Silicic acid, ethyl ester

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Skin Irritation

A Primary Dermal Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical.2 male and 1 female rabbits were used for the study. The test chemical was applied on the skin of rabbits and the effects were observed from 1 hour after application till day 7.

No Primary Dermal Irritation was noted in rabbits at any time from 1 hour till 7 days.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

Eye Irritation

An in vivo Primary Ocular Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. Single rabbit was used for the study.

Instillation of two drops of test material causes slight conjunctival irritation at one and 24 hours, in both washed and unwashed eyes. Direct eye contact with the test chemical produced a slight transient irritation of conjunctiva which lasted up to two days.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered slightly irritating to eyes.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

skin irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

secondary literature

Justification for type of information:

data is from NTRL reports

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

other: as mentioned below

Principles of method if other than guideline:

To assess the dermal irritation potential of the test chemical

GLP compliance:

not specified

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

not specified

Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:

Sex: Male and Female

Type of coverage:

other: dermal

Preparation of test site:

other: no data available

Vehicle:

other: no data available

Controls:

not specified

Amount / concentration applied:

no data available

Duration of treatment / exposure:

1 hour till 7 days

Observation period:

1 hour till 7 days

Number of animals:

2 male and 1 female

Details on study design:

no data available

Irritation parameter:

overall irritation score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

other: 1 hour till 7 days

Score:

0

Reversibility:

not specified

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritant / corrosive response data:

No irritation observed

Other effects:

no data available

Interpretation of results:

other: not irritating

Conclusions:

No Primary Dermal Irritation was noted in 2 males and 1 female rabbits at any time from 1 hour till 7 days.
Hence,the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

Executive summary:

A Primary Dermal Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical.2 male and 1 female rabbits were used for the study. The test chemical was applied on the skin of rabbits and the effects were observed from 1 hour after application till day 7.

No Primary Dermal Irritation was noted in rabbits at any time from 1 hour till 7 days.

Hence,the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

Data is from experimental study report.

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 492 (Reconstructed Human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) Test Method for Identifying Chemicals Not Requiring Classification and Labelling for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The purpose of this study was to assess potential for the test article to be ocular irritants. The ocular irritation potential of a test article may be predicted by measurement of its cytotoxic effect, as reflected inthe 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, in the MatTek EpiOcular™ model

GLP compliance:

no

Species:

human

Strain:

other: Not applicable

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

- Description of the cell system used:
The normal human-derived keratinocytes were cultured at the air-liquid interface in a chemically defined medium on a permeable polycarbonate insert (surface 0.5 cm2). They were cultured in chemically defined serum free medium to form a multi-layered epithelium similar to that found in native corneal mucosa. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek according to specific QC standards including: histology, tissue viability (MTT mean optical density), reproducibility (SD) and tissue thickness.

- Test System Identification
All of the EpiOcular™ 3-dimensional human tissues used in this study were identified by the date of arrival and the lot number. Certificate of Analysis for the tissues is included in this report. Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information. Bias was not a factor in this test system.

- Justification of the test method and considerations regarding applicability
EpiOcularTM Eye Irritation (OCL) by MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakien.
The test articles and controls were evaluated for potential ocular irritancy using the EpiOcular™ 3 dimensional human tissue model purchased from MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakien.
The EpiOcular tissue construct is a nonkeratinized epithelium prepared from normal human keratinocytes (MatTek). It models the cornea epithelium with progressively stratified, but not cornified cells. These cells are not transformed or transfected with genes to induce an extended life span in culture. The “tissue” is prepared in inserts with a porous membrane through which the nutrients pass to the cells. A cell suspension is seeded into the insert in specialized medium. After an initial period of submerged culture, the medium is removed from the top of the tissue so that the epithelial surface is in direct contact with the air. This allows the test material to be directly applied to the epithelial surface in a fashion similar to how the corneal epithelium would be exposed in vivo. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories according to specific QC standards including: histology (cell layers), tissue viability (MTT mean optical density) and reproducibility (SD)

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): 50 μL of liquid test article
- Concentration (if solution): neat (undiluted)

VEHICLE (no vehicle)
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): none
- Concentration (if solution): none
- Lot/batch no. (if required): none
- Purity: none

NEGATIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 50 μL
- Concentration (if solution): neat

POSITIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 50 μL
- Concentration (if solution): neat

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Tissues were exposed for approximately 30 minutes for liquid test article and controls, at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.

