Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Description of key information

Skin irritation:

The dermal irritation potential of target chemical was assessed in various in-vivo and in-vitro experimental studies.Based on the available studies,it can be concluded that the test chemical is able to cause skin irritation and considered as irritating. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Category 2".

Eye irritation

The ocular irritation potential of target chemical was assessedin various in- vitro and in-vivo experimental studies which were conducted for test chemical and its structurally similar read across substances.Based on the available key data and supporting studies,it can be concluded thatchemical is able to cause eye irritation and considered as irritating. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Category 2 (irritating to eyes)”.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
data from handbook or collection of data
Justification for type of information:
Data is from publication
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
other: as mentioned below
Principles of method if other than guideline:
To determine skin irritation potential of test chemical in human using patch test
GLP compliance:
not specified
Species:
human
Strain:
not specified
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
no data
Type of coverage:
not specified
Preparation of test site:
not specified
Vehicle:
not specified
Controls:
not specified
Amount / concentration applied:
no data
Duration of treatment / exposure:
24 hr
Observation period:
no data
Number of animals:
24 human subjects
Details on study design:
no data
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24 h
Reversibility:
no data
Remarks on result:
positive indication of irritation
Irritant / corrosive response data:
During 24hr produced one irritation reaction in 24 human subjects
Other effects:
no data
Interpretation of results:
Category 2 (irritant) based on GHS criteria
Conclusions:
Patch test was done in 24 human subjects.Test chemical at full strength for 24 hr produced one irritation reaction in 24 human subjects.Since the test chemical was irritant, it was considered as irritating to human skin.


Executive summary:

In a patch test,24 human subject were used. Test chemical at full strength for 24 hr produced one irritation reaction in 24 human subjects.Since the test chemical was irritant, it was considered as irritating to human skin.

Endpoint:
skin 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:
OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)
Principles of method if other than guideline:
The purpose of this study was to assess potential for the test article to be dermal irritants. The dermal irritation potential of test article may be predicted by measurement of their cytotoxic effect, as reflected in the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, in the MatTek EpiDerm™ model.
GLP compliance:
no
Specific details on test material used for the study:
SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material:
- Expiration date of the lot/batch:
- Purity test date:

RADIOLABELLING INFORMATION (Not applicable)
- Radiochemical purity: N/A
- Specific activity: N/A
- Locations of the label: N/A
- Expiration date of radiochemical substance: N/A

STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Room temperature or Fridge storage
- Stability under test conditions: No data available
- Solubility and stability of the test substance in the solvent/vehicle: No data available
- Reactivity of the test substance with the solvent/vehicle of the cell culture medium: No data available

TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing: Prior to the main test, the test articles are tested for their ability to reduce/interact with MTT and their ability to stain the tissues itself. All tests are performed according to the by MatTek provided test protocol.
- Preliminary purification step (if any): No data available
- Final dilution of a dissolved solid, stock liquid or gel: No data available
- Final preparation of a solid: No data available

FORM AS APPLIED IN THE TEST: Solid
OTHER SPECIFICS: No data available
Test system:
human skin model
Source species:
human
Cell type:
non-transformed keratinocytes
Cell source:
other: as provided by MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakia
Source strain:
other: Not applicable
Details on animal used as source of test system:
- 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 epidermis. 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 IdentificationAll of the EpiDerm™ 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 are included in this report. Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information.
Justification for test system used:
The 3-Dimensional Human Dermal Epithelial Model (EpiDerm™, MatTek, In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakia) is made up of normal human keratinocytes in serum free medium. The cells form an epithelial tissue that consists of organized basal, spinous, granular, and cornified layers analogous to those found in vivo. The EpiDerm™ model also contains epidermis-specific differentiation markers such as pro-filaggrin, the K1/K10 cytokeratin pair, involucrin, and type I epidermal transglutaminase, as well as keratohyalin granules, tonofilament bundles, desmosomes, and a multi-layered stratum corneum containing intercellular lamellar lipid layers arranged in patterns characteristic of in vivo epidermis. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek, Inc. according to specific QC standards including: histology (cell layers), tissue viability (MTT mean optical density) and reproducibility (SD). Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information. Bias was not a factor in this test system.
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Details on test system:
The tissues were exposed to the test article neat (undiluted) on April 25, 2018 (Run 1 of 1). EpiDerm™ 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 1 hour, with 35 minutes in an approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 humidified incubator and the remaining 25 minutes at room temperature. Following the exposure time, the tissues were rinsed and placed in fresh media for approximately 24 hours. The media was then changed again and the tissues were incubated in fresh media for another ~18 hours for a total of approximately 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The tissue viability was then assessed by MTT assay. The tissue CoA was used instead of verification of barrier properties of the tissue.MTT and Color Pre-testsPretesting has actually been conducted for all chemicals, although the first intitial 8 test chemicals a pretesting was not conducted (for skin).MTT AssayFollowing the rinsing period, the MTT assay was performed by transferring the tissues to 24-well plates containing 300 µL MTT medium (1.0 mg/mL). After 3 hours 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 time was approximately 3 hours with gentle shaking. 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 is 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 EpiDerm™ tissue cultures were placed in 0.9 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (in a 6-well plate). The culture inserts are incubated for ~one hour. The tissues were then transferred to 6-well plates containing 0.9 mL fresh Maintenance medium and they were incubated overnight (18 ± 3 hrs) at ~37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.2. Control and Test Article Exposures: On the day of dosing, the tissues are then removed from the incubator and the controls and the test article are applied topically to tissues by pipette(liquid) Tissues were exposed to controls and the test article for one hour, with ~35 minutes in a 37°C, 5% CO2 humidified incubator and the remaining 25 minutes at room temperature.a) Controls30 µL of negative control DPBS and 30 μL of the positive control 5% SDS was applied topically to the tissue and gently spread by placing a nylon mesh on the apical surface of each tissue, if necessary.b) Test Articles 25 mg of the test article was applied topically to the tissue 3. Post-exposure treatmentAfter the 1 hour exposure, the tissues were rinsed 15 times with sterile DPBS. After the 15th rinse from washing bottle, each insert wasw completely submerge 3 times in 150 ml DPBS. The apical surface was gently blotted with a cotton swab. The tissues were placed in 0.9 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (6-well plate) for 24 ± 2 hours. After this initial ~24 hour incubation, the tissues were placed in 6-well plates containing 0.9 mL fresh Maintenance medium and incubated for another 18 ± 3 hours, for a total of an approximately 42 hour post-exposure incubation.RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE- Model used: The EpiDerm™ 3 dimensional human tissue model- Tissue Lot number(s): 26459- Date of initiation of testing: 6/08/2017TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: 37°C- Temperature of post-treatment incubation (if applicable): 37°CREMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS-Volume and number of washing steps: The test substance was rinsed from the tissues with sterile DPBS by filling and emptying the tissue insert 15 times to remove any residual test material. This was followed by completely submerge the insert 3 times in 150 ml DPBS.MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE- MTT concentration: 300 µL MTT medium (1.0 mg/mL).- Incubation time: After 3 hours- Spectrophotometer: Synergy H4 spectrophotometer - Wavelength: 570 nm- Filter: No data- Filter bandwidth: No data- Linear OD range of spectrophotometer: No dataNUMBER OF REPLICATE TISSUES: 3CALCULATIONS and STATISTICAL METHODSAll data were background subtracted before analysis. MTT data are presented as % viable compared to negative control. Data were generated as follows: MTT AssayBlanks:·        The optical density (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. 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. Tested compound :·        Calculate the blank corrected value ODTT= ODTTraw– ODblank. ·        The OD mean per tissue was calculated. ·        The viability per tissue was calculated: %TT = [ODTT/ mean ODNC] x 100. ·        The mean viability for all tissues was calculated: Mean TT = Σ %TT / number of tissues. ·        The standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated. Data Correction Procedure for MTT Interfering Compounds (if applicable)True viability = Viability of treated tissue – Interference from test article = ODtvt– ODktwhere ODkt= (mean ODtkt– mean ODukt).ODtvt= optical density of treated viable tissueODkt= optical density of killed tissuesODtkt= optical density of treated killed tissueODukt= optical density of untreated killed tissue (NC treated tissue) Data Correction Procedure for Colored Compounds (if applicable)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 mediaODvt= optical density of viable tissues incubated in media alone - Evaluation of data The results of the assay was evaluated and compared to negative control. Table: Criteria for in vitro Interpretation: In VitroResults In VivoPredictionMean tissue viability ≤50% Irritant (I), R38Mean tissue viability >50% Non-irritant (NI)- Assay quality controls- Negative Controls (NC)The Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (DPBS) was used as a NC. The assay passed all acceptance criteria if the ODs of the negative control exposed tissues were between ≥0.8 and ≤2.8.  - Positive Controls (PC)5% solution of sodium dodecyl sulfate was used as a PC. The assay is meeting the acceptance criteria if the viability of the PC is ≤20% of the negative control.   - Standard Deviation (SD)The standard deviation (SD) calculated from individual percent tissue viabilities of the test article exposed replicates was ≤18.
Control samples:
yes, concurrent negative control
yes, concurrent positive control
Amount/concentration applied:
TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit):25 mg
- Concentration (if solution): neat VEHICLE (Not used)
- 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): 30 µL sterile DPBS
- Concentration (if solution): neatPOSITIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 30 µL
- Concentration (if solution): 5% solution of sodium dodecyl sulfate
Duration of treatment / exposure:
The exposure times were approximately 1 hour, with ~35 minutes exposure in the incubator and ~25 minutes at room temperature.
Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):
For a total of an approximately 42 hour post-exposure incubation.
Number of replicates:
3 tissues were used for test compound and control.
Irritation / corrosion parameter:
% tissue viability
Run / experiment:
Run 1
Value:
106.2
Vehicle controls validity:
not specified
Negative controls validity:
valid
Positive controls validity:
valid
Remarks on result:
other: Mean of OD is 1.966; Not irritant
Other effects / acceptance of results:
The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met.
Interpretation of results:
other: Not irritating
Conclusions:
The dermal irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline followed for this study. The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test substance was determined to be 106.2 %. Thus, substance was considered to be not irritating to the human skin.
Executive summary:

The dermal irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiDerm™ model was used to assess the potential dermal irritation of the test article by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to the test article and controls for ~one hour, followed by a 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay. 

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met and passed the acceptance of criteria.

The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test substance was determined to be 106.2 %.

Hence, under the current experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be not irritating to human skin and can thus be classified as “Not Classified'' as per CLP Regulation.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
adverse effect observed (irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
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:
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 mg of solid test chemical
- 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 6 hrs ± 15 min for solid test articles, 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 and post soak, the tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of 18 hours for solid test chemicals 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 6 hrs ± 15 min for solid 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 ~25 minutes for solid test articles and controls.Following the washing and post soak, the tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of 18 hours for solid test chemicals 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:
Inserts are removed from the 24-well plate after 3 hrs of incubation and the bottom of the insert is blotted on absorbent material, and then transferred to a pre-labeled 6-well plate containing 1 ml isopropanol in each well so that no isopropanol is flowing into the insert. At the end of the non-submerged extraction inserts and tissues are discarded without piercing and 1 ml of isopropanol is added into each well. The extract solution is mixed and the optical density of the extracted formazan (200 μL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using 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.2 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: When a solid was tested, 50 mg of the solid were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 6 hrs ± 15 min.
3. Post exposure treatment:
After the exposure, the tissues were rinsed 20 times with sterile of 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:
When a solid was tested, 6 hours of the solid were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 6 hrs ± 15 min.
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 6 hours for solid test articles and controls, at approximately37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
Following the post soak, the tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time totaling 18 hours for solid 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 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 meanthe 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 2 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:
9.3
Vehicle controls validity:
not specified
Negative controls validity:
valid
Positive controls validity:
valid
Remarks on result:
positive indication of irritation
Remarks:
Mean O.D.:0.195;Irritant
Other effects / acceptance of results:
The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met.
Interpretation of results:
Category 2 (irritating to eyes) based on GHS criteria
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 substance was determined to be 9.3 %. Thus, the test substance was considered to be irritating to the human eyes.
Executive summary:

The in-vitro eye irritation study was conducted to determine 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 solid test articles and control for approx.6 hours, followed by a 25 minute post-soak and approximately 18 hours 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 substance was determined to be 9.3%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as ‘’Irritating to eyes in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
adverse effect observed (irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Additional information

Skin Irritation:

In different studies, the test chemical has been investigated for potential for dermal irritation to a greater or lesser extent. The studies are based on in-vivo experimental conducted in human and rabbits which have been summarized as below:

In a patch test,24 human subject were used. Test chemical at full strength for 24 hr produced one irritation reaction in 24 human subjects. Since the test chemical was irritant, it was considered as irritating to human skin.

In the another experimental In vitro study the dermal irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiDerm™ model was used to assess the potential dermal irritation of the test article by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to the test article and controls for ~one hour, followed by a 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay. The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met and passed the acceptance of criteria. The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test substance was determined to be 106.2 %. Hence, under the current experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be not irritating to human skin and can thus be classified as “Not Classified'' as per CLP Regulation.

In addition to another study , skin irritation study was performed in rabbits which were treated with test chemical at concentration of 515 mg/kg. Since the test chemical was mildly irritant, it was considered as irritating to animal skin.

Both the above studies were further supported by the dermal irritation potential of test chemical which was assessed in rabbits. The test was performed according to Draize method. The hair was clipped from the backs of 3 male and 3 female New Zealand White rabbits; the skin of 3 animals was abraded.0.5 ml of test chemical was applied to clipped back skin and the wrapped with a gauze bandage.Four hours later the bandage was removed and the area washed with tepid water. The test sites were observed and scored immediately after patch removal and at 24, 72 hours. The Primary Irritation Index of test chemical after 24 and 72 hours was considered to be 3.8. Based on the scores, test chemical is considered to be irritating to rabbit skin.

Even though the in-vitro study indicates that the test chemical might be unable to cause skin irritation but on the basis of in-vivo studies available for test chemical ad its structurally similar read across chemical it is concluded that the chemical has a potential to cause skin irritation. Thus it is extrapolated that the chemical is irritating to the skin and thus can be classified as “Category 2".

 

Eye Irritation:

In different studies, the test chemical has been investigated for potential for ocular irritation to a greater or lesser extent. The studies are based onin- vitro and in-vivo experimental conductedin rabbits conducted which have been summarized as below;

 

The in-vitro eye irritation study was conducted to determine 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 solid test articles and control for approx.6 hours, followed by a 25 minute post-soak and approximately 18 hours 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 substance was determined to be 9.3%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as ‘’Irritating to eyes in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation.

 

This in-vitro result was supported by the experimental ocular irritation study conducted for similar read across chemical. Anacute Eye Irritation/Corrosion Study of the test chemical was performed as per OECD guideline no. 405. Rabbits free from injury of eye were selected for the study. The eyes of all the rabbits were examined 24 hours prior to treatment. One eye of each rabbit served as control and other as treated. Control eye was left untreated whereas; 0.1 gof test itemwas instilled in the other (treated) eye of each rabbit.The eye was observed at 1, 24, 48, 72 hour, day 7, day 14 and day 21 for all the three animals post test item instillation.Ophthalmoscope was used for scoring of eye lesions. In the initial test,100 mg of test itemwas instilled into the conjunctival sac of the right eye of animal no.1 whereas the left eye of the rabbit served as the control. As animal no. 1 showed no severe ocular lesions; hence a confirmatory test was conducted on additional two rabbits (animal no. 2 and 3); 100 mg of test item was instilled into the conjunctival sac of right eye of both the rabbits and left eye served as the control. All the animals were observed till day 21 post-test item instillation. Untreated eye of all the three rabbits were normal throughout the experimental period. The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3 at 24, 48, 72 hours for corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 1.00, 0.00, 2.00, 1.00; 1.00, 0.00, 2.00, 1.33, and 1.00, 0.00, 2.00, 1.33, respectively. The effects observed in all the animals were fully reversible within an observation period of 21 days.   Hence under the experimental test conditions, the test chemical was “An Eye Irritant (Irritating to Eyes)” of New Zealand White Female rabbit eyes.

 

The above results were further supported by another ocular irritation study carried out for similar read across chemical in rabbits. The test chemical was instilled into the eyes of 3 New Zealand White rabbits and observed for effects. One hour after exposure, only slight redness and swelling of the conjunctivae and slight ocular discharge were reported. Average Draize scores for conjunctival oedema and chemosis, and ocular discharge were 0.33. Hence, the test chemical was considered to be slightly irritating to rabbit eyes.

 

Based on the above summarized studies for target chemical and its structurally similar read across substances,it can be concluded that the testchemical is able to cause eye irritation and considered as irritating. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP regulation, it can be classified under the category “Category 2 (irritant)”.

 

Justification for classification or non-classification

The skin and eye irritation potential of test chemical and its structurally and functionally similar read across substances were observed in various studies. The results obtained from these studies indicate that the chemical is likely to cause skin irritation and eye damage. Hence the test chemical can be classified under the category “Category 2 (irritant)” for skin and eye as per CLP.