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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Endpoint:
dermal absorption in vitro / ex vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Used 14C-test article, appropriate controls for skin viability and published in the peer reviewed literature.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
In vitro dermal absorption of flame retardant chemicals.
Author:
Hughes et al.
Year:
2001
Bibliographic source:
Food Chem Toxicol 39:1263–1270.

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
no guideline available
GLP compliance:
not specified

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether
EC Number:
214-604-9
EC Name:
Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether
Cas Number:
1163-19-5
Molecular formula:
C12Br10O
IUPAC Name:
bis(pentabromophenyl) ether
Radiolabelling:
yes

Test animals

Species:
mouse
Strain:
SKH/HR1
Sex:
female

Administration / exposure

Type of coverage:
other: not applicable
Vehicle:
other: tetahydrofuran
Duration of exposure:
24 hr
Doses:
6, 30 60 nmol
No. of animals per group:
7 samples per dose
Control animals:
yes

Results and discussion

Signs and symptoms of toxicity:
not examined
Remarks:
not applicable
Dermal irritation:
not examined
Remarks:
not applicable
Percutaneous absorption
Dose:
6,30, 60 nmol
Parameter:
percentage
Absorption:
ca. 0.07 - 0.34 %
Remarks on result:
other: 24 hr
Remarks:
neglible movement through skin into receptor fluid

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
The skin is not a route leading to systemic exposure of DecaBDE.
Executive summary:

The in vitro dermal absorption of two flame retardant chemicals, [14C]decabromodiphenyl oxide (DBDPO) and [14C]tris-(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCP) were studied. Skin from the adult hairless female mouse (SKH1) was removed and mounted in flow-through diffusion cells. The chemicals, at three dose levels (DBDPO: 6, 30 and 60 nmol; TDCP: 20, 100 and 200 pmol), were applied in a volatile vehicle (tetrahydrofuran for DBDPO; acetone for TDCP) to the skin. Fractions of receptor fluid, pumped below the skin, were collected over a 24-h period. The skin was washed with solvent (tetrahydrofuran for DBDPO; ethanol for TDCP) to remove unabsorbed chemical 24 h after application. The receptor fluid, skin wash and skin were analyzed for chemical-derived radioactivity. The skin from the high-dose group of both chemicals, and the receptor fluid from TDCP high-dose samples, were analyzed for parent compound and metabolites by HPLC. The 24-h cumulative percent of the dose of DBDPO in the receptor fluid was very low (0.07–0.34%). The applied dose of DBDPO detected in the skin ranged from 2 to 20%. The lowest dose of DBDPO had the highest percentage of the dose (20%) in the skin. The major portion of the applied dose was removed by washing the skin 24 h after application of DBDPO, and ranged from 77 to 92%. HPLC analysis of homogenate extract prepared from the high-dose of DBDPO-treated skin showed the presence of DBDPO and a minor unknown peak. TDCP was readily detected in the receptor fluid; 39–57% of the applied dose of TDCP was in the receptor fluid by 24 h. The solvent wash removed 11–25% of the dose from the skin and 28–35% remained in it. HPLC analysis of the skin homogenate extract and receptor fluid extract from the TDCP high-dose treated samples showed the presence of parent compound and a minor unknown peak. TDCP more readily penetrated hairless mouse skin and diffused into the receptor fluid than DBDPO. TDCP has a lower molecular weight and log octanol:water partition coefficent than DBDPO. The differences in the physico-chemical properties of these two chemicals most likely explains their dissimilar absorption through hairless mouse skin.