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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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.
Reaction mass of Tetrasodium 2-[{4-[{4-[(4-amino-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]-5-sulfonatonaphthalen-1-yl}diazenyl]-7-sulfonatonaphthalen-1-yl}diazenyl]benzene-1,4-disulfonate and Tetrasodium 2-[{4-[{4-[(4-amino-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]-5-sulfonatonaphthalen-1-yl}diazenyl]-6-sulfonatonaphthalen-1-yl}diazenyl]benzene-1,4-disulfonate
EC number: 916-837-8 | CAS number: -
- 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
FAT 40032 is considered as sensitiser.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 1993
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Justification for type of information:
- None
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- The classification Guidelines were added to the protocol, Section I of the chemical Law from August 1st, 1990" were omitted. The study was reported in January 1993 instead of November 1992; Males instead of females were delivered for the study.
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- None
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- None
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Identification: FAT 40032/E
Description: Brown powder
Batch Number: OP 11
Purity/Formulation: Contents of active substance ingredients: 75.7 %
Stability of test article: Stable; expiration date: August 1997.
Storage Conditions: At room temperature - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Himalayan
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Test system: Ibm: GOHI; SPF-quality guinea pigs (synonym: Himalayan spotted)
Rationale: Recognized by the International guidelines as the recommended test system, (e.g. OECD, EEC)
Source: BRL, Biological Research Laboratories Ltd. Wölferstrasse 4 CH-4414 Füllinsdorf.
Number of animals for main study / pre-test: 30 males / 6 males
Age at acclimatization start: 5-6 weeks
Body weight at acclimatization start: Control and test group 343 - 417 g; Pretest: 324 - 408 g
Identification: By unique cage number and corresponding ear tags.
Randomization: Randomly selected at time of delivery.
Acclimatization: One week for the control and test group under test conditions after veterinary examination. Only animals without any visual signs of illness were used for the study. - Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- Test group:
1) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline.
2) The test article, diluted to 5 % with physiological saline.
3) The test article diluted to 5 % by emulsion 1n a 50:50 mixture of
Freund's complete adjuvant and physiological saline.
Control Group:
1) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline.
2) Physiological saline.
3) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline. - Day(s)/duration:
- Test Day 01
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 25 % in physiological saline
- Day(s)/duration:
- Test Day 07
- Adequacy of induction:
- non-irritant substance, but skin pre-treated with 10% SDS
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 25 %
- Day(s)/duration:
- Test Day 22
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No.:
- #2
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 25 %
- Day(s)/duration:
- Test day 36
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- None
- Details on study design:
- Pre-test:
The objective of this investigation was to identify a maximally tolerated concentration of the test article suitable for the induction phase of the main study. In addition, a suitable non-irritant concentration of the test article, by the topical route of administration, was identified for the challenge application. The procedure employed for these investigations was as follows:
Intradermal injections:
Intradermal injections (0.1 ml/site) were made into the clipped flank of two guinea pigs at concentrations of 5, 3 and 1% of the test article in physiological saline. The resulting dermal reactions were assessed 24 hours later. For intracutaneous induction application a 5 % test article dilution was selected.
Epidermal applications:
Patches of filter paper (2 x 2 cm) were saturated with concentrations of 5 %, 10 %, 15 %, and 25 % of the test article in physiological saline and applied to the clipped and shaved flanks of each of four guinea pigs. The patches were covered by a strip of aluminum foil and firmly secured by elastic plaster wrapped around the trunk and covered with Impervious adhesive tape. This procedure ensured the intensive contact of the test article. The dressings were removed after an exposure period of 24 hours and the reaction sites were assessed 24 and 48 hours after removal of the bandage for erythema and oedema on a numerical basis according to Draize described above. After removal of the dressing, the application site was depilated with an approved depilatory cream* (VEET Cream, Reckitt & Colmann AG, CH-4005 Basel) to clean the application site from red staining produced by the test article, so that possible erythema reactions were clearly visible at that time.
Main study:
Induction:
Intradermal Injections:
An area of dorsal skin from the scapular region (approximately 6 x 8 cm) was clipped free of hair. Three pairs of intradermal injections (0.1 ml/site) were made at the border of a 4 x 6 cm area in the clipped region as follows:
Test group:
1) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline.
2) The test article, diluted to 5 % with physiological saline.
3) The test article diluted to 5 % by emulsion 1n a 50:50 mixture of
Freund's complete adjuvant and physiological saline.
Control group:
1) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline.
2) Physiological saline.
3) Freund's complete adjuvant 50:50 with physiological saline.
Epidermal applications:
On test day 7 and approximately 24 hours prior to the epidermal application the scapular area (approximately 6 x 8 cm) was clipped, shaved free of hair and the test area was pre-treated with 10 % Sodium-Lauryl-Sulfate (SLS) 1N petrolatum oil because no primary irritation concentration could be determined in the corresponding pre-test. The SLS was massaged into the skin with a glass rod without bandaging. This SLS-concentrat1on enhances sensitization by provoking a mild inflammatory reaction. On test day 8 a 2 x 4 cm patch of filter paper was saturated with the test article (25 % in physiological saline) and placed over the injection sites of the test animals. The patch was covered with aluminum foil and firmly secured by an elastic plaster wrapped around the trunk of the animal and secured with impervious adhesive tape. The dressings were left in place for approximately 48 hours. The epidermal application procedure described ensured Intensive contact of the test article. The guinea pigs of the control group were treated as described above with the omission of test article (physiological saline only). Reaction sites were assessed for erythema and oedema 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing, using the numerical grading system according to Draize.
