2-(1-ethylpentyl)-1,3-dioxolane

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Skin sensitisation (OECD TG 429): sensitising

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vitro

Data waiving:

study scientifically not necessary / other information available

Justification for data waiving:

other:

Reference 2

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)

Remarks:

Study was conducted before October 2016.

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

The study was conducted between 26 May 2016 and 14 June 2016.

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

LLNA was conducted before October 2016.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across: supporting information

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)

Version / remarks:

adopted 22 July 2010.

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)

Species:

mouse

Strain:

CBA/Ca

Sex:

female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

Animal Information
Female CBA/Ca (CBA/CaOlaHsd) strain mice were supplied by Envigo RMS B.V., Inc., Horst, The Netherlands. On receipt the animals were randomly allocated to cages. The animals were nulliparous and non pregnant. After an acclimatization period of at least 5 days the animals were selected at random and given a number unique within the study by indelible ink marking on the tail and a number written on a cage card. At the start of the study the animals were in the weight range of 15 to 23 g, and were 8 to 12 weeks old.

Animal Care and Husbandry
The animals were housed in suspended solid floor polypropylene cages furnished with softwood woodflakes. Free access to mains tap water and food (2014C Teklad Global Rodent diet supplied by Envigo RMS (UK) Limited, Oxon, UK) was allowed throughout the study. The temperature and relative humidity were set to achieve limits of 19 to 25 °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.

Vehicle:

acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)

Concentration:

Based on the anticipated sensitization potential, three groups, each of five animals, were treated with 50 µL (25 µL per ear) of the undiluted test item or the test item as a solution in acetone/olive oil 4:1 at concentrations of 30% or 10% (v/v).

No. of animals per dose:

Three groups, each of five animals per dose. A further group of five animals was treated with acetone/olive oil 4:1 alone.

Details on study design:

Test Item Preparation and Analysis
For the purpose of the study, the test item was used undiluted and freshly prepared as a solution in acetone/olive oil 4:1. This vehicle was chosen as it produced the most suitable formulation at the required concentration. The vehicle determination record is shown under "Any other information on materials and methods incl. tables". The test item was formulated within 2 hours of being applied to the test system. It is assumed that the formulation was stable for this duration. No analysis was conducted to determine the homogeneity, concentration or stability of the test item formulation. This is an exception with regard to GLP and has been reflected in the GLP compliance statement.

Preliminary Screening Test
As no toxicological information was available regarding the systemic toxicity/irritancy potential of the test item, a preliminary screening test was performed using one mouse. The mouse was treated by daily application of 25 µL of the undiluted test item to the dorsal surface of each ear for three consecutive days (Days 1, 2, 3). The mouse was observed twice daily on Days 1, 2 and 3 and once daily on Days 4, 5 and 6. Local skin irritation was scored daily according to the scale shown below:

Scale for Erythema (observation and score)
No erythema: 0
Very slight erythema (barely perceptible): 1
Well-defined erythema:2
Moderate to severe erythema: 3
Severe erythema (beef redness) to eschar formation preventing grading of erythema: 4

Any clinical signs of toxicity, if present, were also recorded. The body weight was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and on Day 6. The thickness of each ear was measured using a Mitutoyo 547-300S gauge (Mitutoyo Corporation), pre-dose on Day 1, post dose on Day 3 and on Day 6. Any changes in the ear thickness were noted. Mean ear thickness changes were calculated between time periods Days 1 and 3 and Days 1 and 6. A mean ear thickness increase of equal to or greater than 25% was considered to indicate excessive irritation and limited biological relevance to the endpoint of sensitization.

Main Test

Test Item Administration
Based on the anticipated sensitization potential, groups of five mice were treated with the undiluted test item or the test item at concentrations of 30% or 10% (v/v) in acetone/olive oil 4:1. The preliminary screening test suggested that the test item would not produce systemic toxicity or excessive local skin irritation at the highest suitable concentration. The mice were treated by daily application of 25 µL of the appropriate concentration of the test item to the dorsal surface of each ear for three consecutive days (Days 1, 2, 3). The test item formulation was administered using an automatic micropipette and spread over the dorsal surface of the ear using the tip of the pipette. A further group of five mice received the vehicle alone in the same manner.

3H-Methyl Thymidine Administration
Five days following the first topical application of the test item or vehicle (Day 6) all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250 µL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 3H-methyl thymidine (3HTdR: 80 µCi/mL, specific activity 2.0 Ci/mmoL, ARC UK Ltd) giving a total of 20 µCi to each mouse.

Observations
Clinical Observations: All animals were observed twice daily on Days 1, 2 and 3 and on a daily basis on Days 4, 5 and 6. Any signs of toxicity or signs of ill health during the test were recorded.
Body Weights: The body weight of each mouse was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and Day 6 (prior to termination).

