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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 629-770-1 | CAS number: 57968-71-5
- 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
Skin irritation/corrosion: Not irritating (OECD 439, GLP, K, rel. 1).
Eye irritation: Severe irreversible eye damage (OECD 438, GLP, K, rel. 1).
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 07-14 September 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Remarks:
- GLP study conducted in compliance with OECD Guideline No. 439 without any deviation.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.46 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model Test)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Not applicable
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- 27 April 2017
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Room temperature - Test system:
- human skin model
- Source species:
- human
- Cell type:
- non-transformed keratinocytes
- Justification for test system used:
- Following the REACH bottom-up strategy, the EPISKIN™ Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model met hod was used to assess skin irritation as recommended in the OECD test guideline No. 439.
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Details on test system:
- RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE
- Model used: EPISKIN™ Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model Kit, SkinEthic Laboratories, Lyon, France
- Tissue batch number(s): 17-RHE-094
- Production date: 12 September 2017
- Shipping date: 12 September 2017
- Delivery date: 12 September 2017
- Expiry date: 18 September 2017
- Date of initiation of testing: 12 September 2017
TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM
- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: room temperature
- Temperature of post-treatment incubation: 37 °C
REMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS
- Volume and number of washing steps: 42 minutes after the test item application, the nylon mesh was removed and the human epidermises were washed with 25 x 1 mL of DPBS. The rinsed tissues were checked for any coloration and noted to be whitish, comparable coloration to that of the negative control tissues.
- Observable damage in the tissue due to washing: none reported
- Modifications to validated SOP: none reported
MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE
- MTT concentration: 1 mg/mL
- Incubation time: 2 hours and 55 minutes
- Spectrophotometer: ELx800 absorbance microplate reader (controlled every year and calibrated if necessary) supplied by BioTek and the validated software Gen5 ELISA V1.05.11 supplied by BioTek
- Wavelength: 570 nm
- Filter: not reported
- Linear OD range of spectrophotometer: not reported.
FUNCTIONAL MODEL CONDITIONS WITH REFERENCE TO HISTORICAL DATA
- Viability: OD = 1.2 (> 0.7)
- Barrier function: ET50 = 5.1h (4.0h ≤ ET50 ≤ 10.0h )
- Morphology: Well-differenciated epidermis consisting of a basal layer, several spinous and granular layers and a stratum corneum
- Contamination: absence of mycoplasma
- Reproducibility: All of the values for the negative and positive control groups fell within the historical ranges of the testing laboratory. This was taken to show the correct functioning of the test system.
NUMBER OF REPLICATE TISSUES: 3 living human skin models
CONTROL TISSUES USED IN CASE OF MTT DIRECT INTERFERENCE: not a MTT reducer
NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT TEST SEQUENCES / EXPERIMENTS TO DERIVE FINAL PREDICTION: 1
PREDICTION MODEL / DECISION CRITERIA (choose relevant statement)
- The test substance is considered to be irritating to skin if relative mean tissue viability is ≤ 50% after 42 minutes of exposure.
- The test substance is considered to be non-irritating to skin if relative mean tissue viability is > 50% after 42 minutes of exposure. - Control samples:
- yes, concurrent negative control
- yes, concurrent positive control
- Amount/concentration applied:
- TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 16 μL
- Concentration (if solution): Undiluted
NEGATIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 16 μL
POSITIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 16 μL
- Concentration (if solution): 5% SDS solution - Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 42 minutes at room temperature
- Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):
- 42 hours post-incubation period at 37 °C, 5% CO2
- Number of replicates:
- Triplicate tissues for test substance, negative and positive controls
- Irritation / corrosion parameter:
- % tissue viability
- Run / experiment:
- 42 minutes exposure
- Value:
- 65.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 100%
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 2.4%
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of irritation
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: none reported
- Direct-MTT reduction: no
- Colour interference with MTT: no
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes, the negative control OD of the 3 replicates is > 0.4 and < 1.5 (values between 0.738 and 1.008)
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes, the positive control is classified as irritant
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: yes, the SD values of the % viability are ≤ 18% (values between 0.9 and 17.3%)
The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied.
