Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Description of key information

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

Results from a GLP, OECD 429 guideline mouse local lymph node assay found no stimulation of lymphocyte proliferation in auricular lymph nodes from mice treated with up to 80% 1,2-dichloropropane, demonstrating that it was not a sensitizer under the conditions of this test. This lack of allergic potential in the mouse is consistent with structural considerations which provide no evidence of chemical alerts (reactive groups) that would indicate a potential to act as a sensitizer.

Case reports provide equivocal evidence that DCP may cause allergic skin conditions after uncontrolled exposure in individuals with pre-existing dermatitis. In one study, 10 workers exposed to industrial preparations containing 10-40% 1,2-dichloropropane under conditions of poor occupational hygiene (hand cleaning using these products) exhibited an allergic response after patch testing with DCP, with a threshold level of 2% (Baruffini et al., 1989). However, all subjects suffered from pre-existing irritant skin-lesion and hand dermatitis that quickly resolved after cessation of exposure. In another brief report (Grzywa and Rudzki, 1981), two female workers with recurrent dermatitis responded to patch testing with 1% 1,2-dichloropropane as well as other substances present in the workplace.


Migrated from Short description of key information:
DCP was not a sensitiser in a guideline LLNA study. Equivocal results in limited human case studies are confounded by pre-existing irritant lesions and/or possible cross-reaction.

Justification for classification or non-classification