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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

not sensitizing; weight of evidence: OECD TG 406 (Buehler test / Guinea pig maximisation test); RL1-2; GLP; read across: partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat and oleic acid-based TEA-Esterquat

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Justification for type of information:
REPORTING FORMAT FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH

1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
This read-across is based on the hypothesis that source and target substances have similar (eco)toxicological properties because
• they share structural similarities with common functional groups: One quaternised ethanolamine moiety, one to three, mainly two ester groups with a typical UVCB distribution with long-chain fatty acids of natural origin. The molecular structure is almost identical.
• they are manufactured from similar resp. identical precursors (triethanolamine, long-chain fatty acids, dimethyl sulphate) under similar conditions. Therefore common breakdown products via physical and biological processes, which result in structurally similar chemicals are evident
• A constant pattern in the changing of the potency of the properties across the TEA-Esterquats by chain-length and the grade of esterification is not observed, because the fatty acid chain-length distribution is too narrow and similar and the distribution of mono-, di-, and tri-esters is identical. Some variation caused by variation in C=C double bonds may occur and will be discussed at the relevant endpoint.

2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
See general justification for read-across attached to chapter 13 of this IUCLID file.

3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
See general justification for read-across attached to chapter 13 of this IUCLID file.

4. DATA MATRIX
See general justification for read-across attached to chapter 13 of this IUCLID file.
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across: supporting information
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1-10% in several studies
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1-10% in several studies
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Group:
negative control
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
no details available
Remarks on result:
positive indication of skin sensitisation
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

No experimental data are available for the assessment of sensitizing potential of the target substance C18 and C18 unsatd. TEA-Esterquat. However, reliable relevant data are available for the closely related source substances partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat and oleic acid-based TEA-Esterquat. A justification for read-across is attached to iuclid section 13.


 


Summary


Two Buehler tests with the source substance partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat were negative, one was judged as ambiguous due to an inconsistent response pattern and in most cases rapid fading of responses at challenge and re-challenge in test and control animals. In one further Buehler test the source substance partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat was identified as weak sensitiser. Furthermore, two Guinea Pig Maximisation Tests, one conducted with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat, the other with oleic acid-based TEA-Esterquat are available, which were both negative.


A weight of evidence approach is used for evaluation. There is no indication from the available specifications to link the weak positive findings in the Buehler studies to differences in the degree of saturation of the underlying alkyl chain in partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat.


The interpretation of results for those studies which were evaluated to be positive for skin sensitisation were complicated through the occurrence of a partly inconsistent pattern and in most cases rapid fading of response. Evaluation of response was hampered due to irritation and the absence of a clean negative control. Considering the studies with clean negative controls, proper performed induction with 100% test substance or mild to moderate irritating concentrations, there was no (0%) evidence for a skin sensitisation potential.


 


Studies in detail


Skin sensitisation


In a dermal sensitization study according to OECD Guideline 406, May, 12 1981 with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat (a.i. 90 %, in isopropanol 10 %) diluted in water young adult Pirbright white guinea pigs (10 male, 10 female) were tested using the MAXIMIZATION TEST method.


Intradermal induction was performed with a 5 % test substance concentration. After dermal induction with 25 % solution of test substance, slight to well defined erythema and oedema was observed. None of the animals of the test group or control group showed any positive skin reactions after challenge treatment with a non-irritating test article concentration of 10 % in water. The sensitization rate at 24 h and at 48 h was 0 %. The test item is considered to be a non-sensitizer in this study.  


 


In a dermal sensitization study according to OECD Guideline 406, July 17, 1992 with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat (a.i. 90%) in water young adult Pirbright white guinea pig (10 male, 10 female) were tested using the BUEHLER method.


The sensitization rate at 24 h and at 48 h was 0 %. In this study, the test substance partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat is considered to be a non-sensitizer. 


 


In a dermal sensitization study according to OECD Guideline 406, July, 17, 1992 with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat (a.i. 90 % in approx. 10 % isopropanol) diluted in purified water 20 male young adult Himalayan spotted guinea pigs were tested using the Bühler test method.


The sensitization rate at 24 h and at 48 h was 0 %. In this study, partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat is considered to be a non-sensitizer. 