Terminal Procedures
Termination: Five hours following the administration of 3HTdR all mice were killed by carbon dioxide asphyxiation followed by cervical separation. For each individual animal of each group the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and processed. For each individual animal 1 mL of PBS was added to the lymph nodes.
Preparation of Single Cell Suspension: A single cell suspension of the lymph node cells for each individual animal was prepared by gentle mechanical disaggregation through a 200-mesh stainless steel gauze. The lymph node cells were rinsed through the gauze with 4 mL of PBS into a petri dish labeled with the study number and dose concentration. The lymph node cells suspension was transferred to a centrifuge tube. The petri dish was washed with an additional 5 mL of PBS to remove all remaining lymph node cells and these were added to the centrifuge tube. The lymph node cells were pelleted at 1400 rpm (approximately 190 g) for 10 minutes. The pellet was re-suspended in 10 mL of PBS and re-pelleted. To precipitate out the radioactive material, the pellet was re-suspended in 3 mL of 5% Trichloroacetic acid (TCA).
Determination of 3HTdR Incorporation: After approximately 18 hours incubation at approximately 4 °C, the precipitates were recovered by centrifugation at 2100 rpm (approximately 450 g) for 10 minutes, re-suspended in 1 mL of TCA and transferred to 10 mL of scintillation fluid. 3HTdR incorporation was measured by β-scintillation counting. The "Poly Q™" vials containing the samples and scintillation fluid were placed in the sample changer of the scintillator and left to stand in darkness for approximately 20 minutes. The purpose of this period of time in darkness was to reduce the risk of luminescence, which has been shown to affect the reliability of the results. After approximately 20 minutes, the vials were shaken vigorously. The number of radioactive disintegrations per minute was then measured using the Beckman LS6500 scintillation system (Beckman Instruments Inc, Fullerton, CA, USA).

Data Evaluation
The proliferation response of lymph node cells was expressed as the number of radioactive disintegrations per minute per animal and as the ratio of 3HTdR incorporation into lymph node cells of test nodes relative to that recorded for the control nodes (Stimulation Index). The test item will be regarded as a sensitizer if at least one concentration of the test item results in a threefold or greater increase in 3HTdR incorporation compared to control values. Any test item failing to produce a threefold or greater increase in 3HTdR incorporation will be classified as a "non sensitizer". The EC3 value was also calculated. The EC3 value is the concentration of test item expected to cause a 3 fold increase in 3HTdR incorporation. The equation used for the calculation of EC3 is:

EC3 = c + [[(3-d)/(b-d)] x (a-c)]
a = lowest concentration giving stimulation index >3
b = actual stimulation index caused by ‘a’
c = highest concentration failing to produce a stimulation index of 3
d = actual stimulation index caused by ‘c’

Positive control substance(s):

hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)

Statistics:

Data was processed to give group mean values for disintegrations per minute and standard deviations where appropriate. Individual and group mean disintegrations per minute values were assessed for dose response relationships. Data was first assessed for suitability by analysis of normality and homogeneity of variance. If the assumptions that the data are both normally distributed and has homogeneity of variances, then parametric one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett’s multiple comparison procedure were used to determine statistical significance. If the assumptions were not met, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum and Mann-Whitney U test procedures were used. Probability values (p) are presented as follows:
P<0.001: ***
P<0.01: **
P<0.05: *
P>=0.05: (not significant)

Positive control results:

The concentration of α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85% expected to cause a 3 fold increase in 3HTdR incorporation (EC3 value) was calculated to be 20%. α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85% was considered to be a sensitizer under the conditions of the test.

Key result

Parameter:

EC3

Value:

20

Test group / Remarks:

All test groups

Remarks on result:

other: %

Key result

Parameter:

other: NOAEC

Value:

10

Remarks on result:

other: %

Parameter:

SI

Value:

1.22

Remarks on result:

other: at 10% (v/v) in acetone/olive oil 4:1

Parameter:

SI

Value:

4.73

Remarks on result:

other: at 30% (v/v) in acetone/olive oil 4:1

Parameter:

SI

Value:

4.99

Remarks on result:

other: at 100% (v/v)

Cellular proliferation data / Observations:

CELLULAR PROLIFERATION DATA
Mean DPM/animal with standard deviation:
- Vehicle control group: 2815.70 (±973.12)
- 10% (v/v): 3447.52 (±1455.27)
- 30% (v/v): 13324.38 (±4314.46)
- 100% (v/v): 14060.26 (±3391.64)

DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION
The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group is presented under "any other information on results incl. tables".

