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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Skin sensitisation: not sensitising (OECD 406 (GPMT), GLP)

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
Study period:
08 Jul - 15 Aug 2014
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
Dicalcium pyrophosphate is an inorganic salt of the alkaline earth metal calcium and pyrophosphate (diphosphate, a condensed orthophosphate). The water solubility of dicalcium pyrophosphate is low (0.255 mg/L). Dermal absorption is therefore anticipated to be low (ECHA Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.7c: Endpoint specific guidance. Version 2.0, November 2014). Based on the identity/chemical structure and physicochemical properties, testing for skin sensitisation by means of a Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD 429) is considered to be inappropriate, as it may underestimate the skin sensitising potential of the test substance, leading to a false negative result, due to a low dermal absorption and hence low exposure. For this reason, the Guinea Pig Maximization Test, which involves intradermal injection of the test substance for induction thus ensuring exposure beneath the skin surface, is considered to be the most appropriate method for assessing the skin sensitising potential of this particular substance.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, Germany
- Age at study initiation: 4-6 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 300.9-337.5 g
- Housing: test animals were housed in groups of up to ten.
- Diet: commercial feeding mixture (Mühle Knull, Rostock, Germany), ad libitum
- Water: tap water (drinking quality, supplemented with 1 g/L vitamin C)
- Acclimation period: at least 5 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20 ± 3 °C
- Humidity (%): 30-70
- Air changes (per hr): 16
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
1%
Day(s)/duration:
7
Adequacy of induction:
highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
100%
Day(s)/duration:
2
Adequacy of induction:
highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
No.:
#1
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
100%
Day(s)/duration:
1
Adequacy of challenge:
highest non-irritant concentration
No. of animals per dose:
5 (negative control)
10 (test groups)
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
The appropriate test material concentrations for intradermal and epicutaneous induction and epicutaneous challenge exposures were determined in a preliminary test using 6 additional FCA-treated animals.
For intradermal exposure, animals were given the test material at 5, 2.5, 1 and 0.5% suspensions in water by intradermal injections (0.1 mL). Animals were examined for signs of skin irritation at 24 and 48 h post-injection according to the Magnusson Kligman grading scale.
For topical exposure, animals were treated with the test material at 100, 50 and 25% in distilled water for 24 h under occlusive conditions. Irritation responses were assessed at 24 and 48 h after patch and substance removal.
Based on the results of the preliminary test (see Table 1), in the main test, 1% test material in water and 100% test material moistened with water were selected for intradermal and topical treatment, respectively.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 (intradermal and epicutaneous, respectively)
- Exposure period: single injection (intradermal) and 48 h (epicutaneous)
- Test group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections, 0.1 mL):
Injection 1: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Injection 2: 1% test substance in water
Injection 3: 1% test substance in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
- Negative control group:
Intradermal (3 pairs of injections, each 0.1 mL):
Injection 1: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water
Injection 2: water
Injection 3: 1:1 mixture (v/v) FCA/water

Epicutaneous:
- Test group: test substance at 100%
- Negative control: water

- Site: scapular region (intradermal + epicutaneous)
- Frequency of applications: single
- Duration: Days 0-8 (on Day 6, one day prior to epicutaneous induction, the shorn skin of all animals in each group was treated with 0.5 mL of 10% sodium lauryl sulphate vaseline, in order to create a local irritation).

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1 (challenge)
- Day(s) of challenge: 21 (challenge)
- Exposure period: 24 h
- Test groups: 100 % test substance moistened with water
- Control group: 100 % test substance moistened with water
- Site: flank region
- Concentrations: 100 %
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 48 and 72 h
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
hexyl cinnamic acid (CAS No 101-86-0, routinely evaluated every 6 month at challenge concentrations of 55% in vaseline)
Positive control results:
Hexyl cinnamic acid (at challenge concentration of 55% in vaseline) induced skin sensitisation reactions in 90% of the treated animals.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
No visible symptoms during observation.
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
induction (intradermal): 0%; induction (epicutaneous): 0%; challenge: 100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
No visible symptoms during observation.
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
induction (intradermal): 1%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
No visible symptoms during observation.
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
induction (intradermal): 1%; induction (epicutaneous): 100%; challenge: 100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
No visible symptoms during observation.
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation

Animal weights

Table 3: Individual animal weights (g) at start / test end (test group)

Animal

Test start

Test end

Body weight change

1

337.5

417.5

80.0

2

315.5

383.8

68.3

3

317.0

394.6

77.6

4

334.6

435.9

101.3

5

316.0

390.4

74.4

6

301.3

377.8

76.5

7

300.9

383.3

82.4

8

318.6

401.3

82.7

9

334.8

445.1

110.3

10

302.1

356.5

54.4

 

Individual weight of control group

Table 4: Individual animal weights (g) at test start and at test end (control group)

Animal

Test start

Test end

Body weight change

K1

318.0

362.9

44.9

K2

333.6

399.4

65.8

K3

335.6

406.8

71.2

K4

313.5

380.2

66.7

K5

309.0

376.0

67.0

 

Table 5: Skin reactions of test animals after treatment with the test material

Animal

Numerical grading after

24 h

48 h

1

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

4

0

0

5

0

0

6

0

0

7

0

0

8

0

0

9

0

0

10

0

0

 

Table 6: Skin reactions of control animals after treatment with the test material

Animal

Numerical grading after

24h

48h

K1

0

0

K2

0

0

K3

0

0

K4

0

0

K5

0

0

 

Table 7: Skin reactions of animals after challenge treatment with HCA 55 % in vaseline

Animal

Numerical grading after

24 h

48 h

1

1

1

2

0

0

3

1-2

1-2

4

1

1

5

1-2

2

6

1

1

7

1-2

1-2

8

0-1

1

9

1-2

1

10

1

1

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
The test material did not induce any skin reactions in intradermally and topically induced guinea pigs after challenge treatment. Therefore, the material does not fulfil the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and is thus considered to be not skin sensitising.

CLP: not classified
GHS: not classified
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

The skin sensitising potential of dicalcium pyrophosphate was evaluated in a Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) conducted in accordance with OECD Guideline 406 and GLP. Preliminary tests were conducted to determine the test substance concentrations for intradermal and epicutaneous applications in the main study. Test animals (10 female Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs) were intradermally induced with the test substance as a 1% suspension in water (Day 0), and topically induced with the test substance at 100% moistened with water (Day 7) for 48 h. Control animals (5 females) were treated similarly with distilled water. Control and test animals were challenged by topical application of the test substance at 100% moistened in water (Day 21) for 24 h. For topical induction and challenge applications, the skin of the test animals was pre-treated with 10% sodium lauryl sulphate in vaseline for 24 h, respectively. Skin reactions were examined and evaluated 24 and 48 h after challenge patch removal (i.e. 48 and 72 h after challenge application). No skin reactions were noted at the challenge sites of the control and test animals at the observation time points. Hence, the test material did not induce any skin reactions in intradermally and topically induced guinea pigs after challenge treatment.

Therefore, the test material does not fulfil the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and is thus considered to be not skin sensitising.


Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

The available data indicate that the substance does not meet the classification criteria in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) for skin sensitisation.