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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Description of key information

MDEA is not a skin sensitiser in animals as tested in a Maximisation test with guinea pigs (similar to OECD guideline 406).

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Sensitisation study according to Magnuson and Kligmann
GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The guinea pig test method described in OECD TG 406 provide suitable information for hazard identification.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Age at study initiation: male: 340 - 458 g; female: 312 - 439 g


Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
propylene glycol
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction: 5 %
Epicutaneous induction: 100 %
Challenge: 100 %
Rechallenge: 50 %, 10%
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
propylene glycol
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction: 5 %
Epicutaneous induction: 100 %
Challenge: 100 %
Rechallenge: 50 %, 10%
No. of animals per dose:
Test group: 10/sex
Positive control: 5/sex
Irritation control: 5/sex
Challenge controls:
Irritation control animals 5 male and 5 female guinea pigs, received the same challenge procedures as in the definitive sensitization study, but were treated with only the vehicle and/or FCA/water emulsion during the intradermal and/or epicutaneous induction procedures. This allowed differentiation between primary skin irritation due to the test material and that produced by a hypersensitivity reaction.
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
0.1 %
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
100 %
No. with + reactions:
10
Total no. in group:
10
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
100 %
No. with + reactions:
18
Total no. in group:
20
Key result
Reading:
rechallenge
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
50 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Key result
Reading:
rechallenge
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20

All 10 animals challenged with 0.1% of the positive control DNCB showed clear skin response while all the irritation control animals were free of skin response. Eighteen of the 20 animals challenged with 100% N-methyldiethanolamine exhibited clear dermal responses. However, all ten irritation control animals exhibited clear dermal responses.

 

Due to the responses seen in the irritation controls, a Re-Challenge was performed at lower, less irritating concentrations. Animals were re-challenged with both 50% and 10% N-methyldiethanolamine at separate sites. All test group animals re-challenged with 50% and 10% N-methyldiethanolamine were free of dermal responses. In addition, all irritation control animals were free of dermal responses, confirming that non-irritating concentrations were administered.

 

Under conditions of this study, N-methyldiethanolamine produced sporadic irritation, but did not produce dermal sensitization in guinea pigs.

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

The sensitising potential of MDEA was investigated in a Maximisation test according to the method of Magnusson and Kligman (similar to OECD 406) in guinea pigs (10/sex) (Leung et al, 1988). The test material was administered at 5% (in propylene glycol), for the intradermal induction, and at 100%, for the topical induction, to 20 Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs (10/sex). Fourteen days after the last induction exposure, the challenge treatment was administered topically at 100%. Dermal evaluations were made approximately 24 and 48 hours after the removal of challenge/re-challenge (see below) patches. All 10 animals challenged with 0.1% of the positive control DNCB showed clear skin response while all the irritation control animals were free of skin response. Eighteen of the 20 animals challenged with 100% MDEA exhibited clear dermal responses. However, all ten irritation control animals also exhibited clear dermal responses. As the results at the challenge were equivocal, a re-challenge was performed in the same manner as the challenge, but at concentrations of 50% and 10% MDEA. In order to differentiate dermal reactions produced by irritation from those produced by sensitisation, 20 animals (5/sex/challenge; treated concurrently during induction with only vehicle or FCA/water emulsion) were subjected to the same challenge or re-challenge procedures as the animals which received test material during the induction exposures. All test group animals re-challenged with 50% and 10% MDEA were free of dermal responses. In addition, all irritation control animals were free of dermal responses, confirming that non-irritating concentrations were administered. Under conditions of this study, MDEA produced sporadic irritation, but did not produce dermal sensitisation in guinea pigs.



Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

Classification, Labeling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for the purpose of classification under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Based on these information the test item is not considered to be classified for skin sensitisation under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended for the tenth time in Regulation (EU) No 2017/776.