Observation period (in vivo):

Not applicable

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

Following the washing step and the post-soak, the tissues were incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of ~2 hours for liquid test articles , or 18 hrs for solid test articles, and controls.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

2 tissues were used for test compound and control.

Details on study design:

- Details of the test procedure used
The tissues were exposed to the test article neat (undiluted). EpiOcular™ tissues were purchased from MatTek. Quality control of the tissues was performed by MatTek and the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for the tissues is provided and is kept in the study binder. Tissues were exposed for approximately 30 minutes for liquid test articles and controls, at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. After the exposure, the test article was rinsed off the tissues and the tissues were soaked in media for ~12 minutes for liquid test articles and controls. Following the washing step and the post-soak, the tissues were incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of ~2 hours for liquid test articles and controls. Tissue viability was assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol- 2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay.

- MTT Auto reduction and colouring assessment
MTT Pre-test
The test article was assessed for the potential to interfere with the assay. Approximately 50 µL of liquid test article was added to 1 mL of MTT media (~1 mg/mL) and incubated in a humidified incubator at approximately 37°C and approximately 5% CO2 for 3 hours. 50 µL of ultrapure water was used as a negative control.

- Test Article Color Test
Approximately 50 µL of liquid test article was added to 1.0 mL of ultrapure water and 2.0 mL isopropanol and incubated in a humidified incubator at approximately 37°C and approximately 5% CO2 for 2 hours, 04 minutes and 35 seconds. Samples were then added to the wells of a clear 96-well plate and the plate was read on a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer to 570 nm. Test articles that tested positive for excessive coloration (OD >0.08) were assessed on living-tissue controls that were incubated in both culture media and MTT media as well (n=3 for both conditions).

- MTT Assay:
After the recovery period, the MTT assay was performed on run 1 tissues by transferring the tissues to 24-well plates containing 300 µL MTT medium (1.0 mg/mL). After 3 hours of MTT incubation at approximately 37°C, approximately 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.The blue formazan salt was extracted by submerging tissues in 2 mL isopropanol in a 24-well plate. The extraction for liquid exposed tissues was overnight incubation. The optical density of the extracted formazan (200 µL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm. Relative cell viability was calculated for each tissue as % of the mean negative control tissues

- Evaluation of Test Article in the cell Models
1. Cell System:
Upon receipt, the MatTek EpiOcular™ tissue cultures were placed in 1.0 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (in a 6-well plate) for 60 minutes. After the 60 minutes incubation, the Maintenance medium was exchanged with fresh medium and the tissues were incubated overnight (16-24 hrs) at approximately 37°C, approximately 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
2. Control and Test Article Exposures:
20 µL of calcium and magnesium free DPBS was added to each tissue and the tissues placed back into the incubator for 30 minutes. The controls and the test article will be applied topically to tissues by pipette. Three tissues will be used per test compound and control.
a)Controls: 50 µL of negative control sterile ultrapure water and positive control methyl acetate were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
b)Test Article: 50 µL of liquid test article were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
3. Post exposure treatment:
After the exposure, the tissues were rinsed 20 times with sterile DPBS to remove test material. The apical surface was gently blotted with a cotton swab and cultures were immediately transferred to a 12-well plate containing 5 mL of media per well. Tissues exposed to liquid test articles (and the respective control) were incubated, submerged in the media for ~12 minutes at room temperature.For liquid test articles, tissues, Tissuses were then transferred to 6-well plates containing 1.0 mL fresh Maintenance medium per well and incubated for a post-exposure recovery period for 2 hours at approximately 37 degC, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
- Doses of test chemical and control substances used
Test Article:
50 µL of liquid test article were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
Controls: 50 µL of negative control sterile ultrapure water, positive control methyl acetate were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
- Duration and temperature of exposure, post-exposure immersion and post-exposure incubation periods: Tissues were exposed for approximately 30 minutes for liquid test articles and controls, at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. Following the washing step and the, the tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time totaling ~2 hours for liquid test articles and controls.
- Justification for the use of a different negative control than ultrapure H2O (Not applicable
- Justification for the use of a different positive control than neat methyl acetate (Not applicable)
- Number of tissue replicates used per test chemical and controls: 2 tissues were used for test compound and control.
- Description of the method used to quantify MTT formazan
The blue formazan salt was extracted by submerging tissues in 2 mL isopropanol in a 24-well plate. The extraction for liquid exposed tissues was overnight incubation with a 20 minute 24 second shake the following morning. The optical density of the extracted formazan (200 µL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm. The blue formazan salt was extracted by placing the tissue insterts in 1 mL isopropanol in a 6-well plate. The extraction for solid exposed tissues was 3 hrs incubation. After an addition of 1 ml isopropanol and mixing, the optical density of the extracted formazan (200μL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm.

