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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 204-617-8 | CAS number: 123-31-9
- 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
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:
- no data
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Remarks:
- Modified Magnusson and Kligman procedure. The HQ experiment included only 4 animals per group. Challenge applications were open.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- In principle the methodology was similar to OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation) except the HQ sensitisation assay included a smaller number of animals (4 animals/group) and open application was used at challenge.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Remarks:
- publication, University laboratories
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Data from a research organization; not originally produced for regulatory purposes.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: no data
- Age at study initiation: no data
- Weight at study initiation: 400g
- Housing: individual cages
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): standard solid diet ad libitum (RC-4 oriental Yeast, Osaka, Japan)
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: no data
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 23 +/- 2°C
- Humidity (%): 55 +/- 10°C
- Air changes (per hr): no data
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 h light/dark cycle
IN-LIFE DATES: no data - Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone 80%
- Concentration / amount:
- On day 0, intradermal injections at 3 different spots:
1) 0.05 ml emulsified mixture of FCA and saline
2) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in saline
3) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in emulsified mixture of FCA and saline (1:1) - Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone 80%
- Concentration / amount:
- On day 0, intradermal injections at 3 different spots:
1) 0.05 ml emulsified mixture of FCA and saline
2) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in saline
3) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in emulsified mixture of FCA and saline (1:1) - No. of animals per dose:
- 4 females/dose
- Details on study design:
- MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1 intradermal injection on day 0 and one topical application on day 7
- Site: shaved flanks
- Frequency of applications: single application
- Concentrations:
On day 0, intradermal injections at 3 different spots:
1) 0.05 ml emulsified mixture of FCA and saline
2) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in saline
3) 0.05 ml of 2% hydroquinone in emulsified mixture of FCA and saline (1:1)
On day 7, topical induction with 0.5 g of 1% hydroquinone in petrolatum applied under an occlusive patch for 48 hrs.
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: one application
- Day(s) of challenge: day 21
- Exposure period: 24 hrs, open application
- Test groups: hydroquinone in 80% acetone
- Control group: vehicle (acetone at 80% in water)
- Site: flank regions that had been shaved 24h before challenge
- Concentrations: 0.2%, 2% or 20% hydroquinone (0.05 ml containing 0.1, 1, or 10 mg HQ)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24h, 48h, 72 h - Challenge controls:
- none
- Positive control substance(s):
- no
- Remarks:
- Hydroquinone was the positive control in the study investigating cross-reactivity
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.2%. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 20%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.2%. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 20%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- vehicle
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: vehicle. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.2%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0.2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 20%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 4.0.
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 20%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 4
- Remarks on result:
- other: Hydroquinone was the positive control, see details under test chemical
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1B (indication of skin sensitising potential) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- The results showed the sensitising potential of Hydroquinone following intradermal induction at 2%, followed by an occlusive topical induction at 0.2, 2 or 20% in 80% acetone, and challenge with open applications at the same dose levels. Based on criteria described in CLP Regulation (EC) 1272/2008, the substance meets the criteria of sensitiser sub-category 1B (≥ 30 % responding at > 1 % intradermal induction dose).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Remarks:
- Comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions: no data on clinical signs of local irritation or systemic toxicity, on body weights or on positive controls, sufficient documentation; study acceptable as key study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- (no data on clinical signs of local irritation or systemic toxicity, on body weights or on positive controls)
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan UK Ltd., Bicester, Oxford, UK
- Age at study initiation: 7-12 w
- Housing: standard conditions, 4 per cage
- Diet: Special Diets Services Ltd. (SDS) Porton Combined Diet (PCD) pelleted Diet (Special Diets Services Ltd., Witham, UK), ad libitum
- Water: tap water ad libitum
- Acclimation period: no data
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS:
- Temperature (°C): not specified, standard conditions
- Humidity (%): not specified, standard conditions
- Air changes (per hr): no data
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): standard conditions - Vehicle:
- other: acetone/olive oil (4:1) (AOO), methylethylketon (MEK), dimethyl formamide (DMF), propylene glycol (PG), dimthyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone/physiological saline (1:1) (APS), or acetone
- Concentration:
- 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0% (first test with all vehicles)
2.5, 5.0, 10% (second test with PG and APS) - No. of animals per dose:
- 4
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: no data
MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: standard LLNA protocol
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: Stimulation index of at least 3.0
TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Standard LLNA protocol (pooled animal approach):
Application of 25 µL/d on the dorsum of both ears of the test substance solution or the vehicle alone on 3 consecutive days; i.v. application of [3H]-methylthymidine on day 6 followed by sacrifice 5 hrs later and excision of draining auricular lymph nodes, which were pooled for each experimental group; Incorporation of 3H-TdR measured in cell pellets by ß-scintillation counting
EVALUATIONS:
mean disintegration per minute (dpm) per node for each group;
stimulation index = increase in dpm of HQ-treated group relative to vehicle control group;
EC3-value: linear interpolation of the dose-response data was used to calculate the estimated concentration required to induce a SI of 3 - Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 12.1 - <= 25.8
- Test group / Remarks:
- 1.0% (Acetone/olive oil)
- Remarks on result:
- other: See results in other vehicles in table 1
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 11.2 - <= 17.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.5% (Acetone/olive oil)
- Remarks on result:
- other: See results in other vehicles in table 1
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 4.3 - <= 9.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.25% (Acetone/olive oil)
- Remarks on result:
- other: See results in other vehicles in table 1
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 1.2 - <= 2.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.1 % (Acetone/olive oil)
- Remarks on result:
- other: See results in other vehicles in table 1
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- ca. 1.3
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.05% (Acetone/olive oil)
- Remarks on result:
- other: SI: see overview in Table 1 mean EC3 as % HQ: acetone 0.08%, MEK 0.09%, AOO 0.15%, DMF 0.21%, DMSO 0.35%, PG 1 - 2%, APS 1 - 2% mean EC3 as µg HQ/cm2: acetone 20, MEK 22.5, AOO 37.5, DMF 52.5, DMSO 87.5, PG 250 - 500, APS 250 - 500
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- HQ was found to be a sensitiser in LLNA with the different vehicles acetone/olive oil (4:1) (AOO), methylethylketon (MEK), dimethyl formamide (DMF), propylene glycol (PG), dimthyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone/physiological saline (1:1) (APS), or acetone. The following mean EC3 values were found: for acetone 0.08%, for MEK 0.09%, for AOO 0.15%, for DMF 0.21%, for DMSO 0.35%, for PG and APS 1 - 2%.
- Executive summary:
Possible vehicle effects on the sensitising potential of hydroquinone were investigated by two laboratories in a mouse local lymph node assay comparable to standard conditions of the OECD Guideline 429. The different vehicles were acetone/olive oil (4:1) (AOO), methylethylketon (MEK), dimethyl formamide (DMF), propylene glycol (PG), dimthyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone/physiological saline (1:1) (APS), and acetone and the tested concentration range was 0.1 – 1.0%. PEG and APS were retested at higher concentrations ranging from 2.5 - 10% (results from one laboratory). The following mean EC3 values were found: for acetone 0.08%, for MEK 0.09%, for AOO 0.15%, for DMF 0.21%, for DMSO 0.35%, for PG and APS 1 - 2%. Calculated as µg HQ/cm2 the following EC3 values resulted: for acetone 20, for MEK 22.5, for AOO 37.5, for DMF 52.5, for DMSO 87.5, for PG and APS 250 – 500 µg/cm2. Consequently the sensitising potential was highly dependent on the vehicle covering a range of EC3 values from 0.08 to up to 1 – 2 %.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Remarks:
- Comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions: no data on clinical signs of local irritation or systemic toxicity, on body weights or on positive controls, sufficient documentation; study acceptable as key study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- (no data on clinical signs of local irritation or systemic toxicity, on body weights or on positive controls)
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan Seralab, Bicester, Oxfordshire, UK (Laboratories A and B), Harlan sprague-Dawley, Inc., Indianapolis, IN or Jackson Laboratories, Bar Harbour, ME, USA (Laboratories C, D and E)
- Age at study initiation: 6 - 12 w
- Weight at study initiation: no data
- Housing: no data
- Diet: ad libitum
- Water: ad libitum
- Acclimation period: no data
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: standard, no further details - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.5%
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: no data
MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: standard LLNA protocol (Laboratories A and B), modified LLNA protocol 1 (Laboratories C and D), modified LLNA protocol 2 (Laboratories E)
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: Stimulation index of at least 3.0
TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Standard LLNA protocol (pooled animal approach):
Application of 25 µL/d on the dorsum of both ears of the test substance solution or the vehicle alone on 3 consecutive days; i.v. application of [3H]-methylthymidine on day 6 followed by sacrifice 5 hrs later and excision of draining auricular lymph nodes, which were pooled for each experimental group; Incorporation of 3H-TdR measured in cell pellets by ß-scintillation counting
modified LLNA protocol 1 (individual animal approach):
comparable to standard protocol with the following exception: only lymph nodes of indivudual animals pooled
modified LLNA protocol 2 (individual animal approach):
comparable to modified LLNA protocol 1 with the following exception: use of [125I]iododeoxyuridine in place of 3H-TdR, incorporation of 125I-UdR measured by gamma-counter
Evaluations:
mean disintegration per minute (dpm) per node for each mouse or group;
stimulation index = increase in dpm of HQ-treated group relative to vehicle control group;
EC3-value: test concentration to elicit a stimulation index of SI = 3 - Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Statistics:
- Bartlett's test to examine the homogeneity of the within-chemical treatment variances; when analysis of variance revealed significant differences in parametric data, experiments were compared with vehicle controls using Dunnett's t-test, for nonparametric data use of Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison procedure, level of significance at P<= 0.05;
Test for dose-dependent effects by Jonckheere's test with level of significance at P<= 0.01
Comparison of stimulation indices for the 5 laboratories: analysis of covariance
Derivation of EC3-values: extrapolation from regression analyses - Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 12.2 - <= 33.4
- Test group / Remarks:
- 2.5%
- Remarks on result:
- other: See Remark
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 8.4 - <= 25.3
- Test group / Remarks:
- 1.0%
- Remarks on result:
- other: See Remark
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 6 - <= 23.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.5%
- Remarks on result:
- other: See Remark
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 4.8 - <= 14.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.25%
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Remark
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 2.4 - <= 3.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.10%
- Remarks on result:
- other: See Remark
- Remarks:
- Range at different test concentrations (result from 5 laboratories: 0.10%: 2.4 - 3.6; 0.25%: 4.8 - 14.9; 0.5%: 6.0 - 23.7; 1 %: 8.4 - 25.3; 2.5%: 12.2 - 33.4 Mean EC3 value calculated based on test results from 3 laboratories with values of 0.07%, 0.08% and 0.07%: mean 0.073% or 18 µg/cm2
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Table
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- A strong sensitising activity of hydroquinone was indicated in the mouse local lymph node assay in an interlaboratory evaluation with a mean EC3 value of 0.073% or 18 µg/cm2.
- Executive summary:
The sensitising potential of hydroquinone was investigated in a mouse local lymph node assay comparable to standard conditions of the OECD Guideline 429 in an interlaboratory evaluation with participation of five test laboratories. Test concentrations were 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, and 2.50% HQ in acetone/olive oil (4:1) as vehicle. A strong sensitising activity of hydroquinone was indicated by a mean EC3 value of 0.073% or 18 µg/cm2based on the most reliable test data.
