Trisodium 5-[[5-methyl-4-[(4-nitro-2-sulphonatophenyl)azo]-2-(3-sulphonatopropoxy)phenyl]azo]salicylate

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation, other

Remarks:

in vivo study

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

Between 25 April 2016 and 06 May 216

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Remarks:

Study conducted in compliance with agreed protocols, with no or minor deviations from standard test guidelines and/or minor methodological deficiencies, which do not affect the quality of the relevant results. The study report was conclusive, done to a valid guideline and the study was conducted under GLP conditions.

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2016

Report date:

2019

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.5 (Acute Toxicity: Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Trisodium 5-[[5-methyl-4-[(4-nitro-2-sulphonatophenyl)azo]-2-(3-sulphonatopropoxy)phenyl]azo]salicylate

EC Number:

277-753-9

EC Name:

Trisodium 5-[[5-methyl-4-[(4-nitro-2-sulphonatophenyl)azo]-2-(3-sulphonatopropoxy)phenyl]azo]salicylate

Cas Number:

74186-17-7

Molecular formula:

C23H21N5O12S2.3Na

IUPAC Name:

trisodium 2-hydroxy-5-({5-methyl-4-[(4-nitro-2-sulfonatophenyl)diazenyl]-2-(3-sulfonatopropoxy)phenyl}diazenyl)benzoate

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Animal Information
Two New Zealand White (Hsdlf:NZW) strain rabbits were supplied by Envigo RMS (UK) Limited, Leicestershire, UK. At the start of the study the animals weighed 2.38 or 2.91 kg and were 12 to 52 weeks old. After an acclimatization period of at least 5 days each animal was given a number unique within the study which was written with a black indelible marker pen on the inner surface of the ear and on the cage label.
Animal Care and Husbandry
The animals were individually housed in suspended cages. Free access to mains drinking water and food (2930C Teklad Global Rabbit diet supplied by Envigo RMS (UK) Limited, Oxon, UK) was allowed throughout the study. The diet and drinking water were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.
The temperature and relative humidity were set to achieve limits of 17 to 23 °C and 30 to 70% respectively. The rate of air exchange was at least fifteen changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give 12 hours continuous light and 12 hours darkness.
The animals were provided with environmental enrichment items which were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

other: The left eye remained untreated and was used for control purposes.

Amount / concentration applied:

0.1 mL of the test item, which was found to weigh approximately 99 mg

Duration of treatment / exposure:

1 hour

Observation period (in vivo):

72 hours

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

2

Details on study design:

Immediately before the start of the test, both eyes of the provisionally selected test rabbits were examined for evidence of ocular irritation or defect with the aid of a light source from a standard ophthalmoscope. Only animals free of ocular damage were used.
Initially, a single rabbit was treated. A subcutaneous injection of buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg was administered 60 minutes prior to test item application to provide a therapeutic level of systemic analgesia. Five minutes prior to test item application, a pre dose anesthesia of ocular anesthetic (two drops of 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride) was applied to each eye.
A volume of 0.1 mL of the test item, which was found to weigh approximately 99 mg (as measured by gently compacting the required volume into an adapted syringe) was placed into the conjunctival sac of the right eye, formed by gently pulling the lower lid away from the eyeball. The upper and lower eyelids were held together for about one second immediately after treatment, to prevent loss of the test item, and then released. The left eye remained untreated and was used for control purposes. Immediately after administration of the test item, an assessment of the initial pain reaction was made according to the six point scale shown in Annex 2.
Eight hours after test item application, a subcutaneous injection of post dose analgesia, buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg and meloxicam 0.5 mg/kg, was administered to provide a continued therapeutic level of systemic analgesia. The treated animal was checked for signs of pain and suffering approximately 12 hours later. No further analgesia was required.
After consideration of the ocular responses produced in the first treated animal, a second animal was similarly treated.
Assessment of ocular damage/irritation was made approximately 1 hour and 24, 48 and 72 hours following treatment, according to the numerical evaluation (Draize, J.H, 1977) given in Annex 3.
Any other ocular effects were also noted. Examination of the eye was facilitated by the use of the light source from a standard ophthalmoscope.
Any clinical signs of toxicity, if present, were also recorded.
Individual body weights were recorded on Day 0 (the day of dosing) and at the end of the observation period.