- Description of evaluation criteria used including the justification for the selection of the cut-off point for the prediction model
Calculations and Statistical Methods
MTT Assay
Blanks:
· The OD mean from all replicates for each plate (ODblank).
Negative Controls (NC):
· The blank corrected value was calculated: ODNC= ODNCraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per NC tissue was calculated.
· The mean OD for all tissues corresponds to 100% viability.
· The mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated.
ODblank= optical density of blank samples (isopropanol alone).
ODNCraw= optical density negative control samples.
ODNC= optical density of negative control samples after background subtraction.
Positive Control (PC):
· Calculate the blank corrected value: ODPC= ODPCraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per PC tissue was calculated.
· The viability per tissue was calculated: %PC = [ODPC/ mean ODNC] x 100.
· The mean viability for all tissues was calculated: Mean PC = Σ %PC / number of tissues.
· The standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated.
ODPCraw= optical density positive control samples.
ODPC= optical density of positive control samples after background subtraction.
Tested Articles:
· Calculate the blank corrected value ODTT= ODTTraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per tissue is calculated.
· The viability per tissue is calculated: %TT = [ODTT/ mean ODNC] x 100.
· The mean viability for all tissues is calculated: Mean TT = Σ %TT / number of tissues.
· The standard deviation (SD) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV)for the controls and the test articles will be calculated.
ODTTraw= optical density test article samples.
ODPC= optical density of test article samples after background subtraction.
Data Correction Procedure for MTT Interfering Compounds
True viability = Viability of treated tissue – Interference from test article = ODtvt – ODkt where ODkt = (mean ODtkt – mean ODukt).
ODtvt = optical density of treated viable tissue
ODkt = optical density of killed tissues
ODtkt = optical density of treated killed tissue
ODukt = optical density of untreated killed tissue (NC treated tissue)

Data Correction Procedure for Colored Compounds
True viability = Viability of treated tissue incubated in MTT media – Viability of treated tissue incubated in media without MTT = ODtvt – ODvt.
ODtvt = optical density of treated viable tissue incubated in MTT media
ODvt = optical density of viable tissues incubated in media alone.
Proposed Statistical methods
The mean, standard deviation (SD) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) for the controls and the test article will be calculated.
- Evaluation of data
The results of the assay was evaluated and compared to negative control.
Table: Irritancy Prediction
In VitroResults In VivoPrediction
Mean tissue viability ≤60% Irritant (I) – Category 1 or 2
Mean tissue viability >60% Non-irritant (NI) – No Category
- Assay quality controls
- Negative Controls (NC)
The assay is meeting the acceptance criterion if the mean viability of the NC in terms of Optical Density (OD570) of the NC tissues (treated with sterile ultrapure water) in the MTT assay are >0.8 to <2.5. This is an indicator of tissue viability following shipping and conditions under use.
- Positive Controls (PC)
Methyl acetate was used as a PC and tested concurrently with the test article. The assay is meeting the acceptance criteria if the viability of the PC is <50% of the negative control.
- Standard Deviation (SD)Each test of ocular irritancy potential is predicted from the mean viability determined on 3 single tissues. The assay meets the acceptance criteria if SD calculated from individual percent tissue viabilities of the replicates is <18% for three replicate tissues.

Irritation parameter:

other: mean % tissue viability

Run / experiment:

Run 1

Value:

110.2

Vehicle controls validity:

not specified

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met.