The positive and negative control OD were within the historical control range. - Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test substance is not classified for skin irritation according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
- Executive summary:
An in vitro skin irritation study was performed according to OECD Guideline 439 and in compliance with GLP to evaluate the possible irritating effects of the test item after topical application on the in vitro human reconstructed epidermis SkinEthic RHE® model.
Triplicate tissues were treated with 16 µl of the test item for an exposure period of 42 minutes. At the end of the exposure period each tissue was rinsed before incubating for 42 hours. At the end of the post‑exposure incubation period each tissue was taken for MTT-loading. After MTT-loading, acidified isopropanol was then used for extraction of formazan crystals out of the MTT‑loaded tissues. At the end of the formazan extraction period, the measurement of optical density of triplicate samples was measured at 570 nm.
The relative mean viability of the test item treated tissues was 65.8% after the 42‑Minute exposure period and 42‑Hours post‑exposure incubation period.
The relative mean tissue viability for the positive control treated tissues was 2.4% relative to the negative control treated tissues and the standard deviation value of the viability was 0.9%. The positive control acceptance criteria were therefore satisfied.
The mean OD570 for the negative control treated tissues was 0.841 and the standard deviation value of the viability was 17.3%. The negative control acceptance criteria were therefore satisfied.
The standard deviation calculated from individual tissue viabilities of the three identically test item treated tissues was 8.7%. The test item acceptance criterion was therefore satisfied.
All of the values for the negative and positive control groups fell within the historical ranges of the testing laboratory. This was taken to show the correct functioning of the test system.
Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test substance is not classified for skin irritation according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
This study is considered as acceptable and satisfies the requirement for skin irritation endpoint.
Reference
Table 7.3.1/1: Assessment of the skin irritation - individual and average values of OD after 42 minutes exposure
Items |
Skin |
OD |
Mean OD/disc# |
Mean OD/product |
Viability% |
Mean viability% |
SD |
Conclusion |
Negative control |
1 |
0.939 |
1.008 |
0.841 |
119.8 |
100.0 |
17.3 |
- |
1.050 |
||||||||
1.035 |
||||||||
2 |
0.729 |
0.738 |
87.7 |
|||||
0.776 |
||||||||
0.711 |
||||||||
3 |
0.819 |
0.778 |
92.5 |
|||||
0.742 |
||||||||
0.775 |
||||||||
Positive control |
4 |
0.019 |
0.019 |
0.020 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
0.9 |
Irritant |
0.020 |
||||||||
0.019 |
||||||||
5 |
0.013 |
0.013 |
1.5 |
|||||
0.014 |
||||||||
0.012 |
||||||||
6 |
0.041 |
0.028 |
3.3 |
|||||
0.021 |
||||||||
0.023 |
||||||||
Test item |
7 |
0.787 |
0.621 |
0.553 |
73.8 |
65.8 |
8.7 |
Non irritant |
0.570 |
||||||||
0.507 |
||||||||
8 |
0.576 |
0.564 |
67.0 |
|||||
0.568 |
||||||||
0.549 |
||||||||
9 |
0.454 |
0.475 |
56.5 |
|||||
0.481 |
||||||||
0.492 |
≠: mean of 3 values (triplicate of the same extract)
OD: optical density
Acceptability criteria:
SD ≤ 18%
Negative control: OD value of the 3 replicates in the range ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 3.0.
The optical density was measured after a 1:2 dilution of the formazan extracts in isopropanol; the acceptability criteria should be in the range ≥ 0.4 and ≤1.5 for the negative control.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 12 June 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Remarks:
- GLP study conducted according to OECD Guideline 438 without deviation.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 438 (Isolated Chicken Eye Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU method B.48 (Isolated chicken eye test method for identifying occular corrosives and severe irritants)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Not applicable
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- 27 April 2017
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Room temperature - Species:
- chicken
- Strain:
- not specified
- Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
- SOURCE OF COLLECTED EYES
- Source: The eyes collected from chickens obtained from a slaughterhouse (Etablissement Brun, 33820 Etauliers, France) where they are killed for human consumption have been used for this assay.
- Characteristics of donor animals (e.g. age, sex, weight): The age and weight of the chickens used in this test method are that of spring chickens traditionally processed by a poultry slaughterhouse (i.e., approximately 7 weeks old, 1.5 - 2.5 kg).
- Heads have been removed immediately after sedation of the chickens by electric shock, and incision of the neck for bleeding. The heads have been collected on 12 June 2017 at 8: 15 am.
