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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Genetic toxicity: in vitro

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
Remarks:
Type of genotoxicity: gene mutation
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment

Data source

Referenceopen allclose all

Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1999
Report date:
1999
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Salmonella Mutagenicity Tests: II. Results From Testing of 270 Chemicals
Author:
Mortelmans, K. et al.
Year:
1986
Bibliographic source:
Environ. Mutagen. 8, Suppl. 7, 1-119
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Salmonella mutagenicity tests: V. Results from the testing of 311 chemicals
Author:
Zeiger E et al.
Year:
1992
Bibliographic source:
Environ. Mol. Mutagen . 19 (Suppl . 21), 2-141

Materials and methods

Principles of method if other than guideline:
Method: other: Haworth, S. et al.: Environ. Mutagen. 5, Suppl. 1, 3-142
GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of assay:
bacterial reverse mutation assay

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Isobutyraldehyde
EC Number:
201-149-6
EC Name:
Isobutyraldehyde
Cas Number:
78-84-2
Molecular formula:
C4H8O
IUPAC Name:
2-methylpropanal
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Isobutyraldehyde
- Purity: 98%

Method

Species / strain
Species / strain / cell type:
other: Salmonella typhimurium TA97, TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, TA1537, and TA104
Metabolic activation:
with and without
Metabolic activation system:
Aroclor induced rats and hamster S-9 mix (5, 10 or 30%)
Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
0 - 10000 µg/plate depending on strain used
Controls
Untreated negative controls:
no
Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
yes
True negative controls:
no
Positive controls:
yes
Positive control substance:
9-aminoacridine
sodium azide
other: 4-nitro-o-phenylenediamine and 2-aminoanthracene
Remarks:
See any other information on materials and methods incl. tables
Details on test system and experimental conditions:
METHOD OF APPLICATION: preincubation

DURATION
- Preincubation period: 20 minutes
- Exposure duration: 48 hours

NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS: 3 plates per dose level

DETERMINATION OF CYTOTOXICITY
- Method: Appearance of his- pinpoint colonies, reduced numbers of revertant colonies per plate, or thinning or absence of the bacterial lawn.

Evaluation criteria:
A positive response is defined as a reproducible, dose-related increase in histidine-independent (revertant) colonies in any one strain/activation combination. An equivocal response is defined as an increase in revertants that is not dose related, not reproducible, or not of sufficient magnitude to support a determination of mutagenicity. A negative response is obtained when no increase in revertant colonies is observed following chemical treatment. There was no minimum percentage or fold increase required for a chemical to be judged positive or weakly positive.

Results and discussion

Test results
Species / strain:
other: Salmonella typhimurium TA104, TA97, TA98, TA100, TA102 TA1535, and TA1537
Metabolic activation:
with and without
Genotoxicity:
negative
Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
cytotoxicity
Vehicle controls validity:
valid
Untreated negative controls validity:
not examined
Positive controls validity:
valid
Additional information on results:
In the report of the NTP the results of TA104 with rat S9 mix is considered to be equivocal. However, Mortelmans et al does not consider the results to be equivocal. Based on the only slight increase in revertants the results cannot be considered to be equivocal, but are negative.

Applicant's summary and conclusion