Code N°	Tissue	Raw data		Blank corrected data		mean of OD	% of viability
	n	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2
NC	1	3.1865	2.9581	3.150	2.921	3.035	103.3
	2	2.815	2.9373	2.778	2.900	2.839	96.7
PC	1	0.9553	0.9523	0.918	0.915	0.917	31.2
	2	0.9687	0.9737	0.932	0.937	0.934	31.8

11099-06-2	1	3.3038	3.2809	3.267	3.244	3.255	110.8
	2	3.3182	3.187	3.281	3.150	3.216	109.5

	mean	Dif.	mean of	Dif.	Dif./2	Classification
	of OD	of OD	viabilities [%]	of viabilities
NC	2.937	0.196	100.0	6.68	3.34	NI	qualified
PC	0.926	0.017	31.5	0.59	0.30	I	qualified

11099-06-2

3.236

0.040

110.2

1.35

0.68

NI

qualified

Interpretation of results:

other: not irritating

Conclusions:

The ocular irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline followed for this study. The mean % tissue viability of test chemical was determined to be 110.2%. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be not irritating to the human eyes.

Executive summary:

The ocular irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiOcular™ model was used to assess the potential ocular irritation of the test articles by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to liquid test articles and controls for ~30 minutes, followed by a ~12 minute post-soak and approximately 2 hour recovery after the post-soak. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay.

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met, passing the acceptance criteria.

The mean % tissue viability of test chemical was determined to be 110.2%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test chemical was considered to be not irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as “Not classified’’ as per CLP Regulation.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

secondary literature

Justification for type of information:

data is from safety assessment reports

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: as mentioned below

Principles of method if other than guideline:

To assess the ocular irritation potential of the test chemical

GLP compliance:

not specified

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

not specified

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Details on test animal
TEST ANIMALS
- Sex: Male and female

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

not specified

Amount / concentration applied:

2 drops of Undiluted sample

Duration of treatment / exposure:

48 hours

Observation period (in vivo):

1, 24 and 48 hours

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

no data available

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

1

Details on study design:

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing (if done):yes
- Time after start of exposure: not specified

Irritation parameter:

overall irritation score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

48 h

Reversibility:

not specified

Remarks on result:

probability of mild irritation

Irritant / corrosive response data:

Direct eye contact with the test chemical produced a slight transient irritation of conjunctiva which lasted up to two days.

Interpretation of results:

Category 2 (irritating to eyes) based on GHS criteria

Conclusions:

Direct eye contact with the test chemical produced a slight transient irritation of conjunctiva which lasted up to two days.
Hence,the test chemical can be considered slightly irritating to eyes.

Executive summary:

A Primary Ocular Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. Single rabbit was used for the study.

Instillation of two drops of test material causes slight conjunctival irritation at one and 24 hours, in both washed and unwashed eyes. Direct eye contact with the test chemical produced a slight transient irritation of conjunctiva which lasted up to two days.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered slightly irritating to eyes.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

adverse effect observed (irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

Skin Irritation

Various studies have been performed to determine the degree of dermal irritation caused by the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo experimental studies performed on rabbits for the test chemicals.

A Primary Dermal Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical.2 male and 1 female rabbits were used for the study. The test chemical was applied on the skin of rabbits and the effects were observed from 1 hour after application till day 7.

No Primary Dermal Irritation was noted in rabbits at any time from 1 hour till 7 days.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

This is supported by the results of another Primary Dermal Irritation study performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. Single rabbit was used for the study. Undiluted test chemical was exposed to intact or abraded rabbit skin in single or repeated applications. No irritation was observed in the rabbit. Hence, the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

These results are further supported by another study performed to assess the dermal irritation potential of the test chemical in rabbits. 0.1ml of the test chemical was injected intra-dermally into the depilated dorsal skin of rabbits and effects were observed. Intra dermal injection of the test chemical caused mild erythema, edema and slight necrosis at the injection site. 5 days later the symptoms had practically vanished. Since the effects were fully recovered in 5 days, the test chemical can be considered as not irritating to skin.

