Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 219-143-7 | CAS number: 2372-21-6
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- Start: 19 October 1998 End: 27 November 1998
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 999
- Report date:
- 1999
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The study was conducted in 1998
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the test substance induces contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs after intradermal and epidermal exposure of the animals under the conditions described in this report.
This study should provide a rational basis for risk assessment in man.
The Maximisation test is selected because it is regarded as the most sensitive and the preferred method with regard to testing for sensitisation potential.
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- O,O-tert-butyl isopropyl monoperoxycarbonate
- EC Number:
- 219-143-7
- EC Name:
- O,O-tert-butyl isopropyl monoperoxycarbonate
- Cas Number:
- 2372-21-6
- Molecular formula:
- C8H16O4
- IUPAC Name:
- tert-butoxy propan-2-yl carbonate
- Reference substance name:
- Hydrocarbons, C4, 1,3-butadiene-free, polymd., triisobutylene fraction, hydrogenated
- EC Number:
- 297-629-8
- EC Name:
- Hydrocarbons, C4, 1,3-butadiene-free, polymd., triisobutylene fraction, hydrogenated
- Cas Number:
- 93685-81-5
- Molecular formula:
- not applicable (a generic molecular formula cannot be provided for this specific UVCB substance)
- IUPAC Name:
- isododecane
- Test material form:
- liquid
- Details on test material:
- Trigonox BPIC-C75
Constituent 1
additive 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Batch: 0419804130350
Test substance storage: In refrigerator in the dark. Do not heat test substance.
Stability under storage conditions: Not indicated
Expiry date: 01 October 1999 (allocated by NOTOX, 1 year after receipt of the test substance)
Density: 900-910 kg/m^3 (20°C)
Stability in vehicle Corn oil: at least 96 h
Vehicle: Corn oil
Rationale: The vehicle was selected based on a pretest performed at NOTOX.
Preparation: When required, the test substance formulations (w/w) were prepared prior to each treatment. No adjustment was made for specific gravity of vehicle. Homogeneity was obtained to visually acceptable levels.
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Species: Dunkin Hartley strain, albino guinea pig (SPF-quality). Recognised by international guidelines as the recommended test system (e.g. OECD, EC).
Source: Charles River, Germany.
Number of animals: Experimental group: 10 females.
Control group: 5 females. (females were nulliparous and non-pregnant).
Age and body weight: Young adult animals (approx. 5 weeks old) were selected. Individual body weights did not exceed 500 grams.
Identification: Ear tattoo.
Reliability check: The results of a reliability test performed not more than 6 months previously are summarised in the Appendix. Similar procedures were used in the reliability test and in this study.
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
Conditions:
Air -conditioned room with approximately 15 air changes per hour and the environment controlled with optimal conditions considered as being a temperature of 21°C and a relative humidity of 50%. Fluctuations from these optimal conditions were noted, but were considered not to have affected study integrity. Lighting was 12 hours artificial fluorescent light and 12 hours dark per day.
Accommodation
Group housing of 5 animals per labelled metal cage with wire-mesh floors and equipped with an automatic drinking system (ITL, Bergen, The Netherlands). The acclimatisation period was at least 5 days before the start of treatment under laboratory conditions.
Diet
Free access to standard guinea pig diet, including ascorbic acid (1600 mg/kg); LC 23-B, pellet diameter 4mm (Hope farms, Woerden, The Netherlands). Certificates of analysis were examined and retained in the NOTOX archives.
In addition, hay (B.M.I., Helmond, The Netherlands) was provided once a week.
Water
Free access to tap-water, diluted with decalcified water. Certificates of quarterly analysis for tap-water were examined and retained in the NOTOX archives.
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- 10% concentration
- Day(s)/duration:
- 8 days
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- Mixture with Freunds' Complete Adjuvant (Difeo, Detroit, U.S. A.)
- Concentration / amount:
- 1:1 (w/w) mixture
- Day(s)/duration:
- 8 days
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- other: Freunds' Complete Adjuvant
- Concentration / amount:
- 1:1 (w/w) mixture with 20% concentration of test material
- Day(s)/duration:
- 8 days
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.5ml undiluted test substance
- Day(s)/duration:
- 48 hrs
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
Challengeopen allclose all
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- other: epicutaneuous - Patch Test Plasters
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- 20% test substance concentration and the vehicle (0.15 ml each)
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 22. The dressing was removed after 24 hours exposure.
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No.:
- #2
- Route:
- other: epicutaneous - Patch Test Plasters
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- 10% and 5% test substance concentration
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 29
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 10 animals per dose
- Details on study design:
- PRELIMINARY IRRITATION STUDY
A preliminary irritation study was conducted in order to select test substance concentrations to be used in the Main Study. The selection of concentrations was based on the following criteria:
- The concentrations are well-tolerated by the animals.
