Registration Dossier

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
The study was performed between 07 September 2011 and 27 September 2011.
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: see 'Remark'
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:
2011
Report Date:
2011

Materials and methods

Test guidelineopen allclose all
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of study:
mouse local lymphnode assay (LLNA)

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent
Test material form:
solid

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
mouse
Strain:
other: CBA/Ca (CBA/CaOlaHsd)
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Female CBA/Ca (CBA/CaOlaHsd) strain mice were supplied by Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd., Oxon, UK. On receipt the animals were randomly allocated to cages. The animals were nulliparous and non pregnant. After an acclimatisation period of at least five 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 eight to twelve weeks old.
The animals were individually housed in suspended solid floor polypropylene cages furnished with softwood wood flakes. Free access to mains tap water and food (2014C Teklad Global Rodent diet supplied by Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd., Oxon, UK) was allowed throughout the study.
The temperature and relative humidity were controlled to remain within target ranges of 19 to 25°C and 30 to 70%, respectively. Any occasional deviations from these targets were considered not to have affected the purpose or integrity of the study. The rate of air exchange was approximately fifteen changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give twelve hours continuous light (06.00 to 18.00) and twelve 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.

Study design: in vivo (LLNA)

Vehicle:
other: Please see below for Vehicle Determination Record
Concentration:
Each group was exposed to concentrations of 25%, 10% or 5% v/v 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water
No. of animals per dose:
Groups of four mice were treated
Details on study design:
Preliminary Screening Test
Using available information 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 test item at a concentration of 25% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water, 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 irritation was scored daily according to the scale included as Appendix 4. Any clinical signs of toxicity, if present, were also recorded. The bodyweight was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and on Day 6.
The thickness of each ear was measured using an Oditest micrometer (Dyer, PA), 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 sensitisation.
Main Test
Test Item Administration
Groups of four mice were treated with the test item at concentrations of 25%, 10% or 5% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water. The preliminary screening test suggested that the test item would not produce systemic toxicity or excessive local 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 four 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.
Bodyweights: The bodyweight of each mouse was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and Day 6 (prior to termination).

Positive control substance(s):
hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
Statistics:
None provided.

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
Methods. A group of five animals was treated with 50 µl (25 µl per ear) of α Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85% as a suspension in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water at a concentration of 25% v/v. A further control group of five animals was treated with 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water alone.

Results. The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for the treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group is as follows:

Concentration (% v/v) in
1% pluronic L92 in distilled water Stimulation Index Result
25 6.77 Positive

Conclusion. α Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85% was considered to be a sensitiser under the conditions of the test.

In vivo (LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Key result
Parameter:
SI
Remarks on result:
other: see Remark
Remarks:
The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group are as follows: Concentration (% w/w) in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water Stimulation Index Result 5 0.98 Negative 10 1.08 Negative 25 0.96 Negative
Key result
Parameter:
other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
Remarks on result:
other: The radioactive disintegrations per minute (dpm) per lymph node and the stimulation index (SI) are given in Table 4

Any other information on results incl. tables

 RESULTS

Preliminary Screening Test

Clinical observations, bodyweight and mortality data are given in Table 1 and local skin irritation is given in Table 2. The ear thickness measurements and mean ear thickness changes are given in Table 3.

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 the dose levels selected for the main test were 25%,10% and 5% w/w in1% pluronic L9 2in distilled water.

Table 1  Clinical Observations, Bodyweight and Mortality Data – Preliminary Screening Test

Concentration (%w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Animal Number

Bodyweight (g)

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

Day 1

Day 6

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

25

S-1

18

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0=      No signs of systemic toxicity

Table 2  Local Skin Irritation – Preliminary Screening Test

Concentration
(%
w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Animal Number

Local Skin Irritation

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

left

right

left

right

left

right

left

right

left

right

left

right

25

S-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Table 3   Measurement of Ear Thicknessand Mean Ear Thickness Changes – Preliminary Screening Test

Concentration
(%
w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Animal Number

Ear Thickness Measurement (mm)

Day 1

Day 3

Day 6

pre‑dose

post dose

left

right

left

right

left

right

25

S-1

0.230

0.240

0.250

0.250

0.245

0.240

overall mean (mm)

0.235

0.250

0.243

overall mean ear thickness change (%)

na

6.383

3.191

na=     Not applicable

 Main Test

 Estimation of the Proliferative Response of Lymph Node Cells

The radioactive disintegrations per minute per lymph node and the stimulation index are given in Table 4.

