4,7-dichloroquinoline

Skin sensitisation

Administrative data

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:

data from handbook or collection of data

Justification for type of information:

Data from peer reviewed journal

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Allergic contact dermatitis from the test chemical

Author:

Pickerlng, F. C et.al

Year:

1982

Bibliographic source:

Contact Dermatitis, 1982

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: As mentioned below

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Human maximization test was perfiormed to determine the sensitization potential of the test chemical

GLP compliance:

not specified

Type of study:

patch test

Justification for non-LLNA method:

No data available

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

4,7-dichloroquinoline

EC Number:

201-714-7

EC Name:

4,7-dichloroquinoline

Cas Number:

86-98-6

Molecular formula:

C9H5Cl2N

IUPAC Name:

4,7-dichloroquinoline

Test material form:

solid

Details on test material:

- Name of test material: 4,7-Dichloroquinoline
- IUPAC name: 4,7-Dichloroquinoline
- Molecular formula: C9H5Cl2N
- Molecular weight: 198.051 g/mole
- Smiles : c12c(cc(Cl)cc2)nccc1Cl
- Inchl: 1S/C9H5Cl2N/c10-6-1-2-7-8(11)3-4-12-9(7)5-6/h1-5H
- Substance type: Organic
- Physical state: Solid

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:

other: Human

Strain:

not specified

Sex:

not specified

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

No data available

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Induction

Route:

epicutaneous, occlusive

Vehicle:

petrolatum

Concentration / amount:

5% in petrolatum

Adequacy of induction:

not specified

Challenge

No.:

#1

Route:

epicutaneous, occlusive

Vehicle:

petrolatum

Concentration / amount:

5% in petrolatum

Adequacy of challenge:

not specified

No. of animals per dose:

6 workers

Details on study design:

RANGE FINDING TESTS:

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- Test groups: 6 workers
- Concentrations: 5% in petrolatum

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- Test groups: 6
- Concentrations: 5% in petrolatum
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 48 and 96 hours

Challenge controls:

No data available

Positive control substance(s):

not specified

Results and discussion

Positive control results:

No data available

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Results

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

5%

No. with + reactions:

2

Total no. in group:

4

Clinical observations:

reappearance of the original rash in case 1 and 2

Remarks on result:

positive indication of skin sensitisation

Any other information on results incl. tables

Results of the patch tests

	48hr	96hr
1	++	++
2	++	++
3	+	-
4	-	-
5	Not performed
6	Not performed

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria

Conclusions:

Based on the observations, reactions, it can be considered that the occupational exposure to the test chemical can cause dermatitis to the operators, so the test chemical should be handled with proper care. Hence, it can be considered to be sensitizer to skin.

Executive summary:

The study reports of a series of patch tests performed on process operators operating in a chemical plant using the test chemical. 6 workers developed dermatitis of the face and were employed in jobs involving the charging the test chemical to a hot reaction vessel. The workers were patch tested initially with 50% test chemical in petrolatum. The reactions were read at 72 hours as ++ positive. The patch test was again repeated with 5% test chemical in petrolatum and reactions were observed and scored at 48 and 96 hours. Patch tests on normal controls were negative. Of the 6 workers tested only 4 workers showed positive reactions at 48 as well as at 96 hours. Further investigations indicated that the dermal reactions were only seen in workers charging the test chemical to a hot reaction vessel, but not amongst other workers handling the test chemical. Upon investigation it was observed that the test chemical could sublime at high temperatures, and this property of the chemical could be a possible reason for development of facial dermatitis in workers involved in charging the test chemical. Based on the observations, reactions, it can be considered that the occupational exposure to the test chemical can cause dermatitis to the operators, so the test chemical should be handled with proper care. Hence, it can be considered to be sensitizer to skin.