Concrete of honeycomb cells of the bee by hexane extraction

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Skin irritation/corrosion: Not irritating (OECD 439, GLP, K, rel. 1).

Eye irritation: Not irritating (OECD 492, GLP, K, rel. 1).

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

skin irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

25 September to 13 October 2017

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)

Version / remarks:

adopted 28 July 2015

Deviations:

no

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.46 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model Test)

Version / remarks:

23 July 2009

Deviations:

no

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Not applicable

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Remarks:

German GLP Compliance Program (inspected on July 13-16, 2015 / Signed on September, 2015)

Specific details on test material used for the study:

- Storage conditions: At room temperature, protected from moisture (Dry area, unopened containers, optimum temp. 11-25 °C / 52-77 °F)

Test system:

human skin model

Source species:

human

Cell type:

non-transformed keratinocytes

Justification for test system used:

Following the REACH top-down strategy, the EPISKIN™ Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model method was used to assess skin irritation as recommended in the OECD test guideline No. 439.

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Details on test system:

RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE
- Model used: EPISKIN™ Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model Kit, SkinEthic Laboratories, Lyon, France
- Tissue batch number(s): 17-EKIN-041
- Production date: not reported
- Shipping date: not reported
- Delivery date: 10 October 2017
- Expiry date: 16 October 2017
- Date of initiation of testing: 10 October 2017

TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM
- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: room temperature
- Temperature of post-treatment incubation (if applicable): 37°C

REMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS
- Volume and number of washing steps: After the end of the treatment interval the inserts were immediately removed from the 12-well plate. The tissues were gently rinsed with PBS to remove any residual test material. Excess PBS was removed by gently shaking the inserts and blotting the bottom with blotting paper.
- Observable damage in the tissue due to washing: none reported
- Modifications to validated SOP: none reported

MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE
- MTT concentration: 0.3 mg/mL
- Incubation time: 3 hours
- Spectrophotometer: Versamax® Molecular Devices, 85737 Ismaning, Germany, version 4.7.1
- Wavelength: 570 nm
- Filter: without reference filter
- Linear OD range of spectrophotometer: not reported

FUNCTIONAL MODEL CONDITIONS WITH REFERENCE TO HISTORICAL DATA
- Barrier function: IC50 = 1.9 mg/ml ( ≥ 1.5 mg/ml)
- Morphology: Well-differenciated epidermis consisting of a basal layer, several spinous and granular layers and a thinck stratum corneum
- Contamination: absence of bacteria, fungus and mycoplasma
- Reproducibility: All of the values for the negative and positive control groups fell within the historical ranges of the testing laboratory obtained in the previous ten months. This was taken to show the correct functioning of the test system. Envigo CRS GmbH changed the negative control for the test system “In vitro Skin Irritation Assay using RHE supplied by SkinEthik” from deionized water to PBS. The test is performed at Envigo CRS GmbH a long time prior to OECD 439 guideline, where deionized water or PBS are suggested, and at that time, SkinEthik requested deionized water to be used as negative control in the protocol. All of Envigo CRS GmbH’s historical data are based on deionized water. In the current SkinEthik protocol, PBS is suggested as negative control. Therefore, Envigo CRS GmbH decided to change the negative control to be in accordance with the SkinEthik protocol, but the number of performed assays using PBS as negative control is still too low to issue historical data. SkinEthik confirmed, that use of deionized water in the past is acceptable, since the acceptability ranges for the OD values according to the OECD guideline are met.

CONTROL TISSUES USED IN CASE OF MTT DIRECT INTERFERENCE: Not a MTT reducer

NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT TEST SEQUENCES / EXPERIMENTS TO DERIVE FINAL PREDICTION: 1

PREDICTION MODEL / DECISION CRITERIA
- The test substance is considered to be irritating to skin if relative mean tissue viability is ≤ 50% after 15 minutes of exposure.
- The test substance is considered to be non-irritating to skin if relative mean tissue viability is > 50% after 15 minutes of exposure.