Referenceopen allclose all
Table 1: LLNA results as stimulation index (SI) and EC3 values of HQ in 7 different vehicles (concentration range 0.05 – 1.0%)
Vehicle |
Laboratory |
Stimulation index (SI of vehicle alone = 1.0) |
EC3 (% HQ) |
||||
0.05 |
0.1 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
|||
AOO |
1 |
1.3 |
2.7 |
9.2 |
17.2 |
25.8 |
0.11 |
|
2 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
4.3 |
11.2 |
12.1 |
0.19 |
MEK |
1 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
13.9 |
23.0 |
24.5 |
0.10 |
|
2 |
2.2 |
3.6 |
14.0 |
19.8 |
30.9 |
0.08 |
DMF |
1 |
0.8 |
1.8 |
3.7 |
7.3 |
8.0 |
0.19 |
|
2 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
3.2 |
7.7 |
10.9 |
0.23 |
PG |
1 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
> 1.0 |
|
2 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
> 1.0 |
DMSO |
1 |
1.1 |
0.9 |
2.6 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
0.33 |
|
2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.9 |
4.2 |
6.5 |
0.37 |
APS |
1 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
> 1.0 |
|
2 |
1.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.9 |
> 1.0 |
Acetone |
1 |
1.3 |
5.6 |
13.0 |
15.3 |
24.1 |
0.07 |
|
2 |
1.8 |
3.9 |
9.3 |
25.7 |
25.1 |
0.08 |
List of vehicles: acetone/olive oil (4:1) (AOO), methylethylketon (MEK), dimethyl formamide (DMF), propylene glycol (PG), dimthyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone/physiological saline (1:1) (APS), or acetone
Table 2: LLNA results as stimulation index (SI) and EC3 values of HQ in PG and APS at higher concentrations (Results from Laboratory 2)
Vehicle |
Stimulation index (SI of vehicle alone = 1.0) |
Estimated EC3 |
||
% HQ in vehicle |
||||
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
||
PG |
5.5 |
13.7 |
19.4 |
1 to 2 |
APS |
6.8 |
10.9 |
11.1 |
1 to 2 |
Table: Test results in the interlaboratory evaluation of the LLNA
Test Laboratory |
Para-meter |
Vehicle control |
Test concentration |
EC3 in % |
EC3 in µg/cm2 | ||||
0.10 % |
0.25 % |
0.50 % |
1.00% |
2.50% |
|||||
A |
dpm |
342 |
973 |
1994 |
4685 |
5207 |
4489 |
0.07a |
17.5 |
SI |
- |
2.8 |
5.8 |
13.7 |
15.2 |
13.1 |
|||
B |
dpm |
347 |
936 |
2165 |
2259 |
3139 |
4555 |
0.03ad |
7.5 |
SI |
- |
2.5 |
5.8 |
6.0 |
8.4 |
12.2 |
|||
C |
dpm |
781 ± 133 |
1858 ± 184 * |
5484 ± 715 * |
8668 ± 885 * |
12412 ± 1203 * |
11747 ± 1462 * |
0.08a |
20.0 |
SI |
- |
2.4 |
7.0 |
11.1 |
15.9 |
15.0 |
|||
D |
dpm |
257 ± 49 |
927 ± 215 * |
1228 ± 385 * |
3089 ± 753 * |
3922 ± 546 * |
5975 ± 631 * |
0.07b |
17.5 |
SI |
- |
3.6 |
4.8 |
12.0 |
15.3 |
23.2 |
|||
E |
dpm |
53 ± 19 |
167 ± 40 * |
790 ± 204 * |
1256 ± 219 * |
1340 ± 108 * |
1769 ± 163 * |
c |
|
SI |
- |
3.2 |
14.9 |
23.7 |
25.3 |
33.4 |
SI = stimulation index
amathematically derived concentration required to induce a SI of 3
bderived by extrapolation
c Data set inappropriate for derivation of EC3 value by extrapolation. So these data were not considered for further evaluation
d As this EC3 value is distinctly different from the values of laboratories A, C and D, it was not considered for calculation of a mean EC3 value.
* statistically significantly different from control at P<0.05 (no statistical evaluation for Laboratories A and B)
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
Sensitisation assays in test animals
The sensitising potential of hydroquinone was investigated in two mouse local lymph node assays [Reliability 2] comparable to standard conditions of the OECD Guideline 429 (Key studies: Kimber et al., 1998; Lea et al., 1999).