Data Evaluation
Data were summarized in tabular form, showing for each animal the irritation scores for the designated observation time, a description of the degree and nature of irritation, the presence of serious lesions and non ocular effects. The scores of each animal at the following reading times (24, 48 and 72 hours) were used in calculating the respective mean values for each type of lesion.
The results were interpreted according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, relating to the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Dangerous Substances.

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

animal: 75420 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: No effects observed

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

animal: 75454 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: No effects observed

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

animal: 75420 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: No effects observed

Results 4

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

animal: 75454 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: No effects observed

Results 5

Irritation parameter:

other: redness

Basis:

animal: 72420 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0.7

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 hours

Results 6

Irritation parameter:

other: redness

Basis:

animal: 75454 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0.7

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 hours

Results 7

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

animal: 75420 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 24 hours

Results 8

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

animal: 75454 Male

Time point:

other: Mean 24, 48 and 72 hours

Score:

0.3

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 48 hours

Irritant / corrosive response data:

Ocular Reactions
Individual and mean scores for ocular irritation are given in Appendix 1.
Brown colored staining of the fur around the treated eye was noted in one animal 1 hour after treatment and in both animals at the 24, 48 and 72-Hour observations.
No corneal or iridial effects were noted during the study.
Moderate conjunctival irritation was noted in both treated eyes 1 hour after treatment with minimal conjunctival irritation noted at the 24 and 48 Hour observations.
Both treated eyes appeared normal at the 72-Hour observation.
No corrosive effects were noted during the study. The test item did not induce significant or irreversible damage to the rabbit eye.

Other effects:

Body Weight
Individual body weights and body weight change are given in Appendix 2.
Both animals showed expected gain in body weight during the study.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Appendix 1     Eye Irritation Scores

Individual Scores for Eye Irritation

Rabbit Number and Sex	IPR	Evaluation interval	Corneal Opacity	Area of Corneal Opacity	Iris	Conjunctivae
						Redness	Chemosis	Discharge
75420Male	0	1 Hour	0	0	0	2	1	1Sf
75454Male	0		0	0	0	2	1	2
75420Male		24 Hour	0	0	0	1	0	1Sf
75454Male			0	0	0	1	1	0Sf
75420Male		48 Hour	0	0	0	1	0	0Sf
75454Male			0	0	0	1	0	0Sf
75420Male		72 Hour	0	0	0	0	0	0Sf
75454Male			0	0	0	0	0	0Sf

IPR=Initial pain reaction

Sf =       Brown colored staining of the fur around the treated eye

Appendix 1 (continued)       Eye Irritation Scores

Mean Values after 24, 48 and 72 Hours

Rabbit Number and Sex	Number of available data points	Corneal Opacity	Iris	Conjunctivae
				Redness	Chemosis
75420Male	3	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.0
75454Male	3	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.3

Appendix 2     Individual Body Weights and Body Weight Change

Rabbit Number and Sex	Individual Body Weight (kg)		Body Weight Change (kg)
	Day 0	Day 3
75420Male	2.38	2.41	0.03
75454Male	2.91	3.00	0.09

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

not classified

Remarks:

Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU

Conclusions:

According to the findings in this study, Aluminium-Braun 1134 p does not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008.

Executive summary:

The primary eye irritation potential of Aluminium-Braun 1134 p was investigated according to a method compatible with OECD test guideline No. 405 and Method B5. The test item was applied by instillation of 0.1 mL into the right eye of each of two young adult New Zealand White rabbits. Scoring of irritation effects was performed approximately 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after test item instillation. 

The mean score was calculated separately for each animal across three scoring times (24, 48 and 72 hours after instillation) for corneal opacity, iritis, redness and chemosis of the conjunctivae. The individual mean scores for corneal opacity and iritis was 0.0 for both animals. The individual mean scores for the conjunctivae were 0.7 for reddening for both animals and 0.0 or 0.3 for chemosis. 

The instillation of Aluminium-Braun 1134 p into the eye resulted in conjunctival irritation. These effects were reversible and were no longer evident 72 hours after treatment in both animals (end of the observation period). No abnormal findings were observed in the cornea of any animal at any of the examinations. No corrosion was observed at any of the measuring intervals. No clinical signs of toxicity were observed.

Thus, the test item did not induce significant or irreversible damage to the rabbit eye.

According to the findings in this study, Aluminium-Braun 1134 p does notmeet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008.