Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 202-473-0 | CAS number: 96-05-9
- 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

Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
- GPMT: negative (modified Magnusson-Kligman Test)
- GPMT: negative (according to OECD 406)
- Patch Test: negative
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 1984-03-23 to 1984-04-22
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
- Remarks:
- Equivalent or similar to OECD guideline, GLP
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- not specified
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The test method is based on that originally described by Magnusson B. and Kligman A.M., J. Invest. Derm. 1969, 52, 268-276 with modifications as indicated in the U.K. Health and Safety Commission publication "Approved Code of Practice: Methods for determination of toxicity" to comply with the Notification of New Substances Regulations, 1982.
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The non-LLNA study was performed in 1984 before LLNA test method was available.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Tuck & Sons Ltd., Battlesbridge, Essex
- Age at study initiation: approximately five to eight weeks of age
- Weight at study initiation: 288 - 338 g
- Housing: in groups of up to four
- Diet: standard laboratory guinea pig diet (Guinea Pig FD1 Diet supplied by Special Diet Services Limited, Witham, Essex), ad libitum;
- Water: tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: for a minimum period of five days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 18 - 25
- Humidity (%): Humidity was not controlled but remained within a range of 48-60 % RH recorded daily on a wet and dry bulb hygrometer.
- Air changes (per hr): approximately 10 changes per hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 / 12 - Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- other: arachis oil BP and ethanol, respectively
- Concentration / amount:
- 1st: Induction 5% (in arachis oil BP);
2nd: Induction undiluted;
3rd: Challenge 50% (in absolute ethanol); - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: arachis oil BP and ethanol, respectively
- Concentration / amount:
- 1st: Induction 5% (in arachis oil BP);
2nd: Induction undiluted;
3rd: Challenge 50% (in absolute ethanol); - No. of animals per dose:
- Control: 10 female animals; treated: 10 female animals;
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
Intradermal Injection: Into the clipped shoulder area of one animal four 0.1 mL intradermal injections of the test material at a concentration of 1% in a suitable vehicle were administered simultaneously; similarly four 0.1 mL aliquots of a 5% concentration of the test material were injected into a second guinea pig. Animals were observed 24, 48 and 72 hours and 7 days following treatment.
Topical Application: Both flanks of each of two guinea pigs were closely clipped free of hair. These animals had been intradermally injected with Freunds complete adjuvant between one and three weeks previously. The test material at a number of different concentrations in a suitable vehicle was applied to the clipped flanks under occlusive patches. The patches were left in position for 24 hours. Following the 24 hour exposure period the dressings
and patches were removed and any residual test material was washed from the application sites using cotton wool soaked in lukewarm water or ether. Approximately one hour following removal of the patches and 24 and 48 hours later, the reactions at the application sites were evaluated. The concentrations of the test material to be used on a further two guinea pigs were chosen, applied and then evaluated after similar time intervals.
On the basis of the results of this study the concentrations for the main study were identified.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- Intradermal Induction:
Day 0: EXPERIMENTAL GROUP: three pairs of intradermal injections in the shoulder region were given simultaneously:
(1) 0.1 mL of Freunds complete adjuvant (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Michigan USA)
(2) 0.1 mL of a 5 % concentration of the test material
(3) 0.1 mL of a 50 : 50 mixture of a 5 % concentration of the test material emulsified in the adjuvant
DAY 0: CONTROL GROUP: treated in a similar manner to the Experimental Group except that they were not exposed to the test material:
(1) 0.1 mL of Freunds complete adjuvant
(2) 0.1 mL of vehicle alone
(3) 0.1 mL of a 50 : 50 mixture of vehicle emulsified in Freunds complete adjuvant
- Epicutaneous Induction:
DAY 7: EXPERIMENTAL GROUP: The same area in the shoulder region of each guinea pig used for intradermal inductions was again closely clipped free of hair. The test material at a concentration of 100% was applied to a patch of Whatman No 4 filter paper. This patch was applied to the clipped shoulder region and held in position with two strips of Sleek waterproof adhesive strapping in the form of a cross. The patch was further secured by a 3.5 cm x 25 cm length of Elastoplast elastic adhesive bandage which was wound in a double layer around the torso of the animal. The dressing and patches were removed following a 48 hour exposure period.