In an interlaboratory evaluation with participation of five test laboratories test concentrations were 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, and 2.50% HQ in acetone/olive oil (4:1) as vehicle. A strong sensitising activity of hydroquinone was indicated by a mean EC3 value of 0.073% or 18 µg/cm2as based on the most reliable test data (Key study: Kimber et al., 1998).In the second LLNA study, possible vehicle effects on the sensitising potential of hydroquinone were investigated by two laboratories. The different vehicles were acetone/olive oil (4:1) (AOO), methylethylketon (MEK), dimethyl formamide (DMF), propylene glycol (PG), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone/physiological saline (1:1) (APS), and acetone and the tested concentration range was 0.1 – 1.0%. PEG and APS were retested at higher concentrations ranging from 2.5 - 10% (results from one laboratory). The following mean EC3 values were found: for acetone 0.08%, for MEK 0.09%, for AOO 0.15%, for DMF 0.21%, for DMSO 0.35%, for PG and APS 1 - 2%. Calculated as µg HQ/cm2 the following EC3 values resulted: for acetone 20, for MEK 22.5, for AOO 37.5, for DMF 52.5, for DMSO 87.5, for PG and APS 250 – 500 µg/cm2. Consequently the sensitising potential was highly dependent on the vehicle covering a range of EC3 values from 0.08 to up to 1 – 2 % (Key study: Lea et al., 1999). Based on both key studies, the EC3 value of 0.07% or 18 µg/cm2 is considered to be the NOAEL for skin sensitisation. Based on criteria of CLP, the skin sensitisation potency of HQ would be classified as extreme, sensitiser sub-category 1A, under CLP criteria [due to EC3 < 2%].
Further, the sensitising potential of hydroquinone was investigated in a guinea pig maximization test comparable to standard conditions of the OECD Guideline 406. Intradermal induction was performed with a test concentration of 2% followed by a 48-hour occlusive patch with 10% hydroquinone seven days later. After a 14-day interval, challenge was performed by application of an occlusive chamber with 5% hydroquinone to a prepared flank for 24 hrs. A positive skin reaction was observed in seven of the 10 guinea pig maximization test, giving a sensitisation rate of 70% (Key study: Goodwin et al., 1981). Because more than 30% of the animals responded at > 1% injection dose, the results correspond to sub-category 1B, strong sensitiser. Similar results were obtained in another maximisation assay, using an intradermal injection at 2%, topical induction at concentrations of 0.2, 2.0 or 20% hydroquinone on day 7, before an open application challenge with the same concentrations.
The results are relatively consistent with prior publications using the M&K assay (reported in RSS-overview). Based on the doses and % responses reported, the 3 studies would also correspond to a sub-category 1B, as the injection concentration was always > 1% with responses in > 30% of the animals
Overview of available study results
Test type
Species
Result
Conclusion
Test doses
Reference
Key studies
LLNA
Mouse
Positive
Sensitiser, EC3=0.073%
0.1, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.5% in acetone/olive oil (4:1)
Kimber et al., 1998
LLNA
mouse
Positive
Sensitiser, EC3=0.08% to 1-2%
1sttest: 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0% in various vehicles
2ndtest 2.5, 5.0, 10%
Lea et al., 1999
GPMT
Guinea pig
Positive
Sensitisation rate 70%
Induction: 2% inj, 10% topical
Challenge: 5%
Goodwin et al., 1981
GPMT
Guinea pig
Positive
Sensitisation rate 75% to 100%
Induction: 2% inj, 0.2%, 2% or 20% topical (in 80% acetone)
Challenge: 0.2%, 2% or 20% (in 80% acetone), open application
To-o et al., 2010
Supporting studies
GPMT
Guinea pig
Positive
Sensitisation rate 50%, grading 3a
0.5M inj- 1M ind., (i.e. 5 and 10%)
Van der Walle et al., 1982
GPMT
Guinea pig
Positive
Strong sensitizer
Induction: 2% inj, 1% topical
Challenge: 0.5%.
Response: Strong, 65-80% incidence (M&K, 1969)
Basketter and Goodwin, 1988
GPMT
Guinea pig
Positive
Sensitisation rate 100%
Induction: 2% inj, 1% topical Challenge: 0.5%.
Basketter and Scholes, 1992
a according to Magnusson and Kligman The sensitising potential of hydroquinone indicated in the key studies is supported by further positive test results in the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) (Basketter and Scholes, 1992; Kimber et al., 1994), in the Guinea Pig Maximization Test according to Magnusson and Kligman (Van der Walle et al., 1982; Basketter and Goodwin, 1988; Basketter and Scholes, 1992), in the Freund’s Complete Adjuvant Test (FCAT) (Van der Walle et al., 1982), in the Cumulative Contact Enhancement Test (CCET) (Basketter and Goodwin, 1988), the Single Injection Adjuvant Test (SIAT) and the modified Draize test (Goodwin et al., 1981) (all supporting data compiled without detailed evaluation).