Control samples:

yes, concurrent negative control

yes, concurrent positive control

Amount/concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- The test item was used as supplied (undiluted).
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): In order to spread approximately 10 ± 5 mg (26 mg/cm2) of the test item onto triplicate EpiSkin™ tissues, 14-15 mg of the test item were weighed to compensate for the test item remained on the applying instrument (curved flat micro spatula). The tissues were wetted with 5 μL of deionised water prior to application of the test substance.

NEGATIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 10 μL
- Concentration (if solution): PBS

POSITIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 10 μL
- Concentration (if solution): 5% SLS solution in deionised water

Duration of treatment / exposure:

15 minutes

Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):

42 hours

Number of replicates:

Triplicate tissues for test substance, negative and positive controls

Irritation / corrosion parameter:

% tissue viability

Run / experiment:

15 minute exposure period and 42 h post-exposure incubation period

Value:

96.1

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Remarks:

100%

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks:

2.7%

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

- OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: none reported
- Direct-MTT reduction: no
- Colour interference with MTT: no

DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY: yes

ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: The mean OD570 for the negative control treated tissues was 1.149 and the standard deviation value of the viability was 9.6%.
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: The relative mean tissue viability for the positive control treated tissues was 2.7% relative to the negative control treated tissues and the standard deviation value of the viability was 23.3%. Therefore the relative Standard deviation of the positive control was greater than 18 %. However, this can be explained by the low OD values measured which implies higher relative standard variations. Moreover the values are lower than the historical positive control data of the laboratory and the results are not bordeline, therefore the relative standard deviation calculated for positive control tissues is not considered to affect the overall conclusion of the study.
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: The standard deviation calculated from individual tissue viabilities of the three identically test item treated tissues was 11.5%.
- Reference to historical values: All of the values for the negative and positive control groups fell within the historical ranges of the testing laboratory obtained in the previous 10 months. This was taken to show the correct functioning of the test system.

Table 7.3.1/1: EpiSkin™ results

Test Group	Mean Absorbance 570 nm blank corrected	Mean Absorbance of 3 Tissues	Relative Viability [%] Tissue 1, 2, 3*	Relative Standard Deviation [%]	Mean Rel. Viability [%]**
Negative Control	1.255	1.149	109.2	9.6	100.0
	1.034		90.0
	1.158		100.8
Positive Control	0.040	0.031	3.5	23.3	2.7
	0.028		2.4
	0.026		2.3
Test Item	1.116	1.104	97.1	3.5	96.1
	1.062		92.4
	1.135		98.8

*   Relative viability [rounded values]

**  Mean relative viability [rounded values]

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test substance is not classified for skin irritation according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.

Executive summary:

An in vitro skin irritation study was performed according to the OECD Guideline 439 and in compliance with GLP, using the EPISKIN^TM reconstructed human epidermis model.

Triplicate tissues were treated with the test item for an exposure period of 15 minutes. At the end of the exposure period each tissue was rinsed before incubating for 42 hours. At the end of the post‑exposure incubation period each tissue was taken for MTT-loading. The maintenance medium from beneath each tissue was transferred to pre‑labeled micro tubes and stored in a freezer for possible inflammatory mediator determination. After MTT-loading a total biopsy of each epidermis was made and placed into plastic vials containing acidified isopropanol for extraction of formazan crystals out of the MTT‑loaded tissues. At the end of the formazan extraction period each tube was mixed thoroughly and duplicate 200 µL samples were transferred to the appropriate wells of a pre‑labeled 96‑well plate. The optical density was measured at 570 nm.

 

The relative mean viability of the test item treated tissues was 96.1% after the 15‑Minute exposure period and 42‑Hours post‑exposure incubation period.

The relative mean tissue viability for the positive control treated tissues was 2.7% relative to the negative control treated tissues and the standard deviation value of the viability was 23.3%.  Therefore the relative Standard deviation of the positive control was greater than 18 %. However, this can be explained by the low OD values measured which implies higher relative standard variations. Moreover the values are lower than the historical positive control data of the laboratory and the results are not bordeline, therefore the relative standard deviation calculated for positive control tissues is not considered to affect the overall conclusion of the study.

