Five animals per test group were used. Eighteen to 24 hr after the fourth induction treatment, 20 microCi of [methyl-[3H]thymidine ([3H]TdR; 5.0 curies/mmol sp act, Amersham Corp., IL), in 0.25 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; GIBCO, NY), was injected into the tail vein of each mouse. The mice were euthanized 5 hr after [‘H]TdR injection. The bilateral auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each mouse.
A single cell suspension was prepared from the lymph nodes of each mouse by gently rubbing the nodes through a nylon mesh filter (100 micrometer pore size, The Spectra Co., CA). The cell suspensions were washed with 10 ml PBS, re-suspended in 1 ml PBS and a 20-/11 sample of the cell suspension taken for cell number determination using an automated cell counter (Coulter Model ZM; Coulter Electronics, Inc., FL).Following a second wash in PBS, the cell pellet was re- suspended in 3 ml of 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA; Sigma) and left overnight (- 18 hr) at 0-4°C.
The samples were centrifuged, the supernatant was decanted, and the pellet was re-suspended in 2 ml of 5% TCA. The cells were transferred to vials containing 10 ml liquid scintillation cocktail (Ready Safe; Beckman Instruments, CA). The [3H] disintegrations per minute (dpm) were determined by counting for 5 to 10 min on a liquid scintillation counter (Beckman Model LS5000TD, Beckman Instruments, Inc., CA).
A chemical was considered positive (a sensitizer) in the local lymph node assay if two criteria were met. First, exposure to at least one concentration of the chemical resultedin a 2-fold or greater increase in [3H]TdR (expressed as dpm)incorporation compared to vehicle-treated control mice.
Second, this mean dpm value was statistically different from vehicle-treated mice (p > 0.0 1). Test materials that failed to cause a greater than a 2-fold elevation of [3H]TdR incorporation were regarded as negative in the local lymph node assay. For ranking purposes, a chemical was considered in the moderate to strong sensitization category if it demonstrated a >30-fold increase in [3H]TdR incorporation over vehicle-treated mice. A chemical in the 2- to 30-fold range of increased [3H]TdR incorporation was classified as a weak to- moderate sensitizer.
The mean dpm values for 5%,10% and 20% test chemical in acetone were 0.042, 0.05 and 0.0427 respectively. The test chemical failed to stimulate a greater than 2-fold response.
Hence, the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to mice skin.
The above results are further supported by another Mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) was performed in 4 female CBA/Ca mice to assess the skin sensitization potential of test chemical.
In this assay, 4 animals were inducted by daily topical application of 2.5 – 15.0 % for three consecutive days. Five days after the initiation of exposure, [3H] methyl thymidine was injected and the labeling in lymph node cells was measured. The ratio of labeling incorporation by tested lymph node cells to that recorded for control lymph node cells, (T/C) ratio was 0.6 – 1.5 (more than 3.0 is positive).
Since the (T/C) ratio was less than 3, the test chemical was considered to be non-sensitizing in Mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA).
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Available studies for the test chemical indicate a very strong possibility that the test chemical has lacks the potential to cause sensitization to skin. Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not a skin sensitizer.
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.