Human Experience
Human experience on a possible sensitising effect of HQ can be evaluated in a weight of evidence approach.
Several publications report on patch tests performed according to standardized conditions, generally with 48 h application via Finn chambers and reading according to ICDRG criteria after 48 and 72 h, and 4 to 6 days. There was no indication of sensitisation to HQ in patch tests with patients of Finnish dermatology clinics (populations partly overlapping covering a total study period of 1985 to 1996: Tarvainen et al. 1995; Kanerva et al. 1997, 1999), or a group of 54 Finnish hairdressers with work-related skin and respiratory symptoms (Leino et al. 1998). From 65 persons working at a film laboratory (number with exposure to HQ not known) 4 (6.2%) showed a positive patch test reaction to 1% HQ. The vehicle was found to influence the outcome of findings. Whereas no skin reaction was observed with 1% HQ in petrolatum, 1% HQ in water provoked erythema (irritant reaction) and staining possibly due to instability of HQ in aqueous solution (Liden 1989).
After a skin bleaching procedure with a 7-day treatment with a skin bleaching cream (5% HQ, 10% glycolic acid) a 47-year old woman developed an allergic contact dermatitis. Patch test reactions were positive both to the bleaching cream (++) and to 1% HQ (+). In the observed case, presumably an increased skin permeation of HQ existed due to a cosmetic keratolytic pretreatment of the skin, which could have favoured sensitisation (Barrientos et al., 2001).
Overall, despite a long history of use, observations of exposure-related skin sensitisation in humans are not frequent. The literature data on human clinical studies (human patch tests for diagnosis purpose, usually conducted with 1% HQ as part of a standard allergen series) or case reports have been reviewed in section 7.10.4 of the IUCLID, and indicate that hydroquinone is not a significant skin contact allergen in humans. Additional sources (German publications) have been also discussed by the MAK commission (The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, Volume 10, 1994, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/3527600418.mb12331e0010/pdf).
The positive levels in patch tests were usually observed at 1% or higher, and were dependent on vehicle used. Irritation reactions were also observed when HQ was applied in water.
The prevalence in professional users (in particular hair-dressers) has been reported in the past to be below 1%.
Other adverse skin effects (ochronosis, irritation) have been associated with high concentrations or overuse, especially in medicinal uses.
Short description of key information:
Local lymph node assay (comparable to OECD Guideline 429): mean EC3 0.07% or 18 µg/cm2 (Kimber et al., 1988); the sensitising potential was highly dependent on the vehicle covering a range of EC3 values from 0.08 to up to 1 – 2 % (Lea et al., 1999)
Guinea pig maximization test (comparable to OECD Guideline 406): sensitization rate 70% following intradermal injection at 2%. In another study, similar to OECD 406, with reduced animal numbers, incidence was 75 to 100% depending on the concentration at challenge after an intradermal induction concentration of 2%
Human data (patch tests for diagnosis purpose, case reports, history of use) indicate a low frequency of exposure-related sensitization cases despite a long history of use.
By weight of evidence considering the experimental data in animals, clinical studies in humans and history of use, the substance is considered a skin sensitiser sub-category 1B (see discussion).
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Positive effects observed in various animals studies and case reports in humans indicate a sensitisation potential. By weight of evidence considering the experimental data in animals, clinical studies in humans and history of use, the substance is considered to be a skin sensitiser sub-category 1B.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
The experimental results in the mice LLNA and in the guinea-pig M&K indicate a clear sensitizing potential, however the potency seems to differ between both test methods. The LLNA model assesses the ability of the substance to simulate the lymphocyte proliferative response during the induction phase, while the Maximisation test assessed both the induction and the elicitation phases, and may be more reliable in assessing the sensitisation potency of Hydroquinone.
Furthermore the human data (mainly diagnostic patch test data) tend to support that hydroquinone is not a significant human skin sensitizer.
Results in humans and Maximisation assay support classification in sub-category 1B.According to the criteria of EC directive 1272/2008 and GHS, Hydroquinone is classified as Skin Sensitiser Sub-Category 1B; H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction, based on a weight of evidence.
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.