 


In a dermal sensitization study according to OECD Guideline 406, July, 17, 1992 with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat (a.i. 77 % in isopropanol) diluted in water 20 female young adult Pirbright-Hartley guinea pigs were tested using the Bühler test method.


For Induction a mild to moderate irritating concentration of 12.5 % was used. Challenge was performed with a 3 % dilution on the left and right flank. Grade 1 reactions were observed in 25, 55 and 5 % of test animals on right/ and or left flank at the 24, 48 and 72 hour reading, respectively. In 30 % of negative control animals as well a grade 1 reaction was observed at the 48 hour reading on left and/or right flank and in 10 % on the right flank at 72 hours. At re-challenge on the right flank with the same concentration grade 1 reaction was observed in 25, 45 and 15 % of test animals at 24, 48 and 72 hours, respectively. 20 and 30 % of control animals showed grade 1 reactions at 24 and 48 hours. 72 hours after application no effects were observed.


Re-challenge with 1 % revealed no reactions in negative control animals and no reactions on right flank of test animals. Grade 1 response was seen in 3/20 animals at the 48 hours reading, on the left flank. No reactions were observed at the 24 and 72 hour readings in test animals.


Considering only reactions with a clean control group and values of right flank as recommended by the OECD guideline 406 the results of the re-challenge with 1 % are negative with a sensitisation rate of 0 %. However, positive reactions have been observed at re-challenge with 1 % on the left flank, but only at one time point and with grade 1 in 3 animals. A partly inconsistent pattern and in most cases rapid fading of response was observed at challenge and re-challenge with 3 % test substance concentration in test and control animals. In conclusion the study results were evaluated to be ambiguous.


 


In a dermal sensitization study according to OECD Guideline 406, July, 17, 1992 with partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat (a.i. 90 %) diluted in purified water 20 female young adult Pirbright-Hartley guinea pigs were tested using the Bühler test method.


Dermal induction was performed at concentrations of 60, 50 and 25 %, due to severity of response the concentration has to be decreased.


At challenge with 10 % test substance on the left and right flank, responses of slight erythema (score 0+, added by the study authors) and weak erythema/edema (score 1) were observed. No response was observed in negative control animals. For evaluation a response was considered positive, when a reaction on both flanks was observed, irrespective of severity. The resulting response rates were 25, 55 and 15 % at the 24, 48 and 72 hour readings, respectively. A consistent response over a period of 2 readings in minimum and a response on the contra lateral flank was observed in 35 % (7/20) of test animals. Re-challenge was performed with a 3 % dilution of the test substance on the left and right flank. Only responses on one flank were observed in 3 animals, most of them with a 0+ score. No reactions were observed in control animals. Due to the failure of response on the contra lateral flank the re-challenge was considered to be negative.


In conclusion there is evidence for a weak sensitisation potential of partially unsaturated TEA-Esterquat in this study.


 


In a dermal sensitization study with oleic acid-based TEA-Esterquat in bidest. water, young adult male and female Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs were tested using the method of Magnusson and Kligman according to OECD guideline 406. Positive control material was 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole.


 In this study, the test substance oleic acid-based TEA-Esterquat produced a sensitisation rate of 15 % (3/19) at the first challenge and a sensitisation rate of 0 (0/20) at re-challenge at a concentration of 1 % and is considered to be a non-sensitizer.


 


 


Similar results were obtained with the source substance MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., results of Human Repeat Insult Patch Tests and supporting data from two Bühler studies with guinea pigs indicate that the substance does not induce skin sensitisation in humans. These data are included into the dossier to demonstrate, that the substances have a similar toxicological profile.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available
Additional information:

There is no information available for respiratory sensitisation. Therefore, there is a data gap in this respect. However, the data gap cannot be fulfilled with experimental data, since there is no internationally accepted animal or in vitro model for respiratory sensitisation. In case human data for respiratory sensitisation emerges, this will be taken into account.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the available data, C18 and C18 unsatd. TEA-Esterquat does not need to be classified for skin sensitisation according to regulation (EC) 1272/2008. Thus, no labelling is required.