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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 206-059-0 | CAS number: 298-14-6
- 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
Reliable, adequate and relevant data from a Buehler sensitisation study according to US EPA/FIFRA Guideline in guinea pigs are available. There was no evidence for a skin sensitisation after challenge with 100 % of potassium hydrogencarbonate. The sensitisation rate was 0 %.
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:
- 1993-01-21 to 1993-05-03
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Test procedure according to national (US) standards comparable to international guidelines
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPP 81-6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- US EPA Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision F, Hazard Evaluation: Human and Domestic Animals, November 1984, Acute Exposure, Guinea Pig Sensitization (Buehler)
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- only 10 instead of 20 animals in treatment group
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- A valid Buehler test conducted comparable to guideline with acceptable restrictions is available, which is reliable with restrictions and adequate for classification and labelling purposes. Potency estimation is not mandatory when existing guideline and GLP conforming data are available, which were conducted before the new annex of the REACH Regulation entered into force. Moreover, no indication for skin sensitisation was observed in this study, thus, no dose response information is needed. For this reason and for reasons of animal welfare no additional LLNA was conducted.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- not specified
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Guinea pig strain Crl:(HA)BR
- Source: Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Hazleton Wisconsin facility at 3802 Packers Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Age at study initiation: young adult
- Weight at study initiation: 386 to 504 g
- Housing: individually housed in screen-bottom stainless steel cages
- Diet: ad libitum, Certified Guinea Pig ChoW® #5026, Purina Mills, Inc., USA
- Water: ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least 7 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature: 19 to 24°C
- Humidity19 to 65% Relative Humidity
- Air changes (per hr): no data in study summary
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): no data in study summary - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Undiluted for induction and challenge. To enhance skin contact, the substance was moistened with deionized water.
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Undiluted for induction and challenge. To enhance skin contact, the substance was moistened with deionized water.
- No. of animals per dose:
- irritation screening group: 4 animals
test group: 10 animals
negative control group: 10 animals
positive control group: 4 animals - Details on study design:
- Irritation Screening Study
An irritation screening study using four animals was conducted to determine the irritation threshold of the test material. The test material was administered as a 0.2-g dose, moistened with deionized water and at concentrations of 25%, 50%, and 75% w/v in deionized water with each anima receiving two different concentrations of the test material. The appropriate test material concentrations, in the amount of 0.2 g or 0.4 mL, were applied to Hill Top Chamber® patches. The patches were then placed on two shaved sites on the right and left anterior quadrants of each animal, covered with an overlapping strip of dental dam, and overwrapped with Elastoplast® tape. The patches remained in place for 6 hours after which they were removed and the
sites were wiped with a wet disposable paper towel. The test sites were observed for erythema reactions at 24 and 48 hours after patch removal.
Definitive Study
Based on the results of the irritation screening study, the test material was administered as a 0.2-g dose (moistened with deionized water) for the induction phase and for the challenge application. All test and positive control mixtures used in the irritation screening or definitive phases of the study were stored at room temperature until administered.
- Induction Phase:
On the day of test material application, the hair was removed from the backs of each animal in the test and positive control groups with electric clippers. The test material was applied to each animal in the test group by placing 0.2 g (moistened with deionized water) of test material on an adhesive patch (Hill Top Chamber®, 25-mm diameter) and placing the patch on the induction site along the anterior left flank. The patch was covered with dental dam and overwrapped with Elastoplast® tape. The dressing remained in place for a period of 6 hours after which it was removed and the induction site wiped with a wet disposable paper towel.
The positive control material [0.3% w/v 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) in 80% v/v ethanol in deionized water] was administered as a 0.4 mL dose to the positive control animals in the same manner used for the test material. The animals in the test and positive control groups received one application per week for 3 weeks for a total of three applications. Due to the strong irritation present in the induction site of the positive control animals, the third induction dose for these animals was applied to an induction site slightly posterior to the initial site.
The naive control animals were not treated during this phase of the study.
- Challenge Phase:
Two weeks following the administration of the third induction dose, a challenge dose of 0.2 g of test material was administered along the anterior right flank of the test group animals in the same manner as during the induction phase of the study.
At this time the 10 naive (previously untreated) control animals were also treated in the same manner with a challenge application of the test material.
The positive control material was administered at a concentration of 0.1% w/v in acetone. The method used for the positive control group was the same as that of the test group.
- Observations:
Approximately 3 hours before the 24-hour examination following the irritation screening and challenge applications, the test sites of the respective animals were depilated by applying Neet@ depilatory for approximately 20 minutes, which was then washed off with lukewarm water.
The respective application sites were examined and scored for erythema reactions according to the Buehler scoring scale at approximately 24 and
48 hours following the irritation screening, induction, and challenge applications.