First challenge:
The test and control guinea pigs were challenged two weeks after the epidermal induction application. The test and control guinea pigs were treated in the same way. Hair was clipped and shaved from a 5 x 5 cm area on the left and right flank of each guinea pig. Two patches (2 x 2 cm) of filter paper were saturated with a non-irritant concentration of 25 % (left flank), and the vehicle only (physiological saline, applied to the right flank) using the same method as for the epidermal application. The dressings were removed approximately 24 hours later. The sites were assessed for erythema and oedema 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing, using the
numerical scoring system according to Draize. After removal of the dressing, the application site was depilated with an approved depilatory cream* (VEET Cream, Recklett & Colmann AG, CH-4005 Basel) to clean the application site from staining produced by the test article, so that possible erythema reactions were clearly visible at that time. The depilatory was placed on the patch sites and surrounding areas and left on for fifteen (15) minutes or less. It was then thoroughly washed off with a stream of warm, running water. The animals were then dried with a disposable towel and returned to their cages. Erythema and oedema reactions are described 1n the tables under Appendix A.
Second challenge:
A second challenge was performed two weeks after the first challenge. The treatment procedure for the animals of the test group was similar as described for the first challenge with the exception that the applications on flanks of all the guinea pigs were inverted. The control animals were treated with physiological saline on the left flank. - Challenge controls:
- None
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Positive control results:
- None
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Erythema observed in 7 animals out of 20.
- Remarks on result:
- other: First Challenge
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Erythema observed in 7 animals out of 20.
- Remarks on result:
- other: First Challenge
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 16
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Erythema observed in 16 animals out of 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Second Challenge
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 15
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Erythema observed in 15 animals out of 20
- Remarks on result:
- other: Second Challenge
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- FAT 40'032/E (left flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: first challenge
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- FAT 40'032/E (left flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: first challenge
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle only (right flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: first challenge
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle only (right flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: first challenge
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle only (right flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: second challenge
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle only (right flank)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: second challenge
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 25% dilution of 2-MERCAPTOBENZOTHIAZOL 1n acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1B (indication of skin sensitising potential) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- FAT 40032/E is considered to be a sensitizer.
- Executive summary:
A study was performed to assess the allergenic potential of FAT 40'032/E in albino guinea pigs. The Maximization-Test of B. Magnusson and A.M. Kligman (1969) was used. Ten males were used as control group and 20 males were used as test group. The study was conducted between August 31 and October 15, 1992 at the BRL Laboratories in CH-4414 Füllinsdorf. Due to the equivocal findings observed after the first challenge, a second challenge was performed. The highest non-irritating test article concentration used for the both challenge applications was 25 %. No toxic symptoms were evident in the guinea pigs of the control or test group. No death occurred. From the results described above a moderate to strong allergenic potency of the test article FAT 40032/E was concluded. The results were interpreted according to the rating of Magnusson and Kligman (1969). The response of at least 30* positive animals is considered positive "M3" following the commission 91/325/EEC, Commission Directive of 1 March 1991 adapting to technical progress for the twelfth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. In this study 35 % to 80 % of the animals were positive after treatment with a non-irritant test substance concentration of 25 %. According to EEC (European Economic Community) classification criteria described in guidelines 91/325/EEC (EC Official Journal Nr. L 180. July 08, 1991) and 67/548, June 27, 1967 (official journal 196 of August 16, 1967), this test article is considered to be a sensitizer.
Reference
Clinical signs::
Control group:
Erythema and oedema were observed at the injection sites 1 to 3 during days 2 to 5 of the observation. In addition, necroses were observed at the injection sites 1 and 3 between days 6 and 11 of the study. Following encrustation and exfoliation were observed at different observation days until test day 33. Around the epidermal induction application area fissures were observed from test day 10 to 18. After the first challenge the skin treated with the test article was discolored between days 23 and 28 of the study.
Test Group
Erythema and oedema were observed at the injection sites 1 to 3 during days 2 to 5 of the observation. In addition, necroses were observed at the injection sites between days 6 to 11 of the study. Following encrustation and exfoliation were observed at different observation days until test day 33. After the epidermal induction application, discoloration and fissures of the treated skin was observed between days 10 to 26 and 10 to 18 respectively. In addition, discolourated skin was observed after the first challenge between days 23 and 27 and after the second challenge between day 37 and termination of the study (day 38). On day 9 of test no observation could be performed because the animals were bandaged semi-occlusively.
Systemic:
No systemic symptoms were observed in the animals.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
The key study was performed to assess the allergenic potential of FAT 40032/E in albino guinea pigs. The Maximization-Test of B. Magnusson and A.M. Kligman (1969) was used. Ten males were used as control group and 20 males were used as test group. The study was conducted between August 31 and October 15, 1992 at the BRL Laboratories in CH-4414 Füllinsdorf. Due to the equivocal findings observed after the first challenge, a second challenge was performed. The highest non-irritating test article concentration used for the both challenge applications was 25 %. No toxic symptoms were evident in the guinea pigs of the control or test group. No death occurred. From the results described above a moderate to strong allergenic potency of the test article FAT 40032/E was concluded. The results were interpreted according to the rating of Magnusson and Kligman (1969). The response of at least 30 % positive animals is considered positive "M3" following the commission 91/325/EEC, Commission Directive of 1 March 1991 adapting to technical progress for the twelfth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. In this study 35 % to 80 % of the animals were positive after treatment with a non-irritant test substance concentration of 25 %. According to EEC (European Economic Community) classification criteria described in guidelines 91/325/EEC (EC Official Journal Nr. L 180. July 08, 1991) and 67/548, June 27, 1967 (official journal 196 of August 16, 1967), this test article is considered to be a sensitiser.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
FAT 40032 was found to induce skin sensitisation when tested in the Guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT), hence needs to be classified as a skin sensitiser category 1B according to the CLP (Regulation EC No. 1272/2008).
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.