- Storage, temperature and transport conditions of ocular tissue (e.g. transport time, transport media and temperature, and other conditions): Because eyes were dissected in the laboratory, the intact heads were transported from the slaughterhouse at ambient temperature in plastic boxes humidified with towels moistened with physiological saline. The eyes were enucleated at Phycher on 12 June 2017 at 09:50 am.
- Indication of any existing defects or lesions in ocular tissue samples: None
- Indication of any antibiotics used: None - Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- yes, concurrent positive control
- yes, concurrent negative control
- Amount / concentration applied:
- TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 30 µL test item was applied to the cornea.
- Concentration (if solution): Undiluted - Duration of treatment / exposure:
- Test item was applied for 10 seconds to the cornea such that the entire surface of the cornea was evenly covered with the test item.
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- 1, 3 and 3 eyes for negative & positive control and test item, respectively.
- Details on study design:
- SELECTION AND PREPARATION OF ISOLATED EYES
- The eyelids were carefully excised, taking care not to damage the cornea. Then, the eye was further dissected from the skull, taking care not to damage the cornea. The eyeball was pulled from the orbit by holding the nictitating membrane firmly with surgical forceps, and the eye muscles were cut with a bent, blunt-tipped scissor. When the eye is removed from the orbit, a visible portion of the optic nerve should be left attached. Once removed from the orbit, the eye was placed on an absorbent pad and the nictitating membrane and other connective tissue were cut away.
- The enucleated eye was mounted in a stainless steel clamp with the cornea positioned vertically. The clamp was then transferred to a chamber of the superfusion apparatus. The clamps were positioned in the superfusion apparatus such that the entire cornea was supplied with the physiological saline drip (in the range 0.1 to 0.15 mL/min). The chambers of the superfusion apparatus were at a controlled temperature between 32.2 °C and 32.8 °C.
- After being placed in the superfusion apparatus, the eyes were examined with a slit-lamp microscope to ensure that they have not been damaged during the dissection procedure. Corneal thickness was also measured at this time at the corneal apex using the depth measuring device on the slit-lamp microscope. Eyes with; (i), a fluorescein retention score of > 0.5; (ii) corneal opacity > 0.5; or, (iii), any additional signs of damage were replaced. For eyes that are not rejected based on any of these criteria, individual eyes with a corneal thickness deviating more than 10% from the mean value for all eyes are to be rejected.
- Once all eyes had been examined and approved, the eyes were incubated between 45 and 60 minutes to equilibrate them to the test system prior to dosing. Following the equilibration period, a zero reference measurement was recorded for corneal thickness and opacity to serve as a baseline (i.e., time = 0). The fluorescein score determined at dissection was used as the baseline measurement for that endpoint.
NUMBER OF REPLICATES
- 1, 3 and 3 eyes for negative & positive control and test item, respectively.
NEGATIVE CONTROL USED: Physiological saline
POSITIVE CONTROL USED: 5% Benzalkonium chloride
APPLICATION DOSE AND EXPOSURE TIME
- Immediately following the zero reference measurements, the eye (in its holder) was removed from the superfusion apparatus, placed in a horizontal position, and 30 µL of the test item was applied, as supplied, to the cornea such that the entire surface of the cornea was evenly covered with the test item.
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- After exposure, the test item was rinsed from the eye with 20 mL of physiological saline at ambient temperature. The eye (in its holder) was subsequently returned to the superfusion apparatus in the original upright position.
OBSERVATION PERIOD
- Treated corneas were evaluated before the treatment and at 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes (± 5 minutes) after the post-treatment rinse.
METHODS FOR MEASURED ENDPOINTS:
- All observations of the cornea and measurement of corneal thickness were performed using a Haag-Streit BP900 slit-lamp microscope with depth-measuring device no. I. For the measurement of corneal thickness, the slit-width was set at 9½, equalling 0.095 mm.
- The endpoints evaluated were corneal opacity, swelling, fluorescein retention, and morphological effects (e.g., pitting or loosening of the epithelium). All of the endpoints, with the exception of fluorescein retention (which was determined only at pretreatment and 30 minutes after exposure to the test item) were determined at each of the above time points.
- Corneal opacity: Corneal opacity was calculated by using the area of the cornea that was most densely opacified for scoring.