DAY 7: CONTROL GROUP: The control group guinea pigs were treated in an identical manner to the Experimental Group animals except that the vehicle alone was applied to the induction site.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
DAY 21: EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS: An area measuring 5 cm x 5 cm on both flanks of each Experimental and Control Group guinea pig was closely clipped free of hair. The test material, at the highest non-irritant concentration indicated by the topical siting test (50 %) was applied to the clipped right flank of each animal under an occlusive patch. The vehicle alone was similarly applied to the clipped left flank. Both patches were covered with an overlapping length of aluminium foil and then held firmly in position for 24 hours by means of a 7.5 cm x 25 cm length of Elastoplast elastic adhesive bandage wound in a double layer around the torso of the animal.
DAY 22: Following the 24 hour exposure period the dressings and patches were removed from all Experimental and Control Group guinea pigs and any residual test material or vehicle was washed from the challenge sites using cotton wool soaked in lukewarm water or ether. The sites were marked using an indelible pen.
DAY 23: Twenty-one hours following removal of the patches the challenge sites of all Experimental and Control Group guinea pigs were lightly clipped free of hair. Three hours later (ie 24 hours following removal of the patches) the reactions observed at the test material and vehicle control sites were evaluated.
DAY 24: The reactions observed at the challenge sites were again observed and scored i.e. 48 hours following removal of the patches. - Challenge controls:
- The control group guinea pigs were treated in an identical manner to the Experimental Group animals except that the vehicle alone was applied to the induction site.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- The sensitivity of the guinea pigs is checked at regular intervals using known positive sensitizers.
- Positive control results:
- The sensitivity of the guinea pigs is checked at regular intervals using known positive sensitizers.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Remarks:
- The sensitivity of the guinea pigs is checked at regular intervals using known positive sensitizers.
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The test material Allyl methacrylate [ Methacrylate D'Allyle (MALLY)] was found to be a non-sensitizer (0/10 animals were sensitised) in the guinea pig.
- Executive summary:
The test material Methacrylate D'Allyle (MALLY) was found to be a non-sensitizer in the guinea pig.
Reference
Bodyweight gains of guinea pigs in the Experimantal Group between day 0 and day 24 were comparable to those observed in the Control Group animals over the same period.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
There are valid in vivo data available for the assessment of the skin sensitising potential of Allyl methacrylate.
In a guinea pig maximisation test (modified Magnusson-Kligman-Test; according to GLP) which was reliable with restrictions Allyl methacrylate was administered intradermal (as a 5% mixture with arachis oil BP) to each of the 10 female Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs in the test group during the three-application induction phase of the study (Arkema, 1984). After 7 days the epicutaneous injection of the induction phase followed (with undiluted test substance, under occlusive conditions). The challenge period was carried out 2 weeks after the epidermal induction by a piece of filter paper saturated with the test material (10% in paraffin oil). 24 and 48 hours after the challenge period no effects were observed both in the test and in the control groups (Safepharm, 1984).
A second guinea pig maximisation test (according to OECD 406 and GLP) which was reliable with restrictions confirmed the negative result of the first assay (C.I.T., 1991). In the intradermal induction phase Allyl Methacrylate was administered to the 10 male and 10 female Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs at a concentration of 10% (in paraffin oil). After 7 days the epicutaneous injection of the induction phase followed (with undiluted test substance, under occlusive conditions). The challenge period was carried out 2 weeks after the epidermal induction by a piece of filter paper saturated with the test material (10% in paraffin).
Additionally, a patch test was conducted in female Hartley albino guinea pigs (Siddiqui, 1982). Two groups of 10 guinea pigs were subjected to 4 insult patch tests in 10 days either with Allyl Methacrylate (undiluted) or with the positive control, dinitrochlorobenzene. No animal that received Allyl Methacrylate showed a positive result, whereas all animals of the positive control group showed a positive result.
In addition, allyl methacrylate did not induce contact sensitivity in guinea pigs using the Polak method (Parker, 1983).
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the available data, there is no indication for a skin sensitising potential of the test substance. Thus, no classification is warranted according to 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (GHS, CLP), respectively.
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.