The above results are also supported by a study performed according to FIFRA Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision F; Hazard Evaluation Human and Domestic Animals Section 81-5 "Primary Dermal Irritation" and TSCA Health Effects Test Guidelines; Section HG "Primary Dermal Irritation" Guidelines to assess the dermal irritation potential of the test chemical.

A single, four-hour, semi-occluded application of undiluted test chemical was made to the clipped skin of six rabbits. After four hours the patches were removed, the skin was wiped gently with water. The test sites were examined for evidence of irritation 1, 24, 48, and 72 hours after patch removal, and scored according to Draize method.

Undiluted test chemical produced very slight erythema confined to one treated skin site one hour after removal of the patches.

The test chemical produced a primary irritation index(PII) of 0.0.

Hence, the test chemical was considered not irritating to skin.

Based on the available results and applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulations, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.

Eye irritation

Various studies have been performed to extent of ocular damage caused by the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo as well as in vitro experimental studies performed for the test chemical.

The ocular irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiOcular™ model was used to assess the potential ocular irritation of the test articles by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to liquid test articles and controls for ~30 minutes, followed by a ~12 minute post-soak and approximately 2 hour recovery after the post-soak. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay.

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met, passing the acceptance criteria.

The mean % tissue viability of test chemical was determined to be 110.2%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test chemical was considered to be not irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as “Not classified’’ as per CLP Regulation.

An in vivo Primary Ocular Irritation study was performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. Single rabbit was used for the study.

Instillation of two drops of test material causes slight conjunctival irritation at one and 24 hours, in both washed and unwashed eyes. Direct eye contact with the test chemical produced a slight transient irritation of conjunctiva which lasted up to two days.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered slightly irritating to eyes.

This in vivo result is supported by another Primary Ocular Irritation study performed on rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical.2 male and 1 female rabbits were used for the study. The test chemical was instilled into rabbit eyes and effects were observed and scored at 24 hours. Observations at 24 hours were moderate erythema, slight to moderate edema, and copious discharge.

The average irritation score was 13.3 at 24 hours, with recovery by 5 days.

Based on the scores at 24 hours, the test chemical can be considered to be slightly irritating to eyes.

 

These results are further supported by an study performed according FIFRA Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision F; Hazard Evaluation Human and Domestic Animals Section 81-5 "Primary Eye Irritation Study" and TSCA Health Effects Test Guidelines; Section HG "Primary Eye Irritation" Guidelines to assess the ocular irritation potential of the test chemical.

A single instillation of the test material was made to the non-irrigated eye of six rabbits, and an assessment of damage/irritation was made 1, 24, 48, and 72 hours following treatment. Scoring of damage/irritation was made according to Draize, 1959. The scores were classified (1 to 8 scale) according to a modified Kay and Calandra scoring system. The test chemical produced a maximum group mean score of 4.7 and was classified as a minimal irritant (Class 3 on a 1 to 8 scale) to the rabbit eye according to a modified Kay and Calandra scoring system

Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be irritating to eyes.

The above results are supported by a study which reports of responses of Human volunteers when exposed briefly (time not specified) to various concentrations of the test chemical.

At a concentration of 85 ml/m3, the characteristic odour of the substance was just detectable. At 250 ml/ m3 the volunteers noticed a slight prickling sensation in the eyes and nose, 700 ml/m3 had a pungent smell and caused a burning sensation in the eyes and nose also it was noted that exposure to 700 ml/m3 could not be tolerated for more than 30 minutes. 1200 ml/m3 caused lacrimation and an increase in the severity of the other symptoms. 3000 ml/m3 was highly irritating to the ocular and nasal mucosa.

Based on the observations at all dose levels, the test chemical can be considered as irritating to human eyes.

Even though the in vitro result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical lacks the potential to cause irritation to eyes, but the in-vivo experimental results for the test chemicals indicate otherwise.

Hence, taking in to consideration the in vivo results, the test chemical can be considered to be an eye irritant. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Category 2”.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the available results and applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulations, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.

Even though the in vitro result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical lacks the potential to cause irritation to eyes, but the in-vivo experimental results for the test chemicals indicate otherwise.

Hence, taking in to consideration the in vivo results, the test chemical can be considered to be an eye irritant. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Category 2”.