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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 267-510-5 | CAS number: 67874-81-1
- 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 (OECD TG 404): Not irritating.
Eye irritation OECD TG 438): Not eye irritating
Respiratory irritation: Not respiratory irritating in view of the absence of irritation for skin and eye.
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:
- 2015-09-02 until 2015-09-07
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Test system:
- human skin model
- Source species:
- human
- Cell type:
- non-transformed keratinocytes
- Cell source:
- foreskin from a single donor
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Details on test system:
- Preliminary tests:
- Some chemicals are known to change into a coloured substance in aqueous conditions and consequently stain tissues during the exposure. To determine this possibility, 30 μL of the test substance was incubated in 300 μL MilliQ water for 60 min at ca. 37 ºC and 5% CO2 and a colour change was assessed visually. Some chemicals are known to non-specifically reduce MTT, resulting in a blue/purple precipitate and/or blue/purple staining of a MTT solution. To test the MTT reducing capacity of the test substance, 30 μL of the test substance was incubated in 1 mL of a MTT solution (1 mg/mL) for 185 min at ca. 37ºC and 5% CO2 and the formation of a blue/purple formazan product was assessed visually. To test if the test substance had the potential to damage a nylon mesh, a mesh compatibility test was performed in which 30 μL of the test substance was applied to a nylon mesh. After 60 min incubation at ambient temperature, the possible interaction with the mesh was visually checked using a microscope.
Exposure to study substances:
- The skin models were topically exposed to 30 μL of the test substance, negative or positive control, at the end of the acclimatization period. Immediately after application a nylon mesh was placed on the skin model surface to facilitate an equal distribution of the study substances. Exposure was initiated at ambient temperature. After dosing the last skin model, all skin models were transferred to a humidified incubator (ca. 37ºC and 5% CO2). After 36 min, the plates were removed from the incubator and kept at ambient temperature until the exposure period of 60 min was completed. Subsequently, the skin models were removed from the well, washed using an excess of PBS to remove the study substances and mesh. The skin models were transferred to a clean 6-well plate containing fresh NMM (900 μL/well) and incubated in a humidified incubator (ca. 37ºC and ca. 5% CO2). Medium was refreshed after 18 h post-exposure. Following an additional 24 h incubation period (i.e. the total post-exposure period was 42 h), viability was determined using the MTT test.
MTT test:
- The MTT solution of 1 mg/mL was freshly prepared by diluting MTT concentrate five times in MTT diluent. The inserts were transferred to a 24-well plate containing 300 μL of MTT solution per well. After 178 min incubation in a humidified incubator at ca. 37 ºC and 5% CO2, the skin models were rinsed three times with PBS. The formazan product was extracted from the skin model using 2 mL MTT extractant (provided with the MTT-100 assay kit). Extraction was performed at 2-10 ºC for three days. Following extraction, the optical density was measured in triplicate in 200 μL sub fractions per well in a 96-well plate using a spectrophotometer set at 570 nm. MTT extractant was used as blank. The mean optical density (OD) was calculated and expressed as the percentage viability compared to the negative control (mean tissue viability).
Interpretation of results:
The test was considered valid if
- the OD of the negative control was ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 2.8
- the OD of the blank was < 0.1
- skin models treated with the positive control showed mean tissue viability ≤ 20% compared to the negative control
The test was considered invalid if the test did not meet these acceptance criteria.
- The test group was considered valid if the SD calculated from individual tissue viability percentages of the three replicates was ≤ 18%.
- Test substances showing tissue viabilities in a range of 30-70% may show standard deviation (SD) > 18%. If this was typical for the test substance, and consistent in a repeat experiment, the results were accepted, although the acceptance criterion
was not met.
- The test group was considered invalid (inconclusive) if the SD calculated from individual tissue viability percentages of the three replicates was >18% and if the test was not repeated.
The in vitro irritation potential of the test substance was determined from the relative mean tissue viabilities compared to the negative control tissues, using the following prediction model:
Mean tissue viability (% of negative control) Prediction
Mean tissue viability ≤ 50 % Irritant
Mean tissue viability > 50 % Non-irritant (No Category) - Control samples:
- yes, concurrent negative control
- yes, concurrent positive control
- Amount/concentration applied:
- 30 µL
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 60 min
- Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):
- Viability of the epidermal cells was assessed using the MTT test after 42h of culture.
