Dihydro-3-[3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl]furan-2,5-dione

Endpoint summary

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Additional information:

The key study for skin sensitisation was conducted according to OECD TG 406 and in compliance with GLP (WIL 2014). The test material was applied to the skin of guinea pigs in a Buehler test, undiluted at induction and challenge. All the readings at induction and challenge were 0 in all animals at all dose levels at all time points. The positive and negative controls were appropriate and with expected reactions. The study concluded the test material to not be sensitising to guinea pig skin.

The current accepted and preferred method for skin sensitisation testing according to the REACH legislation (EC no 1907/2006) and CLP Regulation (EC No 1272/2008) is the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). A validated test method, OECD TG 429 (OECD 2002) is available for the LLNA. The guideline acknowledges the limits of the LLNA, and states that there are instances where ‘test substance classes or substances containing functional groups shown to act as potential confounders’ make the use of guinea pig tests more appropriate. It is concluded that the LLNA is not applicable where the properties of the test material cause interference in the accuracy of the LLNA (OECD 2002). The statement in the OECD TG 429 is given with reference to the findings of Basketter et al. (2009a), who demonstrated false positives in silicone based substances which had previously been demonstrated to be non-sensitisers in the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT). The importance of available evidence from guinea pig results, consideration of chemical reactivity, epidermal bioavailability and clinical and experimental human data are emphasised as central to reaching appropriate regulatory decisions for substances which have been shown to fall outside the specificity of the LLNA (Basketter et al., 2009b). The non-applicability of the LLNA for silicone based substances has also been demonstrated by Petry et al. (2012). The sensitisation potential of polyfunctional silicone materials was tested in a comparative study investigating the GPMT and the LLNA assays, which found the five tested substances to be negative in the GPMT whereas they were concluded to be weak to moderate skin sensitisers in the LLNA (Petry et al., 2012).

Basketter D, Ball N, Cagen S, Carillo JC, Certa H, Eigler D, Garcia C, Esch H, Graham C, Haux C, Kreiling R, Mehling A (2009a). Application of weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation datasets: implication for REACH. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 55, 90-96.

Basketter D, McFadden JF, Gerberick F, Cockshott A, Kimber I (2009b) Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH.Contact Dermatitis, 60, 65-69.

Petry, T., Bosch, A., Coste, X., Dupuis, V., Eigler, D., Germain, P. (2012). An assessment of the skin sensitisation hazard of a group of polyfunctional silicones using a weight of evidence approach. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 64, 305-314.

Migrated from Short description of key information:
The skin sensitisation study found the test material to be not sensitising to guinea pig skin in a Buehler test, with no skin reactions evident in any of the test animals and appropriate positive and negative controls in place (WIL, 2014). The study was conducted according to OECD TG 406 and in compliance with GLP.

Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
The study was conducted according to an appropriate guideline and in compliance with GLP.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the available information, no classification is required for skin sensitisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.