The mean OD570 for the negative control treated tissues was 1.149 and the standard deviation value of the viability was 9.6%. The negative control acceptance criteria were therefore satisfied.

The standard deviation calculated from individual tissue viabilities of the three identically test item treated tissues was 3.5%. The test item acceptance criterion was therefore satisfied.

All of the values for the negative and positive control groups fell within the historical ranges of the testing laboratory obtained in the previous ten months. This was taken to show the correct functioning of the test system.

 

Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test substance is not classified for skin irritation according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.

This study is considered as acceptable and satisfies the requirement for skin irritation endpoint.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

15 September to 20 October 2017

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Remarks:

GLP study conducted according to OECD test Guideline No. 492 without any deviation.

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 492 (Reconstructed Human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) Test Method for Identifying Chemicals Not Requiring Classification and Labelling for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Version / remarks:

July 2015

Deviations:

no

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: MatTek Corporation Protocol: EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (OCL-200-EIT) for the prediction of acute ocular irritation of chemicals; for use with MatTek Corporation’s Reconstructed Human EpiOcular™ Model

Version / remarks:

29 June 2015

Deviations:

no

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Not applicable

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Remarks:

German GLP Compliance Program (inspected on July 13-16, 2015 / Signed on September, 2015)

Specific details on test material used for the study:

- Storage conditions: At room temperature, protected from moisture
(Dry area, unopened containers, optimum temp. 11-25 °C /
52-77 °F)

Species:

other: human reconstructed cornea model (EpiOcular™)

Strain:

other: not applicable

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

- Justification of the test method and considerations regarding applicability: The EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT) was validated by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) and Cosmetics Europe between 2008 and 2013. This test guideline is applicable to solid and waxes, so is considered to be applicable to the test item.

CELL SYSTEM:
- EpiOcular™ kits and MTT-100 kits are purchased from MatTek Corporation (Ashland, MA01721, USA).
- Lot No.: 227005
- Keratinocyte strain: 4F1188
- Analysis for potential biological contaminants: none detected (HIV-1, Hep. B and Hep. C virus; Bacteria, yeast and other fungi)
- Tissue viability: 1.419, within the acceptance criteria (1.1-3.0)
- Barrier function: 15.97 min, within the acceptance criteria (12.2-37.5)
- Sterility: Sterile

- The EpiOcular™ tissue consists of normal, human-derived epidermal keratinocytes which have been cultured to form a stratified squamous epithelium similar to that found in the human cornea. It consists of highly organized basal cells which progressively flatten out as the apical surface of the tissue is approached, analogous to the normal in vivo corneal epithelium. The EpiOcular™ tissues (surface 0.6 cm²) were cultured on specially prepared cell culture inserts (MILLICELL, 10 mm of diameter).
- Transport: EpiOcular™ tissues were shipped at 2 - 8 °C on medium-supplemented agarose gels in a 24-well plate.
- Storage: On day of receipt of the EpiOcular™ tissues, the equilibration step (15 minutes at room temperature in the 24-well shipping container) started. An appropriate volume of EpiOcular™ Assay Medium was warmed to approximately 37 °C. 1.0 mL of the medium was aliquoted into the appropriate wells of pre-labelled 6-well plates.
Each 24-well shipping container was removed from its plastic bag under sterile conditions and its surface disinfected by wiping with 70% isopropanol- or ethanol-soaked tissue paper. The sterile gauze was removed and each tissue was inspected for air bubbles between the agarose gel and insert. Cultures with air bubbles under the insert covering greater than 50% of the insert area were not used. The tissues were carefully removed from the 24-well shipping containers using sterile forceps. Any agarose adhering to the inserts was removed by gentle blotting on sterile filter paper or gauze. The insert was then transferred aseptically into the 6-well plates and pre-incubated at standard culture conditions for one hour in the Assay Medium. After one hour, the Assay Medium was replaced by 1 mL of fresh Assay Medium at 37 °C and the EpiOcular™ tissues was incubated at standard culture conditions overnight (nearly 17 hours).