- Number of replicates:
- Triplicate
- Irritation / corrosion parameter:
- % tissue viability
- Value:
- 94
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of irritation
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- Preliminary tests:
- At the end of the incubation period of the test substance in MilliQ, the solution did not significantly changed colour to blue/purple, indicating that there would be no colour interference in the test. Therefore, no additional controls were required in the in vitro skin irritation test.
- At the end of the incubation period of the test substance with a MTT solution, the MTT solution had neither turned blue/purple nor showed a blue/purple precipitate, indicating that the test substance did not have the potential to reduce MTT. Therefore, no additional controls were required in the in vitro skin irritation test. During the mesh compatibility test it was observed that the test substances did not damage the nylon mesh and therefore the nylon mesh was used in the in vitro skin irritation test to facilitate equal distribution of the test substance.
In vitro skin irritation test:
- The OD of the blank, the negative control (PBS) and the positive control (5% SDS) demonstrated the expected response. The SD calculated from individual tissue viability percentages of the three replicates was <18%. All acceptance criteria were met and therefore the study was considered valid. - Interpretation of results:
- other: Not a skin irritant
- Remarks:
- in accordance with EU CLP 1272/2008 and its amendments
- Conclusions:
- Under the test conditions (OECD 439 and GLP) the test substance is not a skin irritant in accordance with EU CLP and GHS.
- Executive summary:
In accordance to OECD guideline 439 and GLP the test substance was examined for its in vitro skin irritation potential using EpiDerm™ reconstructed skin membranes. In the in vitro skin irritation test, the skin membranes were topically exposed to the undiluted test substance for 60 min. The test was performed in triplicate. Viability of the epidermal cells was assessed using the MTT test after 42 h of culture. Negative and positive controls were run in parallel. All acceptance criteria were met and therefore the study was considered valid. After exposure to the test substance the mean tissue viability was 94 ± 17 % compared to the concurrent negative control group. Based on the results obtained in the present study the test substance is not considered to be a skin irritant, not for EU CLP and not for GHS.
Reference
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:
- 2015-09-01 until 2015-09-29
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 438 (Isolated Chicken Eye Test Method for Identifying Ocular Corrosives and Severe Irritants)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Species:
- other: eyes of male or female chickens (ROSS, spring chickens)
- Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Slaughterhouse v.d. Bor, Nijkerkerveen, The Netherlands
- Age at study initiation: approximately 7 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: approximately 1.5 - 2.5 kg
- Heads of the animals were cut off immediately after sedation of the animals by electric shock and incision of the neck for bleeding, and before they reached the next station on the process line. The heads were placed in small plastic boxes on a bedding of paper tissues moistened with isotonic saline. Next they were transported to the testing facility. During transportation, the heads were kept at ambient temperature.
- The preparation and validation of the eyes prior to the ICE-test were all according to OECD guideline 438. - Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- yes, concurrent positive control
- yes, concurrent negative control
- Amount / concentration applied:
- 30 µL
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 10 seconds
- Observation period (in vivo):
- 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- 3 eyes
- Details on study design:
- REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing: The eyes were rinsed with 20 mL saline
- Time after start of exposure: 10 seconds
SCORING SYSTEM: According to OECD 438 guideline.
TOOL USED TO ASSESS SCORE: All examinations were carried out with the hand-slit lamp microscope. Fluorescein retention was only scored at approximately 30 minutes after treatment. After the final examination, the test substance treated eyes, the negative and positive control eyes were preserved in a neutral aqueous phosphate-buffered 4% solution of formaldehyde. The corneas were embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at ca 4 μm and stained with PAS (Periodic Acid-Schiff). The microscopic slides were subjected to histopathological examination.
CONTROLS: A negative control (30 µL physiological saline) and 3 positive controls (30 µL Benzalkonium Chloride 5%) were included. - Irritation parameter:
- percent corneal swelling
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 1
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: maximum mean values
- Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 0.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: maximum mean values
- Irritation parameter:
- fluorescein retention score
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 0
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- - Slit-lamp examination:
The test substance caused very slight corneal swelling (1%), very slight or slight opacity (mean score of 0.8) and no fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.0). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants.