- Swelling: Corneal swelling was determined from corneal thickness measurements made with an optical pachymeter on a slit-lamp microscope.
- Morphological effects include "pitting" of corneal epithelial cells, "loosening" of epithelium, "roughening" of the corneal surface and "sticking" of the test item to the cornea. These findings can vary in severity and may occur simultaneously. The classification of these findings is subjective according to the interpretation of the investigator.
SCORING SYSTEM:
- Mean corneal swelling (%) = ((corneal thickness at time t - corneal thickness at time = 0) / (corneal thickness at time = 0)) x 100
The mean percentage of corneal swelling for all tested eyes was calculated for all observation time points. Based on the highest mean score for corneal swelling, as observed at any time point, an overall category score was then given for the test item.
- Mean maximum opacity score: The mean corneal opacity value for all tested eyes was calculated for all observation time points. Based on the highest mean score for corneal opacity, as observed at any time point, an overall category score was then given for each test or control item.
0: No opacity
0.5: Very faint opacity
1: Scattered or diffuse areas; details of the iris clearly visible
2: Easily discernible translucent area; details of the iris are slightly obscured
3: Severe corneal opacity; no specific details of the iris are visible; size of the pupil is barely discernible
4: Complete corneal opacity; iris invisible
- Mean fluorescein retention score at 30 minutes post-treatment: The mean fluorescein retention value for all tested eyes was calculated for the 30-minute observation time point only, which was used for the overall category score given for each test or control item.
0: No fluorescein retention
0.5: Very minor single cell staining
1: Single cell staining scattered throughout the treated area of the cornea
2: Focal or confluent dense single cell staining
3: Confluent large areas of the cornea retaining fluorescein
DECISION CRITERIA:
Results from corneal opacity, swelling, and fluorescein retention were evaluated separately to generate an ICE class for each endpoint. The ICE classes for each endpoint were then combined to generate an Irritancy Classification for the test item.
Once each endpoint was evaluated, ICE classes were assigned based on a predetermined range. Interpretation of corneal thickness, opacity, and fluorescein retention using four ICE classes was done according to the table 7.3.2/1, 7.3.2/2, 7.3.2/3. - Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Run / experiment:
- 10 seconds exposure
- Value:
- 3
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of irritation
- Irritation parameter:
- fluorescein retention score
- Run / experiment:
- 10 seconds exposure
- Value:
- 3
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of irritation
- Irritation parameter:
- percent corneal swelling
- Run / experiment:
- 10 seconds exposure
- Value:
- 20
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of irritation
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- OCULAR REACTIONS:
The ocular reactions observed in eyes treated with the test item were:
- maximal mean score of corneal opacity: 3.0, corresponding to ICE class IV;
- mean score of fluorescein retention: 3.0, corresponding to ICE class IV;
- maximal mean corneal swelling: 20%, corresponding to ICE class III.
The combination of the three endpoints for the item was 2 x IV, 1 x III.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: The combination of the three endpoints for the negative control, physiological saline, was 3 x I. Therefore, the negative control is classified as "No Category", as expected.
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: The combination of the three endpoints for the positive control, 5% Benzalkonium chloride, was 3 x IV. Therefore, the positive control is classified as "Corrosive/ Severe Irritant", as expected. - Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (irreversible effects on the eye) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- Under the test conditions, the test item is classified as Category 1 (irreversible effects on the eye) according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
- Executive summary:
An ex vivo eye irritation study was performed according to the OECD Guideline 438 and in compliance with GLP to evaluate the possible ocular corrosive or severe irritating effects of the test item after administration on enucleated chicken eyes.
Test item was applied, as supplied, at the dose of 30 µL, to 3 enucleated chicken eyes, during 10 seconds. Then eyes were rinsed twice with 10 mL of physiological saline. Three eyes were treated in the same manner with a positive control and one eye with a negative control. Damages by the test item were assessed by determination of corneal swelling, opacity, and fluorescein retention at 30, 75, 120, 180 and 240 minutes post-dose.
The ocular reactions observed in eyes treated with the test item were:
- maximal mean score of corneal opacity: 3.0, corresponding to ICE class IV;
- mean score of fluorescein retention: 3.0, corresponding to ICE class IV;
- maximal mean corneal swelling: 20%, corresponding to ICE class III.