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes, concurrent positive control

yes, concurrent negative control

Amount / concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): Approximately 50 mg of the test item were tested topically on wetted duplicate EpiOcular™ tissues.

Duration of treatment / exposure:

6 hours

Observation period (in vivo):

NA

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

18 hours

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

duplicate tissues

Details on study design:

- Details of the test procedure used: procedure for solids
- Doses of test chemical and control substances used: 50 mg
- Duration and temperature of:
exposure: 6 hours / 37 ± 1.5 °C, 5 ± 0.5% CO2, 95% RH
post-exposure immersion: 25 min / room temperature
post-exposure incubation period: 18 hours / 37 ± 1.5 °C, 5 ± 0.5% CO2, 95% RH
- Description of any modifications to the test procedure: none
- Test for direct MTT reduction: approximately 50 mg of the test item are added to 1 mL of a 1.0 mg/mL MTT solution (in DMEM) in a glass tube and the mixture was incubated in the dark at 37 ± 1.5 °C in a humidified atmosphere of 5 ± 0.5% CO2 in air for three hours. A control (50 μL of deionised water in 1 mL of 1.0 mg/mL MTT solution) was run concurrently. If the MTT solution colour turned blue/purple, the test item was presumed to have reduced the MTT. Then the colour of the obtained solutions was evaluated.
- Assessment of Color Interference with the MTT endpoint: approximately 50 mg of the test item were added to 1.0 mL of water and to 2 mL isopropanol in a glass tube. The water mixture was incubated in the dark at 37 ± 1.5 °C in a humidified atmosphere of 5 ± 0.5% CO2 in air for one hour. The isopropanol mixture was left for 3 hours at room temperature.
- Number of tissue replicates used per test chemical and controls (positive control, negative control, NSMTT, NSCliving): 2
- Wavelength used for quantifying MTT formazan: 570 nm
- Description of the method used to quantify MTT formazan
At the end of the post-treatment incubation, each insert was removed from the 6-well plate and gently blotted on absorbent material. The tissues were placed into the 24-well plate containing 0.3 ml of MTT solution. Once all the tissues were placed into the 24-well plate, the plate was incubated for 180 minutes at standard culture conditions.
Inserts were removed from the 24-well plate after 180 minutes; the bottom of the insert was blotted on absorbent material, and then transferred to a pre-labelled 6-well plate containing 2 ml isopropanol in each well so that no isopropanol was flowing into the insert. The corresponding negative and positive controls had to be treated identically without piercing. For this procedure it was necessary to seal the plates particularly thorough since a higher evaporation rate had to be expected due to the larger surface of wells in 6¬-well plates.
Extraction was performed for about 2 hours at room temperature on a shaker.
The extract solution was mixed and two 200 µL aliquots were transferred to the appropriate wells of a pre-labelled 96-well plate(s).
The absorbance at 570 nm (OD570) of each well was measured with a plate reader (Versamax® Molecular Devices, 85737 Ismaning, Germany, Software Softmax Pro, version 4.7.1). No reference wavelength measurement was used.
- Description of evaluation criteria used including the justification for the selection of the cut-off point for the prediction model
The results are acceptable according to OECD TG 492, if:
1) The negative control OD is > 0.8 and < 2.5,
2) The mean relative viability of the positive control is below 50% of the negative control viability.
3) The difference of viability between the two relating tissues of a single test item is < 20% in the same run (for positive and negative control tissues and tissues of test items). This applies also to the freeze-killed tissues (items and negative control) and the additional viable tissues (without MTT addition) which are calculated as percent values related to the viability of the relating negative control.
If the test item-treated tissue viability is > 60% relative to the negative control treated tissue viability, the test item is labeled non-irritant.
If the test item-treated tissue viability is ≤ 60% relative to negative control treated tissue viability, the test item is identified potentially requiring classification and labelling according to UN GHS (Category 2 of Category 1.
According to OECD guideline 492 a single test composed of at least two tissue replicates should be sufficient for a test chemical, when the result is unequivocal. However, in cases of borderline results, such as non-concordant replicate measurements and/or mean percent tissue viability equal to 60±5%, a second test should be considered, as well as a third one in case of discordant results between the first two tests.
- Reference to historical positive and negative control results demonstrating suitable run acceptance criteria: Data of 21 studies performed from July 2015 until end of end march 2017
Positive controls: Viability 31.59% (8.10% - 42.60%) / Absorption 0.48 (0.22- 0.64)
Negative controls: Absorption 1.50 (1.24 – 2.05)
- Complete supporting information for the specific RhCE tissue construct used: yes, attached to the study report
- Reference to historical data of the RhCE tissue construct: no
- Demonstration of proficiency in performing the test method before routine use by testing of the proficiency chemicals: yes, Envigo CRS project No. 1729900
- Positive and negative control means and acceptance ranges based on historical data: yes
- Acceptable variability between tissue replicates for positive and negative controls: yes
- Acceptable variability between tissue replicates for the test chemical: yes

