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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 616-995-5 | CAS number: 8018-01-7
- 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
The substance is sensitising to skin.
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
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 1992
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The guinea pig maximisation test has been carried out as an animal test to predict human sensitization for over a decade and is recommended by international test guidelines such as OECD.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 50 %
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 0
- Adequacy of induction:
- other: selected based on preliminary study
- Route:
- epicutaneous, semiocclusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.2 mL of 50 % of test substance dilution
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 7
- Adequacy of induction:
- other: Prior to application, local irritation had been created by painting the skin with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate
- No.:
- #2
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.1 mL of the test substance
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 20
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20 test animals and 10 control animals
- Details on study design:
- The potential of Sanachem Mancozeb Technical to cause skin sensitisation was evaluated in guinea pigs using a Magnusson Kligman Maximisation Test. The study employed 30 male Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs: 20 test with 10 controls. An area of dorsal skin from the scapular region (ca. 6 x 8 cm) of the animals was clipped free of hair ca. 24 hours prior to administration on Day 0 of three pairs of intradermal injections (0.1 mL/site) just within the boundaries of a 4 x 6 cm area in the clipped region.
The test group injections were:
(1) Freund’s complete adjuvant (FCA) 50:50 in physiological saline;
(2) The test substance, diluted with distilled water to the concentration selected in a preliminary study (50%);
(3) The test substance, diluted with a 50:50 mixture of FCA and physiological saline to the concentration selected in the preliminary study (50%).
The control group injections were:
(1) FCA 50:50 in physiological saline;
(2) Vehicle used in (2) for the test group (distilled water);
(3) FCA 50:50 in distilled water.
On Day 7 (after clipping the fur again 24 hours earlier), topical applications were made to the same site after local irritation had been created by painting the skin with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate. The test group received 0.2 mL of a 50% dilution of the test substance in distilled water on filter paper. The control group were treated with distilled water. The patches were held in place under surgical adhesive tape and this was further secured with a double layer of semi-occlusive dressing. The patches remained in place for 48 hours.
On Day 20, the flanks of treated and control animals were cleared of hair and on Day 21, patches loaded with 0.1 mL of the test substance were applied to one flank. The patches were held in place for 24 hours with an occlusive dressing. Approximately 21 hours after removing the patch, the challenge area was cleaned and closely clipped and depilated if necessary. The skin reaction to the challenge application was observed at 48 and 72 hours after the start of the challenge and graded for erythema. - Positive control substance(s):
- no
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 0
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- discrete to patchy erythema
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- discrete to patchy erythema
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- The test substance was found to be skin sensitizing in this in vivio study.
- Executive summary:
The potential of the test substance to cause skin sensitisation was evaluated in guinea pigs using a Magnusson Kligman Maximisation Test. The study employed 30 male Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs: 20 test with 10 controls. An area of dorsal skin from the scapular region (ca. 6 x 8 cm) of the animals was clipped free of hair ca. 24 hours prior to administration on Day 0 of three pairs of intradermal injections (0.1 mL/site) just within the boundaries of a 4 x 6 cm area in the clipped region.
The test group injections were:
(1) Freund’s complete adjuvant (FCA) 50:50 in physiological saline;
(2) The test substance, diluted with distilled water to the concentration selected in a preliminary study (50%);
(3) The test substance, diluted with a 50:50 mixture of FCA and physiological saline to the concentration selected in the preliminary study (50%).
The control group injections were:
(1) FCA 50:50 in physiological saline;
(2) Vehicle used in (2) for the test group (distilled water);
(3) FCA 50:50 in distilled water.
On Day 7 (after clipping the fur again 24 hours earlier), topical applications were made to the same site after local irritation had been created by painting the skin with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate. The test group received 0.2 mL of a 50% dilution of the test substance in distilled water on filter paper. The control group were treated with distilled water. The patches were held in place under surgical adhesive tape and this was further secured with a double layer of semi-occlusive dressing. The patches remained in place for 48 hours.
On Day 20, the flanks of treated and control animals were cleared of hair and on Day 21, patches loaded with 0.1 mL of the test substance were applied to one flank. The patches were held in place for 24 hours with an occlusive dressing. Approximately 21 hours after removing the patch, the challenge area was cleaned and closely clipped and depilated if necessary. The skin reaction to the challenge application was observed at 48 and 72 hours after the start of the challenge and graded for erythema.
None of the control animals reacted positively to the dermal challenge. However, four animals of the test group showed discrete to patchy erythema after the topical induction period, and seven animals reacted in a similar way during the topical challenge, both after 24 and 48 hours. The exposed skin areas of both the control and challenge groups were dry and peeling after exposure.
Under the conditions of this study, the test substance induced a positive response in 35% of the test animals (7/20) and is concluded to be a skin sensitizer.
Reference
None of the control animals reacted positively to the dermal challenge. However, four animals of the test group showed discrete to patchy erythema after the topical induction period, and seven animals reacted in a similar way during the topical challenge, both after 24 and 48 hours. The exposed skin areas of both the control and challenge groups were dry and peeling after exposure.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
The following summary is taken from the CLH report (Dec 2017) of Mancozeb.
The original DAR (2000) under Directive 91/414 describes two Buehler tests (Anonymous, 1988; Anonymous, 1986) conducted in guinea-pigs and three guinea-pig maximisation studies (Matshushita et al., 1976; Anonymous, 1994; Anonymous, 1997). The results of the majority of these studies (Anonymous., 1986; Matshushita et al., 1976; Anonymous, 1994c) show that mancozeb is a skin sensitiser. Since then, another skin sensitisation study (Anonymous, 2007) has become available. This study conformed to GLP and OECD test guideline 406. Mancozeb (88.6% pure) was tested in male guinea pigs according to the Buehler method. Mancozeb was negative in this study. However, it is noted that the Buehler method is less sensitive than the M+K method. Overall, therefore, the results of this study are not inconsistent with the studies in the original DAR (2000) under Directive 91/414.
In the Buehler assay by Anonymous (1988), grade 1 erythema was noted in 1/20 mancozeb-treated animals 48 hours after challenge, and in 1/20 mancozeb-treated animals 24 hours after re-challenge. However, this was not the same animal that exhibited erythema during the challenge phase. Appropriate responses were seen with positive and sham controls. In this study mancozeb did not induce a positive response.
In the second Buehler study (Anonymous, 1986) 2/10 animals had slight to well-defined erythema with or without slight or well-defined oedema at 24 and 48 hours following challenge with 50% mancozeb. Similar reactions were not seen in negative control animals; therefore it was concluded that under the test conditions mancozeb is a skin sensitiser.
Guinea pig maximisation studies were conducted by Anonymous (1994) and Anonymous (1997a). In the study by Anonymous (1994) none of the control animals reacted positively to the dermal challenge. However, seven animals of the test group showed discrete to patchy erythema during the topical challenge, after both 24 and 48 hours. As 35% (7/20) of animals gave a positive response in this adjuvant test it is concluded that a skin sensitising potential was demonstrated under the conditions of this study.
In the second guinea pig maximisation test conducted by Anonymous (1997a) 3/20 animals exhibited grade 1 erythema at both 24 and 48 hours following challenge. As a 15% positive response was observed in this second adjuvant test it was concluded that mancozeb was not a skin sensitiser under the conditions of this study.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
The following conclusion is taken from the CLH report (Dec 2017) of Mancozeb.
On the basis of the positive results obtained in 3 out of the 6 available studies, the current classification of mancozeb for skin sensitisation in category 1 (H317) is confirmed.
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.