The combination of the three endpoints for the item was 2 x IV, 1 x III.
The combination of the three endpoints for the negative control, physiological saline, was 3 x I. Therefore, the negative control is classified as "No Category", as expected.
The combination of the three endpoints for the positive control, 5% Benzalkonium chloride, was 3 x IV. Therefore, the positive control is classified as "Corrosive/ Severe Irritant", as expected.
Under the test conditions, the test item is classified as Category 1 (irreversible effects on the eye) according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
This study is considered as acceptable and satisfies the requirement for eye damage endpoint.
Reference
Table 7.3.2/5: Individual and average values for evaluation of corneal lesions after treatment
Endpoint measured |
Eye No. |
Time (minutes) |
|||||
0 |
30 |
75 |
120 |
180 |
240 |
||
Corneal opacity |
7 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
9 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Mean |
0.0 |
2.7 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
|
ICE class |
IV |
||||||
Fluorescein retention |
7 |
0.5 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
0.5 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
9 |
0.5 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Mean |
0.5 |
3.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
ICE class |
IV |
||||||
Corneal thickness |
7 |
0.62 |
0.68 |
0.69 |
0.74 |
0.78 |
0.80 |
8 |
0.63 |
0.65 |
0.70 |
0.70 |
0.73 |
0.73 |
|
9 |
0.67 |
0.69 |
0.74 |
0.76 |
0.77 |
0.77 |
|
Corneal swelling (%) |
7 |
- |
10 |
11 |
19 |
26 |
29 |
8 |
- |
3 |
11 |
11 |
16 |
16 |
|
9 |
- |
3 |
10 |
13 |
15 |
15 |
|
Mean |
- |
5 |
11 |
15 |
19 |
20 |
|
ICE class |
III |
||||||
Combination of the three endpoints |
2 x IV, 1 x III |
||||||
Classification |
Category 1 : Corrosive/Severe irritant |
Note: No morphological effects were noted, whatever the examination time.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (irreversible damage)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Skin irritation:
Since no key study was identified on the registered substance, the testing and assessment strategy, as described in ECHA R.7a Endpoint specific guidance (December 2016), was used to evaluate the skin corrosion/irritation potential of the registered substance:
|
Element |
Information |
Conclusion |
Comments |
Existing data on physico |
1a |
Is the substance spontaneously flammable in contact with air (pyrophoric) or water at room temperature? |
NO |
|
1b |
Is the substance an organic hydroperoxide or an organic peroxide? |
NO |
|
|
1c |
Is the pH of the substance ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 11.5? |
NO |
|
|
1d |
Are there other physical or chemical properties that |
NO |
|
|
Existing human data |
2 |
Are there adequate existing human data which provide evidence that the substance is a corrosive |
NO |
|
Existing animal data from corrosion/irritation studies |
3 |
Are there data from existing studies on corrosion and irritation in laboratory animals, which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant? |
NO |
|
Existing data from general toxicity studies via the dermal route and from sensitisation studies |
4a |
Is the substance classified as fatal in contact with skin (LD50 ≤ 50 mg/kg bw, CLP hazard statement |
NO |
|
4b |
Has the substance proven to be a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant in a suitable acute dermal toxicity test? |
NO |
|
|
4c |
Has the substance proven to be a corrosive or an irritant in sensitisation studies or after repeated |
NO |
|
|
Existing/new (Q)SAR data and read |
5a |
Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as corrosive to the skin (Skin Corrosive Cat. 1), or do suitable (Q)SAR methods indicate corrosion |
NO |
Predicted to be "Not corrosive to skin" using Toxtree (v2.6.13). |
5b |
Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as irritant to the skin (Skin Irritant Cat. 2), or indicating that the substance is non-irritant, or do suitable (Q)SAR methods indicate irritant or non-irritant potential of the substance? |
NO |
|
|
Existing in vitro data |
6a |
Has the substance demonstrated corrosive properties in an EU/OECD adopted in vitro test? |
NO |
|
6b |
Has the substance demonstrated irritant or non-irritant properties in an EU/OECD adopted |
NO |
(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available) |
|
6c |
Are there data from a non-validated suitable in vitro test(s), which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is corrosive/ irritant? |
NO |
|
|
Weight-of- Evidence analysis |
7 |
The “elements” described above may be arranged as appropriate. Taking all available existing and |
NO |
|
New in vitro test for corrosivity |
8 |
Does the substance demonstrate corrosive properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for skin corrosion? |
NO |
|
New in vitro test for irritation |
9 |
Does the substance demonstrate irritating or non-irritating properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for skin irritation? |
YES |
Following the bottom-up approach, an OECD TG 439 (SkinEthic) study was performed.Mean tissue viability = 65.8 % <=> not irritant to skin |
New in vivo test for corrosion/irritation |
10 |
To be used only as a last resort |
NO |
|
The in vitro skin irritation study (Phycher, 2017, Rel.1) was performed according to the OECD Guideline 439 and in compliance with GLP, using the SkinEthic reconstructed human epidermis model. The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied. The relative mean viability of the test
item treated tissues was 65.8 %, after the 42‑minute exposure period. With a tissue viability > 50%, the test material was considered to be non-irritant to skin.