Irritation parameter:

other: tissue viability

Run / experiment:

Mean

Value:

95.9

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Remarks:

100%

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks:

31.8%

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

OTHER EFFECTS:
The test item proved to be a MTT reducer in the MTT pre-test. An additional test with freeze-killed tissues was preformed to evaluate whether the test material is not binding to the tissue and leading to a false MTT reduction signal.

ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes. The negative control OD is > 0.8 and < 2.5 (values between 1.331 and 1.401).
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes. The mean relative viability of the positive control is below 50% of the negative control viability (31.8%).
- Acceptable variability between tissue replicates: yes. The difference of viability between the two relating tissues of a single item is < 20% in the same run. This does also apply to the additional viable tissues (without MTT addition).

Table 7.3.2/1: Results after 6 hour treatment with the test item and the controls

Dose Group	OD Well 1	OD Well 2	Mean OD of 2 Wells	Mean OD of 2 Wells Blank corrected	Mean OD of 2 Tissue replicates	% Viability of individual Tissue replicates	Mean Viability (%)	Difference Tissue1 - Tissue2	Corrected Viability Mean %
Blank	0.036	0.036	0.036
Negative Control Tissue 1	1.322	1.411	1.367	1.331		97.5
Negative Control Tissue 2	1.432	1.441	1.436	1.401	1.366	102.5	100.0	5.1
Positive Control Tissue 1	0.411	0.485	0.448	0.412		30.2
Positive Control Tissue 2	0.492	0.494	0.493	0.458	0.435	33.5	31.8	3.3
Test Item Tissue 1	1.264	1.385	1.325	1.289		94.4
Test Item Tissue 2	1.369	1.368	1.369	1.333	1.311	97.6	96.0	3.2	95.9
Negative Control Freeze-killed Tissue Tissue 1	0.109	0.117	0.113	0.077		5.7
Negative Control Freeze-killed Tissue Tissue 2	0.115	0.112	0.113	0.078	0.078	5.7	5.7	0.0
Test Item Add. Freeze-killed Tissue Tissue 1	0.113	0.115	0.114	0.079		5.8
Test Item Add. Freeze-killed Tissue Tissue 2	0.114	0.116	0.115	0.079	0.079	5.8	5.8	0.0

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

Under the experimental conditions of this study and with a percentage of tissue viability > 60%, the test item does not require classification for eye irritation or eye damage according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.

Executive summary:

A study was performed to assess the eye irritation potential of the test item by means of the Human Cornea Model Test. The study was conducted according to the OECD guideline No. 492 and in compliance with GLP.

The test item proved to be an MTT reducer in the MTT pre-test. An additional test with freeze-killed tissues was preformed to determine a correction factor for calculating the true viability in the main experiment.

50 mg of the test item was applied to each of duplicate tissue for 6 hours. Each 50 µL of the negative control (deionised water) and of the positive control (methyl acetate) were also applied to duplicate tissues each.