- For the induction exposures: the highest possible concentration that produced mild to moderate irritation (grades 2 - 3).
- For challenge exposure: the maximum non-irritant concentration.
Series of test substance concentrations were tested. Practical feasibility of administration determined the highest starting-concentration for each route. The starting and subsequent concentrations were taken from the series: 100% (undiluted), 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1% and, if needed, further lower concentrations using the same steps.
The test system, procedures and techniques were identical to those used during the main study, unless otherwise specified.
The animals were between 4 and 9 weeks old, and as a consequence the body weights may exceed 500 grams. Body weights were determined prior to treatment.
Intradermal injections:
A series of four test substance concentrations was used, the highest concentration being the maximum concentration that could technically be injected. Each of two animals received two different concentrations in duplicate (0.1 ml/site) in the clipped scapular region. If possible, the injection sites were assessed for irritation 24 and 48 hours after treatment.
Epidermal application:
A series of four test substance concentrations was used, the highest concentration being the maximum concentration that could technically be applied. Two different concentrations were applied (0.5 ml each) per animal to the clipped flank, using Metalline patches' (2x3 cm) mounted on Medical tape, which were held in place with Micropore tape· and subsequently Coban elastic bandage. The animals receiving intradermal injections were treated with the lowest concentrations and two further animals with the highest concentrations.
After 24 hours, the dressing was removed and the skin cleaned of residual test substance.
If possible, the treated skin areas were assessed for irritation 24 and 48 hours after exposure.
' Supplier: Lohmann GmbH, Neuwied, Germany
' Supplier: 3M, St. Paul, U.S.A.
INDUCTION - Experimental animals
Day 1 The scapular region was clipped and three pairs of intradermal injections (0. 1 ml/site) were made in this area as follows:
A) A 1:1 w/w mixture of Freunds' Complete Adjuvant (Difeo, Detroit, U.S. A.) with water for injection (Fresenius AG, Bad Homburg, Germany).
B) The test substance at a 10% concentration.
C) A 1:1 w/w mixture of the test substance, at twice the concentration used in (B) and Freunds' Complete Adjuvant.
Note: One of each pair was on each side of the midline and from cranial A) to caudal C).
Day 3 The dermal reactions caused by the intradermal injections were assessed for irritation.
Day 8 The scapular area between the injection sites was clipped and subsequently treated with 0.5 ml of the undiluted test substance using a Metalline patch (2x3 cm) mounted on Medical tape, which was held in place with Micropore tape and subsequently Coban elastic bandage.
The dressing was removed after 48 hours exposure, the skin cleaned of residual test substance and the dermal reactions caused by the epidermal exposure were assessed for irritation.
INDUCTION · Control animals
The control animals were treated as described for the experimental animals except that, instead of the test substance, vehicle alone was administered.
CHALLENGE · Control and experimental animals
Day 22 One flank of the animals was clipped and treated by epidermal application of a 20% test substance concentration and the vehicle (0.15 ml each), using Patch Test Plasters (Leukoteste, Beiersdorf Medical, Almere, The Netherlands). The patches were held in place with Micropore tape and subsequently Coban elastic bandage.
The dressing was removed after 24 hours exposure and the skin cleaned of residual test substance and vehicle. The treated sites were assessed for challenge reactions 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing.
Day 29 A re-challenge was conducted approximately one week after the first challenge, to clarify the results in the first challenge. The contralateral flank of the animals was similarly treated, except that the animals were treated epidermally with a 10% and a 5% test substance concentration.
OBSERVATIONS
Mortality/Viability: Twice daily
Toxicity: At least once daily.
Body weights: Prior to start and at termination of the study.
Necropsy: The moribund animal was subjected to necropsy for gross macroscopic examination.
Irritation: Skin reactions were graded according to the following numerical scoring systems. Furthermore, a description of all other (local) effects was recorded. Whenever necessary, the treated skin-areas were clipped at least 3 hours before the next skin reading to facilitate scoring.
Grading Irritation Reactions':
Erythema and eschar formation:
No erythema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Slight erythema (barely perceptible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Well defined erythema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Moderate· erythema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Oedema formation:
No oedema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Slight oedema (barely perceptible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Well-defined oedema (edges of area well-defined by definite raising) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Moderate oedema (raised approximately 1 millimeter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Severe oedema (raised more than 1 millimeter and extending beyond the area of exposure) . . . . . . . 4
• Intradermal reactions were assessed for erythema only or, if necrosis is present, the diameter of necrosis.
Grading Challenge Reactions:
No visible change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Discrete or patchy erythema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Moderate and confluent erythema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Moderate erythema and swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Intense erythema and swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
After the end of the study all animals were killed by asphyxiation using anoxygen/carbon dioxide procedure. - Challenge controls:
- The control animals were treated as described for the experimental animals except that, instead of the test substance, vehicle alone was administered.