Eye irritation:
Since no key study was identified on the registered substance, the testing and assessment strategy, as described in ECHA R.7a Endpoint specific guidance (December 2016), was used to evaluate the eye damage/irritation potential of the registered substance:
|
Element |
Information |
Conclusion |
Comments |
Conclusion of the information strategy on skin corrosion/irritation |
0 |
Is the substance classified as a skin corrosive? |
NO |
|
Existing data on physico |
1a |
Is the substance spontaneously flammable in contact with air (pyrophoric) or water at room temperature? |
NO |
|
1b |
Is the substance an organic hydroperoxide or an organic peroxide? |
NO |
|
|
1c |
Is the pH of the substance ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 11.5? |
NO |
|
|
1d |
Are there other physical or chemical properties that indicate that the substance causes serious eye damage or eye irritation? |
NO |
|
|
Existing human data |
2 |
Are there adequate existing human data which provide evidence that the substance has the potential to cause serious eye damage or eye irritation? |
NO |
|
Existing animal data from corrosion/irritation studies |
3 |
Are there data from existing studies on corrosion and irritation in laboratory animals, which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant? |
NO |
|
Existing/new (Q)SAR data and read-across |
4 |
Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as causing serious eye damage/eye irritation, or indicating that the substance is non-irritant, or do valid (Q)SAR methods indicate serious eye damage/eye irritation or non-irritation of the substance? |
NO |
|
Existing in vitro data |
5a |
Has the substance demonstrated serious eye damage, eye irritation or non-irritating properties in an EU/OECD adopted in vitro test? |
NO |
|
5b |
Are there acceptable data from (a) non-validated suitable in vitro test(s), which provide sound evidence that the substance causes serious eye damage/eye irritation? |
NO |
(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available) |
|
Weight-of- Evidence analysis |
6 |
The “elements” described above may be arranged as appropriate. Taking all available existing and relevant data mentioned above (Elements 0 – 5) into account, is there sufficient information to make a decision on whether classification/labelling is necessary, and – if so – how to classify and label? |
NO |
|
New in vitro tests for serious eye damage/eye irritation (Annex VII to the REACH Regulation) |
7a |
Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage, eye irritation or non-irritant properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for the eye hazard charaterisation? |
NO |
|
8b |
Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage or eye irritant properties in (a) non-validated suitable in vitro test(s) for serious eye damage/eye irritation? |
YES |
Following the top-down approach, an ICE assay was performed. The combination of the three endpoints for the item was 2 x IV, 1 x III <=> servere eye damage |
|
New in vivo test for serious eye damage/eye irritation as a last resort (Annex VIII to the REACH Regulation) |
8b |
Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage or eye irritation in an OECD adopted in vivo test? |
NO |
|
The ICE test (Phycher, 2017, Rel.1) was conducted according to the OECD guideline No. 438 and in compliance with GLP. The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied. The combination of the three endpoints for the item was 2 x IV, 1 x III. Therefore the test item requires classification for severe eye damage.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Harmonized classification:
The substance has no harmonized classification according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.
Self-classification:
No additional self-classification is proposed regarding skin irritation according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
Based on the available information, the substance should be classified as Eye Damage category 1 (H318: "Causes serious eye damage") according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.
No data was available regarding respiratory irritation.
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.