Treatment with the positive control induced a decrease below 50% compared with thenegative control value in the relative absorbance thus ensuring the validity of the test system.

The difference of viability between the two relating tissues was < 20% in the same run (for test item tissues, positive and negative control tissues).

After treatment with the negative control the absorbance values were well within the required acceptability criterion of mean OD > 0.8 and < 2.5 thus showing the quality of the tissues.

The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied. The tissue viability of the test item was 95.9% after the 6 -hour exposure period.

Under the experimental conditions of this study and with a percentage of tissue viability > 60%, the test item does not require classification for eye irritation or eye damage according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and to the GHS.

This study is considered as acceptable and satisfies the requirement for eye irritation endpoint.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

Skin irritation:

Since no key study was identified on the registered substance, the testing and assessment strategy, as described in ECHA R.7a Endpoint specific guidance (December 2016), was used to evaluate the skin corrosion/irritation potential of the registered substance:

	Element	Information	Conclusion	Comments
Existing data on physico - chemical properties	1a	Is the substance spontaneously flammable in air or in contact with water or moisture at room temperature?	NO
	1b	Is the substance an organic hydroperoxide or an organic peroxide?	NO
	1c	Is the pH of the substance ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 11.5?	NO
	1d	Are there other physical or chemical properties that indicate that the substance is corrosive/irritant?	NO
Existing human data	2	Are there adequate existing human data which provide evidence that the substance is a corrosive or irritant?	NO
Existing animal data from corrosion/irritation studies	3	Are there data from existing studies on corrosion and irritation in laboratory animals, which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant?	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
Existing data from general toxicity studies via the dermal route and from sensitisation studies	4a	Is the substance classified as acutely toxic by the dermal route (Category 1)?	NO
	4b	Has the substance proven to be a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant in a suitable acute dermal toxicity test?	NO
	4c	Has the substance proven to be a corrosive or an irritant in sensitisation studies or after repeated exposure?	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
Existing/new (Q)SAR data and read -across	5a	Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as corrosive to the skin (Skin Corrosive Cat. 1), or do suitable (Q)SAR methods indicate corrosion potential of the substance?	NO	Not applicable, due to the mostly unknown composition (UVCB Type II substance)
	5b	Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as irritant to the skin (Skin Irritant Cat. 2), or indicating that the substance is non-irritant, or do suitable (Q)SAR methods indicate irritant or non-irritant potential of the substance?	NO	Not applicable, due to the mostly unknown composition (UVCB Type II substance)
Existing in vitro data	6a	Has the substance demonstrated corrosive properties in an EU/OECD adopted in vitro test? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions defined in Annex XI are met	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
	6b	Has the substance demonstrated irritant or non-irritant properties in an EU/OECD adopted in vitro test? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions defined in Annex XI are met.	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
	6c	Are there data from a non-validated suitable in vitro test(s), which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is corrosive/ irritant?	NO
Weight-of- Evidence analysis	7	The “elements” described above may be arranged as appropriate. Taking all available existing and relevant data mentioned above (Elements 1-6) into account, is there sufficient information to make a decision on whether classification/labelling is necessary, and –if so –how to classify and label?	NO
New in vitro test for corrosivity	8	Does the substance demonstrate corrosive properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for skin corrosion? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions defined in Annex XI are met.	NO
New in vitro test for irritation	9	Does the substance demonstrate irritating or non-irritating properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for skin irritation? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions defined in Annex XI are met.	YES	Following the bottom-up approach, an OECD TG 439 (SkinEthic) study was performed. Mean tissue viability = 96.1 % <=> not irritant to skin
New in vivo test for corrosion/irritation	10	To be used only as a last resort	NO

The in vitro skin irritation study (Envigo, 2017, Rel.1) was performed according to the OECD Guideline 439 and in compliance with GLP, using the EPISKIN reconstructed human epidermis model. The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied. The relative mean viability of the test item treated tissues was 96.1 %, after the 15‑minute exposure period. With a tissue viability > 50%, the test material was considered to be non-irritant to skin.