- Microscopic examination:
Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance revealed very slight or slight erosion (two corneas) and slight vacuolation (one cornea) of the epithelium. In addition, the epithelium was partly detached form the basement membrane in the same cornea. In view of the slit-lamp observations of this cornea, the toxicological significance of these findings was considered dubious and not taken into account for the classification. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities, apart from very slight vacuolation (top region) of the epithelium. The positive control BAC 5% caused moderate or severe erosion, slight vacuolation (one cornea; low region) of the epithelium, and endothelial necrosis. - Interpretation of results:
- other: Not eye irritating
- Remarks:
- EU CLP 1272/2008 and its amendments
- Conclusions:
- Under the test conditions (OECD 438 and GLP) the test substance is not an eye irritant using the EU CLP and GHS criteria.
- Executive summary:
In accordance to OECD guideline 438 and GLP the test substance was examined for its in vitro eye irritating potential using the Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) Test. In the ICE test, 3 eyes were exposed to 30 µL test substance for 10 seconds. In addition, one negative control eye (30 µL saline) and three positive control eyes (30 µL Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC)) were tested. After the exposure the eyes were rinsed with 20 mL saline and were examined at approximately 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after treatment. The test substance caused very slight corneal swelling (1%), very slight or slight opacity (mean score of 0.8) and no fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.0). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance revealed very slight or slight erosion (two corneas) and slight vacuolation (one cornea) of the epithelium. In addition, the epithelium was partly detached form the basement membrane in this cornea. In view of the slit-lamp observations of this cornea, the toxicological significance of these findings was considered dubious and not taken into account for the classification. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities, apart from very slight vacuolation (top region) of the epithelium. The positive control BAC 5% caused moderate or severe erosion, slight vacuolation (one cornea; low region) of the epithelium, and endothelial necrosis. Based on these results the test substance is not considered to be an eye irritant in accordance with EU CLP and GHS criteria.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Additional information
Skin irritation:
In accordance to OECD guideline 439 and GLP the test substance was examined for its in vitro skin irritation potential using EpiDerm™ reconstructed skin membranes. In the in vitro skin irritation test, the skin membranes were topically exposed to the undiluted test substance for 60 min. The test was performed in triplicate. Viability of the epidermal cells was assessed using the MTT test after 42 h of culture. Negative and positive controls were run in parallel. All acceptance criteria were met and therefore the study was considered valid. After exposure to the test substance the mean tissue viability was 94 ± 17 % compared to the concurrent negative control group. Based on the results obtained in the present study the test substance is not considered to be a skin irritant in accordance with EU CLP and GHS criteria.
Eye irritation:
In accordance to OECD guideline 438 and GLP the test substance was examined for its in vitro eye irritating potential using the Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) Test. In the ICE test, 3 eyes were exposed to 30 µL test substance for 10 seconds. In addition, one negative control eye (30 µL saline) and three positive control eyes (30 µL Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC)) were tested. After the exposure the eyes were rinsed with 20 mL saline and were examined at approximately 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after treatment. The test substance caused very slight corneal swelling (1%), very slight or slight opacity (mean score of 0.8) and no fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.0). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance revealed very slight or slight erosion (two corneas) and slight vacuolation (one cornea) of the epithelium. In addition, the epithelium was partly detached form the basement membrane in this cornea. In view of the slit-lamp observations of this cornea, the toxicological significance of these findings was considered dubious and not taken into account for the classification. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities, apart from very slight vacuolation (top region) of the epithelium. The positive control BAC 5% caused moderate or severe erosion, slight vacuolation (one cornea; low region) of the epithelium, and endothelial necrosis. Based on these results the test substance is not considered to be an eye irritant.
Respiratory irritation:
For assessing respiratory irritation human data are needed because no suitable in vitro or in vivo tests are available that can identify respiratory irritation (ECHA guidance R.7.2.1.1, 2014). There are no human data such as indicated in R7a, 7.2.3.2 and 7.2.4.2 of the ECHA guidance (2014) that indicate respiratory reactions of the substance e.g. from consumer experience or occupational exposure. In view of the absence of skin and eye irritation (ECHA guidance (7.1.2.1, last paragraph) respiratory irritation is not anticipated.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the absence of skin and eye irritation the substance does not have to be classified for skin, eye and respiratory irritation in accordance with CLP, Regulation (EC) No.1272/2008 and its amendments as well as in accordance with GHS criteria
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.