Clinical observations were conducted daily throughout the study. Body weights on the definitive study animals were taken on Day 1, at weekly intervals throughout the study, and at termination of the experimental phase.
- Evaluation of Challenge Responses:
Determination of sensitization was based on reactions to the challenge dose. Grades of 1 or greater in the test animals may indicate evidence of sensitization, provided grades of less than 1 are seen in the naive control animals. - Challenge controls:
- A naive control group of 10 animals was maintained under the same environmental conditions and treated with the test substance at challenge only.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- Dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB)
- Positive control results:
- 1/4 animals died within the induction phase. The surviving positive control animals were considered to have been sensitized because of the moderate dermal reactions they exhibited to the 0.1% w/v concentration of DNCB in acetone at challenge.
Historical data compiled at the test facility have indicated that a 0.1% w/v concentration of DNCB in acetone does not produce irritation or causes very slight irritation in previously untreated animals when treated in the same manner as for the challenge application. - Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100 % . No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 100 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 100 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.1% w/v DNCB in acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- In this study, the test article "Potassium Bicarbonate" is not a dermal sensitizer.
- Executive summary:
In a dermal sensitization study according to US EPA Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision F, Hazard Evaluation: Human and Domestic Animals, November 1984, Acute Exposure, Guinea Pig Sensitization (Buehler) which is similar to OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation) with the test article "Potassium Bicarbonate", young adult guinea pigs strain Crl:(HA)BR (10 test and 10 control animals) were tested using the method of Buehler. Positive control substance was Dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) with a sensitisation rate of 100 % (4 animals).
To enhance skin contact, the undiluted substance was moistened with deionized water for induction and challenge exposure. No irritation was noted at any of the test or negative control sites during the induction phase. After challenge exposure no skin reactions were observed in test or control animals at any observation time. Therefore the sensitisation rate was 0 %.
In this study, the test article "Potassium Bicarbonate" is not a dermal sensitizer.
Reference
Clinical Observations and Body Weights:
All animals appeared normal throughout the study with the exception of one positive control animal which appeared hypoactive and was hypothermic to touch on Day 8 and was found dead on Day 9. The gross necropsy of this animal revealed a dark-brown oral discharge, a dark-red focus area on the right median lobe of the liver, and a dark-red semi-solid surrounding the right median lobe of the liver.
There was no meaningful effect on body weight gain in surviving animals.
Dermal Reactions to Product Potassium Bicarbonate:
No dermal reactions were observed in the animals in the test group when administered the test material during the induction or challenge phase of the study.
None of the naive control animals reacted to the challenge application of the test material.
Positive Control (DNCB):
The surviving positive control animals were considered to have been sensitized because of the moderate dermal reactions they exhibited to the 0.1% w/v concentration of DNCB in acetone at challenge. Historical data compiled at HWI have indicated that a 0.1% w/v concentration of DNCB in acetone does not produce irritation or causes very slight irritation in previously untreated animals when treated in the same manner as for the challenge application.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
As expected, there is no evidence for a skin sensitisation from a Buehler sensitisation study. The abiotic dissociation of potassium hydrogencarbonate with tissue water results in the formation of potassium and carbonate ions. Potassium and carbonate ions are naturally occurring, effectively processed and regulated essential compounds in the body. K+ or HCO3- resulting from the ionisation (dissociation) of KHCO3 will not influence the natural K+ or HCO3- level in the body due to the natural regulation mechanisms.and for this reason it is very unlikely that potassium hydrogencarbonate has an intrinsic sensitising activity. The absence of intrinsic toxic properties of potassium hydrogencarbonate is generally taken for granted, which is proved by its long-standing safe use in foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals with no limitations other than current good manufacturing practice and its GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status in the USA.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
No study available. However, based on the structure of potassium hydrogencarbonate, no sensitising effects to the respirators system are expected. The abiotic dissociation of potassium hydrogencarbonate with tissue water results in the formation of potassium and carbonate ions. Potassium and carbonate ions are naturally occurring, effectively processed and regulated essential compounds in the body and for this reason it is very unlikely that they could cause respiratory sensitisation. Absence of intrinsic toxic properties of potassium hydrogencarbonate is generally taken for granted, which is proved by its long-standing safe use in foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals with no limitations other than current good manufacturing practice and its GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status in the.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Reliable, adequate and relevant data from a Buehler study with guinea pigs indicate that potassium hydrogencarbonate does not induce skin sensitisation. Further on, based on the structure of potassium hydrogencarbonate, no sensitising effects are expected.
According to GHS Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 potassium hydrogencarbonate is not classified as “sensitising” and labelling is not required.
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.