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

Concentration (%w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Stimulation Index

Result

5

0.98

Negative

10

1.08

Negative

25

0.96

Negative

 Clinical Observations and Mortality Data

Individual clinical observations and mortality data for test and control animals are given in Table 5.

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

Table 4              Disintegrations per Minute, Disintegrations per Minute/Node and Stimulation Index

Concentration
(%w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

dpm

dpm/Nodea

Stimulation Indexb

Result

Vehicle

6070.85

758.86

na

na

5

5949.80

743.73

0.98

Negative

10

6566.56

820.82

1.08

Negative

25

5846.46

730.81

0.96

Negative

dpm=  Disintegrations per minute

a=      Disintegrations per minute/node obtained by dividing the disintegrations per minute value by 8 (total number of lymph nodes)

b=      Stimulation Index of 3.0 or greater indicates a positive result

na =    Not applicable

Table 5   Individual Clinical Observations and Mortality Data

Concentration
(% w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Animal Number

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

Pre-Dose

Post Dose

Vehicle

1-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1-2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1-3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1-4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

2-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2-2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2-3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2-4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

3-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3-2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3-3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3-4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

4-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4-2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4-3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4-4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


0=      No signs of systemic toxicity

Individual bodyweights and bodyweight changes for test and control animals are given in Table 6.

Bodyweight changes of the test animals between Day 1 and Day 6 were comparable to those observed in the corresponding control group animals over the same period.

Table 6   Individual Bodyweights and Bodyweight Changes

Concentration
(% w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Animal Number

Bodyweight (g)

Bodyweight Change (g)

Day 1

Day 6

Vehicle

1-1

18

19

1

1-2

18

19

1

1-3

19

20

1

1-4

19

20

1

5

2-1

21

20

-1

2-2

20

20

0

2-3

17

18

1

2-4

18

18

0

10

3-1

17

18

1

3-2

19

20

1

3-3

18

19

1

3-4

18

18

0

25

4-1

19

20

1

4-2

18

18

0

4-3

17

17

0

4-4

18

19

1

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
The test item was considered to be a non-sensitiser under the conditions of the test.
The test item did not meet the criteria for classification as a sensitiser according to EU labelling regulations Commission Directive 2001/59/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. No symbol/risk phrase or signal word/hazard statement are required.
Executive summary:

Introduction. 

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. The method was designed tobe compatible with the following:

OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 429 "Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay" (adopted22 July 2010)

Method B42 Skin Sensitisation (Local Lymph Node Assay) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008

Methods. 

Following a preliminary screening test in which no clinical signs of toxicity were noted at a concentration of 25% w/w, this concentration was selected as the highest dose investigated in the main test of the Local Lymph Node Assay. Three groups, each of four animals, were treated with 50 µl (25 µl per ear) of the test item as asolution/suspensionin1% pluronic L92 in distilled waterat concentrations of 25%,10% or 5% w/w. A further group of four animals was treated with1% pluronic L92 in distilled wateralone.

Results. 

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

Concentration (%w/w) in
1% pluronic L92in distilled water

Stimulation Index

Result

5

0.98

Negative

10

1.08

Negative

25

0.96

Negative

Conclusion. 

The test item was considered to be anon-sensitiserunder the conditions of the test.

The test item did not meet the criteria for classification as a sensitiser according to EU labelling regulations Commission Directive 2001/59/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. No symbol/risk phrase or signal word/hazard statement are required.