EC3 CALCULATION
EC3 = c + [[(3-d)/(b-d)] x (a-c)]
a = 30
b = 4.73
c = 10
d = 1.22
The concentration of test item expected to cause a 3-fold increase in 3HTdR incorporation (EC3 value) was calculated to be 20%.

CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS
There were no deaths. No signs of systemic toxicity were noted in the test or control animals during the test.

BODY WEIGHTS
Body weight change of the test animals between Day 1 and Day 6 was comparable to that observed in the corresponding control group animals over the same period.

In the preliminary screening test no signs of systemic toxicity, visual local skin irritation or irritation indicated by an equal to or greater than 25% increase in mean ear thickness were noted. Based on this information, and anticipated sensitization potential, the undiluted test item and the test item at concentrations of 30% and 10% v/v in acetone/olive oil 4:1 were selected for the main test.

The Stimulation Index expressed at the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group are as follows:

Concentration (%v/v) in acetone/olive oil 4:1	Stimulation Index	Result
10	1.22	Negative
30	4.73	Positive
100	4.99	Positive

Interpretation of results:

other: Category 1B (skin sensitising)

Remarks:

According to EU CLP criteria (1272/2008) and its amendments.

Conclusions:

Under the conditions of this test, an EC3 of 20% was calculated for the substance. Based on this result, the substance is considered to be a skin sensitiser.

Executive summary:

A study was performed to assess the skin sensitisation potential of the test item in the CBA/Ca strain mouse following topical application to the dorsal surface of the ear according to OECD TG 429 (LLNA) and GLP principles. Following a preliminary screening test in which no clinical signs of toxicity were noted at a concentration of 100%, this concentration was selected as the highest dose investigated in the main test of the Local Lymph Node Assay. Based on the anticipated sensitisation potential, three groups, each of five animals, were treated with 50 µL (25 µL for each ear) of the undiluted test item or the test item as a solution in acetone/olive oil 4:1 at concentrations of 30% or 10% (v/v). A further group of five animals was treated with acetone/olive oil 4:1 alone. The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group was 1.22, 4.73 and 4.99 for the 10%, 30% and 100% (v/v) group, respectively. The concentration of test item expected to cause a 3-fold increase in 3HTdR incorporation (EC3 value) was calculated to be 20% and therefore the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser under the conditions of this test.

Reference 3

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)

Remarks:

Read-across

Type of information:

read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Read across information

Justification for type of information:

The full read-across document can be found in the Endpoint Summary in text and in the attached file.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across source

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Read across information

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

other: Read across information

Key result

Parameter:

EC3

Value:

20

Remarks on result:

other: %

Key result

Parameter:

other: NOAEC

Value:

10

Remarks on result:

other: %

Interpretation of results:

other: Category 1B (skin sensitizer)

Remarks:

According to EU CLP 1272/2008 and its amendments.

Conclusions:

Under the conditions of this test, an EC3 of 20% was calculated for the substance. Based on this result, the substance is considered to be a skin sensitiser.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

adverse effect observed (sensitising)

Additional information:

The skin sensitization is based on read across from Octacetal. First the study with the analogue is described and thereafter the read across justification is presented.

LLNA test:

The skin sensitisation potential of the read-across substance Octacetal has been tested according to OECD TG 429 and GLP principles. The substance showed SI values of 1.22, 4.73 and 4.99 at 10%, 30% and 100% (v/v) group, respectively.

Reliable negative and positive controls were included. All animals appeared normal for the duration of the study.

These results show that the test substance could elicit a SI ≥ 3. An EC3 has been derived of 20%, therefore the substance is a sensitizer.

Syvertal and its (non)-sensitising potential using read across fromOctacetal (CAS 10022-28-3)

 

Introduction and hypothesis for the read across

Syvertal is an alkyl acetal of C10 with the acetal group in the ring. For Syvertal limited skin sensitisation data are available, which are not sufficient to make a decision for this endpoint. Therefore, additional information is used in accordance with Article 13 of REACH where it is said that lacking information should be generated whenever possible by means other than vertebrate animal tests, i.e. applying alternative methods such as in vitro tests, SARs, grouping and read-across.

Hypothesis: Syvertal is expected to have the same sensitising properties and potency as Octacetal.

Available experimental information: For the target substance, Syvertal, a GPMT study using intradermal injections only is available Such application deviates too much from the current guidelines and is therefore not used. Forthe source chemical, Octacetal, a well conducted LLNA test (OECD TG 429, K1) is available, showing the presence of skin sensitising potential.

Target and Source chemical(s):

The target is Syvertal, and the source is Octacetal. The information on the target and source substances, together with their physico-chemical properties,is presented in the data matrix below.

