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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
1992-08-11 to 1993-01-07
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP-Guideline study (OECD Guideline 406)

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1993
Report date:
1993

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
adopted on 17-Jul-1992
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-methylphenyl)ethyl phosphate
EC Number:
416-140-4
EC Name:
Bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-methylphenyl)ethyl phosphate
Cas Number:
145650-60-8
Molecular formula:
C32H51 O3 P
IUPAC Name:
bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-methylphenyl) ethyl phosphite
Details on test material:
Physical properties: Solid, white

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Pirbright White
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: CIBA-GEIGY LTD. Animal Production, 4332 Stein / Switzerland
- Weight at study initiation: 323 to 423 g
- Housing: individually in Macrolon cages
- Diet: ad libitum standard guinea pig pellets
- Water: tap water, ad libitum

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature: 22 +/- 3°C
- Humidity: 30 to 70%
- Photoperiod: 12 hrs light cycle

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
other: vaseline, arachis oil, physiol. saline
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal Induction: test substance in arachis oil and adjuvant mixture: 5%
Epidermal Induction: test substance 50 % in vaseline
Epidermal Challenge: test substance 50 % in vaseline
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: vaseline, arachis oil, physiol. saline
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal Induction: test substance in arachis oil and adjuvant mixture: 5%
Epidermal Induction: test substance 50 % in vaseline
Epidermal Challenge: test substance 50 % in vaseline
No. of animals per dose:
test group: 10 male and 10 female guinea pigs
control group: 5 male and 5 female guinea pigs
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS
The concentration of the test compound for the induction and challenge periods were determined on four separate animals with concentrations of 1 %, 5 %, 10 %, 20%, 30% and 50%. The tested concentrations did not induce erythema reactions, therefore a concentration of 50% in vaseline was selected. No skin irritation was observed in the pretest. Therefore the application site was pretreated with 10% sodium-laurylsulfate (open application) 24 hours prior to the epidermal induction application. Concentration of test article for challenge was also 50% in vaseline.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: two-stage operation
- Exposure period: weeks 1 and 2
- Site: First, three pairs of intradermal injections into the neck region (adjuvant/saline; test item in vehicle; test item in vehicle plus adjuvant/saline) were given. Second, closed patch exposure over the injection sites one week later.

During weeks 3 and 4 no treatments were performed.

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- Exposure period: week 5
- Test and control groups: test substance in vaseline (w/w)
- Site: on the flank (occluded administration for 24 hrs)
Challenge controls:
A control group was treated with adjuvant and the vehicle during the induction period. During the challenge period the group was treated with the vehicle as well as with the test article (at least 10 animals) to check the maximum subirritant concentration of the test article in adjuvant treated animals.
Positive control substance(s):
no

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
The sensitivity of the strain is checked once or twice a year with a known mild to moderate sensitiser, such as mercaptobenzothiazole, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde or potassiumdichromate.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50% test substance in vaseline
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50% test substance in vaseline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
50% test substance in vaseline
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: 50% test substance in vaseline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50% test substance in vaseline
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50% test substance in vaseline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
50% test substance in vaseline
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: 50% test substance in vaseline. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information