Eye irritation:

Since no key study was identified on the registered substance, the testing and assessment strategy, as described in ECHA R.7a Endpoint specific guidance (December 2016), was used to evaluate the eye damage/irritation potential of the registered substance:

	Element	Information	Conclusion	Comments
Conclusion of the information strategy on skin corrosion/irritation	0	Is the substance classified as a skin corrosive?	NO
Existing data on physico - chemical properties	1a	Is the substance spontaneously flammable in air or in contact with water or moisture at room temperature?	NO
	1b	Is the substance an organic hydroperoxide or an organic peroxide?	NO
	1c	Is the pH of the substance ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 11.5?	NO
	1d	Are there other physical or chemical properties that indicate that the substance causes serious eye damage or eye irritation?	NO
Existing human data	2	Are there adequate existing human data which provide evidence that the substance has the potential to cause serious eye damage or eye irritation?	NO
Existing animal data from corrosion/irritation studies	3	Are there data from existing studies on corrosion and irritation in laboratory animals, which provide sound conclusive evidence that the substance is a corrosive, irritant or non-irritant?	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
Existing/new (Q)SAR data and read-across	4	Are there structurally related substances (suitable “read-across” or grouping), which are classified as causing serious eye damage/eye irritation, or indicating that the substance is non-irritant, or do valid (Q)SAR methods indicate serious eye damage/eye irritation or non-irritation of the substance?	NO	Not applicable, due to the mostly unknown composition (UVCB Type II substance)
Existing in vitro data	5a	Has the substance demonstrated serious eye damage, eye irritation or non-irritating properties in an EU/OECD adopted in vitro test? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions defined in Annex XI are met.	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available)
	5b	Are there acceptable data from (a) non-validated suitable in vitro test(s), which provide sound evidence that the substance causes serious eye damage/eye irritation?	NO
Weight-of- Evidence analysis	6	The “elements” described above may be arranged as appropriate. Taking all available existing and relevant data mentioned above (Elements 0 – 5) into account, is there sufficient information to make a decision on whether classification/labelling is necessary, and – if so – how to classify and label?	NO
New in vitro tests for serious eye damage/eye irritation (Annex VII to the REACH Regulation)	7a	Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage, eye irritation or non-irritant properties in (an) EU/OECD adopted in vitro test(s) for the eye hazard charaterisation? Data from in vitro test methods that have been validated and are considered scientifically valid but are not yet adopted by EU and/or OECD may also be used if the provisions of Annex XI are met.	NO	(at the initiation of the dossier, no test was available). An in vitro test for corrosion (OECD TG 438) was performed after the test for irritation according to the bottom-up approach. The study is on-going at the time of dossier submission.
	7b	Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage or eye irritant properties in (a) non-validated suitable in vitro test(s) for serious eye damage/eye irritation?	YES	Following the bottom-up approach, an OECD TG 492 (EpiOcular) study was performed. Mean tissue viability = 95.9% <=> non irritant to eyes
New in vivo test for serious eye damage/eye irritation as a last resort (Annex VIII to the REACH Regulation)	8b	Does the substance demonstrate serious eye damage or eye irritation in an OECD adopted in vivo test?	NO

The EpiOcular test (Envigo, 2017, Rel.1) was conducted according to the OECD guideline No. 492 and in compliance with GLP. The quality criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied. The tissue viability of the test item was 95.9% after the 6 -hour exposure period. With a percentage of tissue viability > 60%, the test item does not require classification for eye irritation or eye damage.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Harmonized classification:

The substance has no harmonized classification according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.

Self-classification:

Skin irritation:

Based on the available information, no additional self-classification is proposed regarding skin irritation according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and according to the GHS.

Eye irritation:

Based on the available information, no additional self-classification is proposed regarding eye irritation according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (CLP) and according to the GHS.

Respiratory irritation:

No data was available. However the substance not being classified for skin and eye irritation, no classification is expected for respiratory irritation.