Purity / Impurities:

Syvertal is a mono-constituent with a purity of 99.77%. The constituent and impurities of the target chemical indicate a similar sensitization potential. The impurities are all below < 10%.

Analogue justification

According to REACH Annex XI, an analogue approach and structural alert information can be used to replace testing when information from different sources provides sufficient evidence to conclude that this substance has or does not have a particular dangerous property. The result derived should be applicable for C&L and/or risk assessment and be presented with adequate and reliable documentation.

Analogue selection:

In order to identify possible RA candidates, RIFM database and OECD QSAR toolbox were used for search of analogues.From all identified analogues, Octacetal is the most similar to Syvertal with a Tanimoto similarity of 60% and has reliable skin sensitization data.

Structural similarity and differences:

·        The structures of the source and target chemicals are very similar: 1,3-Dioxolane, 2-(1-ethylpentyl)- (Syvertal) and Octane, 1,1-dimethoxy- (Octacetal); both have a C10 alkyl backbone

·        Source substance and target substance are both acetals; these functional groups are considered to be mainly responsible for the skin sensitizing potential.

·        The only difference between these two substances is that Syvertal has the acetal in a closed ring while in Octacetal the acetal is not embedded in the ring. Due to the chain-like structure Octacetal is likely more sensitive to metabolism and therefore may have a slightly higher potency.

Toxico-kinetic relevant for skin sensitization:

·        The dermal bioavailability can be assessed using the molecular weight, appearance and physico-chemical properties of both substances. Both substances are liquid. The log Kow for both substances is predicted very similar. The fact that Octacetal has an open structure results in a somewhat higher water solubility compared to Syvertal. These small differences will not influence the sensitization potential.

·        Acetals are generally metabolized into an aldehyde and an alcohol. Syvertal and Octacetal will be metabolized into aldehydes very similar in structure: 2-ethylhexanal (C8) and Octanal (C8), respectively. The difference in position of the aldehyde group in these two substances is predicted not to influence the reactivity of these molecules. Concerning the other metabolite, the alcohol, the metabolism of Syvertal and Octacetal will result in the formation of, respectively: ethanol and methanol.

·        Nexus predicts similar sensitization potency for both substances: for Syvertal EC3 =37% and for Octacetal EC3 = 30%, in both cases based on being an aldehyde precursor. This indicates that using Octacetal for read across is likely resulting in a conservative value.

Toxico-dynamics:

·        Reactivity is the key parameter for assessing the skin sensitization potential. Both substances are alkyl acetals, predicted to have similar reactivity. The acetals as such are not expected to be too reactive, but the aldehyde, the key metabolite, does have an alert for skin sensitization.

Remaining uncertainties:

There is no remaining uncertainty as presented above.

Conclusions per endpoint for C&L and dose descriptor

Octacetal is skin sensitising in a reliable LLNA with an EC3 of 20%. Using read across from Octacetal also Syvertal is expected to have an EC3 of 20%. Therefore, Syvertal is a sensitiser, and it needs to be classified and labelled for sensitisation with category 1B according to EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP) Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 and its updates.

Data matrix Information on Syvertal and Octacetal important for assessment of skin sensitising properties

Name of substance	Sylvertal	Octacetal
Chemical structure
Empirical	C10H20O2	C10H22O2
Mol weight	172.27	174.28
Phys-chem	EpiSuite predictions
Appearance	Clear liquid (IFF, 2016)	Liquid
Melting point (^oC)	-5.95 (C) <-20°C (IFF, 2016)	-20.44 (C) <-20 (IFF, 2015)
Boiling point (^oC)	211.38 (C) 217.0°C (IFF, 2016)	195.26 (C) 218.5 (IFF, 2015)
Vapour pressure (Pa at 25^oC)	40 (C) 19.6 Pa (IFF, 2016)	86.4 (C) 12.52 (IFF, 2015)
Water solubility (mg/l)	169.9 (C) 130.8 mg/L (IFF, 2016)	115-380 (C) 211 (IFF, 2015)
Log Kow	2.98 (C) 4.3 (IFF, 2016)	3.17 (C) Not possible to measure by IFF
Human health
Skin sensitisation animal test	Read across	LLNA: EC3=20%
Metabolites	(2-ethylhexanal) + ethanol	(Octanal) + methanol
DEREK prediction	EC3= 37%	EC3= 30%

For testing data, see the IUCLID under the relevant endpoint. Calculated physico-chemical data were generated with EPISuite (version 4.1). C: calculated value, M: measured at IFF.

 

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the EC3 value of 20% in the LLNA study, the substance has to be classified for skin sensitisation.According to EU Classification, Labeling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP) Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 and its amendment, it has to be classified for skin sensitisation,Category 1B, H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction.