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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 911-811-2 | CAS number: -
- 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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- migrated information: read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- The study was performed between 03 May 2012 and 16 May 2012.
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Study conducted to GLP and in compliance with agreed protocols, with no or minor deviations from standard test guidelines and/or minor methodological deficiencies, which do not effect the quality of the relevant results.
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 012
- Report date:
- 2012
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- [[(2-hydroxyethyl)imino]dimethylene]bisphosphonic acid, sodium salt
- EC Number:
- 244-743-0
- EC Name:
- [[(2-hydroxyethyl)imino]dimethylene]bisphosphonic acid, sodium salt
- Cas Number:
- 22036-78-8
- Molecular formula:
- C4H12NNaO7P2, C4H11NNa2O7P2 and C4H10NNa3O7P2 (Constituent 1, linear form) C4H12NNaO7P2 and C4H11NNa2O7P2 (Constituent 2, cyclic form) The molecular formula and molecular weights represented that of the speciated species of the sodium salt
- IUPAC Name:
- [[(2-hydroxyethyl)imino]dimethylene]bisphosphonic acid, sodium salt
- Test material form:
- semi-solid (amorphous): gel
- Remarks:
- migrated information: paste
- Details on test material:
- Sponsor's identification: [[(2-hydroxyethyl)imino]bis(methylene)]-bisphosphonic acid, equilibrium mixture with 4-(Phosphonomethyl)-2-hydroxy-2-oxo-1,4,2-oxazaphosphorinane, sodium salt
CAS number : 22036-78-8
Identifiers : TIS O3270
Description : white paste
Batch number : LE12579A
Date received : 03 April 2012
Expiry date : 01 August 2013
Storage conditions: room temperature in the dark
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Female CBA/Ca (CBA/CaOlaHsd) strain mice were supplied by Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd., Oxon, UK. On receipt the animals were randomly allocated to cages. The animals were nulliparous and non pregnant. After an acclimatisation period of at least five days the animals were selected at random and given a number unique within the study by indelible ink marking on the tail and a number written on a cage card. At the start of the study the animals were in the weight range of 15 to 23 g, and were eight to twelve weeks old.
The animals were individually housed in suspended solid floor polypropylene cages furnished with softwood woodflakes. Free access to mains tap water and food (2014C Teklad Global Rodent diet supplied by Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd., Oxon, UK) was allowed throughout the study.
The temperature and relative humidity were controlled to remain within target ranges of 19 to 25°C and 30 to 70%, respectively. Any occasional deviations from these targets were considered not to have affected the purpose or integrity of the study. The rate of air exchange was approximately fifteen changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give twelve hours continuous light (06.00 to 18.00) and twelve hours darkness.
The animals were provided with environmental enrichment items which were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.
Study design: in vivo (LLNA)
- Vehicle:
- other: 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water
- Concentration:
- Test item at concentrations of 10%, 5% or 2.5% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water.
- No. of animals per dose:
- Groups of five mice were treated per concentration.
- Details on study design:
- PREPARATION OF TEST ITEM
For the purpose of the study, the test item was freshly prepared as a emulsion in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water. This vehicle was chosen as it produced the highest concentration that was suitable for dosing. The concentrations used are given in the procedure section.
The test item was formulated within two hours of being applied to the test system. It is assumed that the formulation was stable for this duration.
No analysis was conducted to determine the homogeneity, concentration or stability of the test item formulation.
PREPARATION OF POSITIVE CONTROL:
The positive control item (α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85%) was freshly prepared as a 25% v/v dilution in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water.
PROCEDURE:
PRELIMINARY SCREENING TEST:
Using available information regarding the systemic toxicity/irritancy potential of the test item, a preliminary screening test was performed using one mouse. The mouse was treated by daily application of 25 µl of the test item at a maximum attainable concentration of 10% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water, to the dorsal surface of each ear for three consecutive days (Days 1, 2, 3). The mouse was observed twice daily on Days 1, 2 and 3 and once daily on Days 4, 5 and 6. Local irritation was scored daily according to the scale included in the 'any other information on materials and methods section (see Scale for Erythema). Any clinical signs of toxicity, if present, were also recorded. The bodyweight was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and on Day 6.
The thickness of each ear was measured using an Oditest micrometer (Dyer, PA), pre dose on Day 1, post dose on Day 3 and on Day 6. Any changes in the ear thickness were noted. Mean ear thickness changes were calculated between Days 1 to 3 and Days 1 to 6. A mean ear thickness increase of equal to or greater than 25% was considered to indicate excessive irritation and limited biological relevance to the endpoint of sensitisation.
MAIN TEST:
TEST ITEM ADMINISTRATION:
Groups of five mice were treated with the test item at concentrations of 10%, 5% or 2.5% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water. The preliminary screening test suggested that the test item would not produce systemic toxicity or excessive local irritation at the highest suitable concentration. The mice were treated by daily application of 25 µl of the appropriate concentration of the test item to the dorsal surface of each ear for three consecutive days (Days 1, 2, 3). The test item formulation was administered using an automatic micropipette and spread over the dorsal surface of the ear using the tip of the pipette.
A further group of five mice received the vehicle alone in the same manner.
The positive control animals were similarly treated to the test animals except that 25 µl of the positive control item, α Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85%, at a concentration of 25% v/v in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water was applied to the dorsal surface of each ear.
The thickness of each ear was measured using an Oditest micrometer (Dyer, PA), pre dose on Day 1 and on Days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Any changes in the ear thickness were noted. Daily mean ear thickness changes were calculated. A mean ear thickness increase of equal to or greater than 25% was considered to indicate excessive irritation and limited biological relevance to the endpoint of sensitisation.
3H-METHYL THYMIDINE ADMINISTRATION:
Five days following the first topical application of the test item, vehicle control or positive control item (Day 6) all mice were injected via the tail vein with 250 µl of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 3H methyl thymidine (3HTdR) giving a total of 20 µCi to each mouse.
OBSERVATIONS:
Clinical Observations: All animals were observed twice daily on Days 1, 2 and 3 and on a daily basis on Days 4, 5 and 6. Any signs of toxicity or signs of ill health during the test were recorded.
Local Skin Irritation Observations: All animals were observed daily. Any signs of local skin irritation noted during the test were recorded.
Bodyweights: The bodyweight of each mouse was recorded on Day 1 (prior to dosing) and Day 6 (prior to termination).
TERMINAL PROCEDURES:
Termination: Five hours following the administration of 3HTdR all mice were killed by carbon dioxide asphyxiation followed by cervical separation. For each individual animal of each group the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and processed. For each individual animal 1 ml of PBS was added to the lymph nodes.
Preparation of Single Cell Suspension: A single cell suspension of the lymph node cells for each individual animal was prepared by gentle mechanical disaggregation through a 200 mesh stainless steel gauze. The lymph node cells were rinsed through the gauze with 4 ml of PBS into a petri dish labelled with the project number and dose concentration. The lymph node cells suspension was transferred to a centrifuge tube. The petri dish was washed with an additional 5 ml of PBS to remove all remaining lymph node cells and these were added to the centrifuge tube. The lymph node cells were pelleted at 1400 rpm (approximately 190 g) for ten minutes. The pellet was re-suspended in 10 ml of PBS and re-pelleted. To precipitate out the radioactive material, the pellet was re-suspended in 3 ml of 5% Trichloroacetic acid (TCA).
Determination of 3HTdR Incorporation: After approximately eighteen hours incubation at approximately 4°C, the precipitates were recovered by centrifugation at 2100 rpm (approximately 450 g) for ten minutes, re-suspended in 1 ml of TCA and transferred to 10 ml of scintillation fluid (Optiphase 'Trisafe'). 3HTdR incorporation was measured by ß-scintillation counting. The "Poly QTM" vials containing the samples and scintillation fluid were placed in the sample changer of the scintillator and left for approximately twenty minutes. The purpose of this period of time in darkness was to reduce the risk of luminescence, which has been shown to affect the reliability of the results. After approximately twenty minutes, the vials were shaken vigorously. The number of radioactive disintegrations per minute was then measured using the Beckman LS6500 scintillation system (Beckman Instruments Inc, Fullerton, CA, USA). - Positive control substance(s):
- other: α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85%
- Statistics:
- Data was processed to give group mean values for disintegrations per minute and standard deviations where appropriate. Individual and group mean disintegrations per minute values were assessed for dose response relationships by analysis of homogeneity of variance followed by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the event of a significant result from the ANOVA, pairwise comparisons were performed between control and treated groups. For homogenous datasets Dunnett’s Multiple Comparison test was used and for non homogenous datasets Dunnett’s T3 Multiple Comparison Method was used.
Probability values (p) are presented as follows:
P<0.001 ***
P<0.01 **
P<0.05 *
P>0.05 (not significant)
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- The positive control at 25% v/v in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water gave a Stimulation Index of 9.31, giving a positive result from skin sensitisation.
In vivo (LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Parameter:
- SI
- Remarks on result:
- other: The radioactive distingerations per minute per animal and the stimulation index are give in Table 4. 2.5% test item concentration: SI 1.54 5% test item concentration: SI 1.00 10% test item concentration: SI 1.01
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Remark
- Remarks:
- The radioactive distingerations per minute per animal and the stimulation index are give in Table 4 (see attached background material). Vehicle: 1176.91 dpm 2.5% test item concentration: 1811.46 dpm 5% test item concentration: 1179.35 dpm 10% test item concentration: 1193.95
Any other information on results incl. tables
Preliminary Screening Test
Clinical observations, bodyweight and mortality data are given in Table 1 and local skin irritation is given in Table 2. The ear thickness measurements and mean ear thickness changes are given in Table 3.
No signs of systemic toxicity, visual local skin irritation or excessive irritation indicated by anequal to or greater than 25% increase in mean ear thicknesswere noted.
Based on this information the dose levels selected for the main test were 10%, 5% and 2.5% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water.
See attached background material for Tables 1, 2 and 3
Main Test
Estimation of the Proliferative Response of Lymph Node Cells
The radioactive disintegrations per minute per animal and the stimulation index are given in Table 4 (see attached background material)
The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group are as follows:
Treatment Group |
Concentration |
Stimulation Index |
Result |
Test Item |
2.5%w/win |
1.54 |
Negative |
5%w/win |
1.00 |
Negative |
|
10%w/win |
1.01 |
Negative |
|
Positive |
25% v/v in |
9.31 |
Positive |
Clinical Observations and Mortality Data
Individual clinical observations and mortality data for test and control animals are given in Table 5 and local skin irritation is given in Table 6. The ear thickness measurements and mean ear thickness changes are given in Table 7.
See attached background material for Tables 5, 6 and 7.
There were no deaths. No signs of systemic toxicity were noted in the test or control group animals during the test. Very slight erythema was noted on Days 3 and 4 on both ears of the animals treated with the positive control item. No visual local skin irritation was noted in the vehicle control group animals or test item group animals. No excessive irritation indicated by anequal to or greater than 25% increase in mean ear thicknesswas noted.
Bodyweight
Individual bodyweights and bodyweight changes for test and control animals are given in Table 8 (see attached background material)
Bodyweight changes of the test animals between Day 1 and Day 6 were comparable to those observed in the corresponding control group animals over the same period.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The test item was considered to be a non-sensitiser under the conditions of the test.
- Executive summary:
Introduction.
A study was performed to assess the skin sensitisation potential of the test item in the CBA/Ca strain mouse following topical application to the dorsal surface of the ear. The method was designed tobe compatible with the following:
OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 429 "Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay" (adopted 22 July 2010)
Method B42 Skin Sensitisation (Local Lymph Node Assay) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008
Methods.
Following a preliminary screening test in which no clinical signs of toxicity were noted at a maximum attainable concentration of 10% w/w, this concentration was selected as the highest dose investigated in the main test of the Local Lymph Node Assay. Three groups, each of five animals, were treated with 50 µl (25 µl per ear) of the test item as a emulsion in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water at concentrations of 10%, 5% or 2.5% w/w. A further group of five animals was treated with 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water alone. A concurrent positive control test, using a group of five animals, was also performed with the known sensitiser,α‑Hexylcinnamaldehyde tech., 85%, at a concentration of 25% v/v in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water.
Results.
The Stimulation Index expressed as the mean radioactive incorporation for each treatment group divided by the mean radioactive incorporation of the vehicle control group are as follows:
Treatment Group
Concentration
Stimulation Index
Result
Test Item
2.5% w/w in
1% pluronicL92 in distilled water1.54
Negative
5% w/w in
1% pluronicL92 in distilled water1.00
Negative
10% w/w in
1% pluronicL92 in distilled water1.01
Negative
Positive
Control Item25% v/v in
1% pluronicL92 in distilled water9.31
Positive
Conclusion.
The test item was considered to be a non-sensitiser under the conditions of the test.
The test item did not meet the criteria for classification according to the Globally Harmonised Systemof Classification and Labelling of Chemicals.
The positive control item, α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde, tech., 85%, gave a Stimulation Index of greater than 3 when tested at a concentration of 25% w/w in 1% pluronic L92 in distilled water.
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.