- Positive control substance(s):
- no
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- no positive control
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 20% test substance concentration
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- Animal 28 was removed from the study on day 10 following the observation of emaciation, dark eyes and labored respiration.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.15 mL of vehicle (corn oil)
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Clinical observations:
- Skin reactions of grade 1 were observed in control animals.
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% test substance concentration
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5% test substance concentration
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0.15 mL vehicle only (corn oil)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- other: no positive control group
Any other information on results incl. tables
PRELIMINARY IRRITATION STUDY
The results of the intradermal injections and epidermal exposures for the selection of suitable test substance concentrations for the main study are described in Table 1.
Table 1: SKIN REACTIONS AFTER INTRADERMAL INJECTION
Animal Number |
Conc. % |
Time after injection |
|||
24 hours |
48 hours |
||||
Erythema (grade) |
Necrosis (mm) |
Erythema (grade) |
Necrosis (mm) |
||
21 |
100 |
|
Above 10 |
|
|
50 |
|
Above 10 |
|
|
|
22 |
20 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
10 |
3 |
|
2 |
|
SKIN REACTIONS AFTER EPIDERMAL EXPOSURE
Animal Number |
Body Weight (gram) |
Conc. % |
Time after injection |
|||
24 hours |
48 hours |
|||||
Erythema (grade) |
Necrosis (mm) |
Erythema (grade) |
Necrosis (mm) |
|||
19 |
462 |
100 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
20 |
494 |
100 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
50 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
||
21* |
435 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
||
22 |
471 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
*Based on the severity of the skin reactions, animal 21 was sacrificed for humane reasons, 24 hours after injection.
Note: It was noted that the identification of the animals used in the preliminary irritation test was identical to some animals in the main study. The raw data of the study specifies that they were of separate deliveries from the supplier.
Based on the results the test substance concentrations selected for the Main Study were a 10% concentration.for the intraderma1 induction and the undiluted test substance for the epidermal induction exposure.
A 20% test substance concentration was selected for the challenge phase.
MAIN STUDY
Induction phase
The skin effects caused by the intradermal injections and epidermal exposure during the induction phase are given in Table 2.
INDUCTION READINGS
|
Animal Number |
Intradermal Injection (Day 3) |
Epidermal Exposure (Day 10) |
|||
A |
B |
C |
D |
|||
Erythema |
Oedema |
|||||
Control |
16 |
E2 |
NA |
E2 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
E2 |
E1 |
E2 |
0 |
0 |
|
18 |
E2 |
E1 |
E2 |
0 |
0 |
|
19 |
E2 |
E1 |
E2 |
0 |
0 |
|
20 |
E2 |
NA |
E2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Experimental |
21 |
E3 |
E2 |
E3 |
2 |
0 |
22 |
E3 |
N1 |
E2 |
2 |
0 |
|
23 |
E3 |
N2 |
E3 |
4 |
0 |
|
24 |
E3 |
N1 |
E3 |
2 |
0 |
|
25 |
E3 |
N1 |
E2 |
2 |
0 |
|
26 |
E4 |
N1 |
E2 |
3 |
0 |
|
27 |
E3 |
N2 |
E2 |
2 |
0 |
|
28 |
E3 |
N2 |
E3 |
2 |
0 |
|
29 |
E4 |
N1 |
E3 |
3 |
0 |
|
30 |
E3 |
N2 |
E3 |
3 |
0 |
A. 1: 1 Mixture of FCA and water for injection.
B. A 10% test substance concentration (Experimental); vehicle (Control).
C. 1:1 Mixture of FCA and a 20% test substance concentration (Experimental) or vehicle (Control).
D. Undiluted test substance (Experimental); vehicle (Control).
Skin effects intradermal injections:
NA No abnormalities
E (.) Erythema (grade)
N (.) Signs of necrosis (mm in diameter)
Challenge phase
First Challenge.
Skin reactions of grade 1 were observed in experimental and control animals in response to the 20% test substance concentration (see Table 3). Scaliness was seen in the treated skin site of one experimental animal.
Table 3: FIRST CHALLENGE READINGS
|
Animal No. |
Day 24 Readings |
Day 25 Readings |
Comments |
||
20%# |
Vehicle |
20% |
Vehicle |
|||
Control |
16 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
17 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Experimental |
21 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
22 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
23 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
25 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
26 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
28* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
1 |
0 |
1p |
0 |
|
|
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
#. Test substance concentration.
p. Scaliness.
* . Animal 28 was removed from the study on day 10 following the observation of emaciation, dark eyes and labored respiration.
Second challenge.
Since comparable skin reactions were observed in both experimental and control animas, a second cha11enge was performed one week 1ater. The animals were then treated with a 10% and a 5% test substance concentration.
Skin reactions of grade 1 were observed in seven experimental animals in response to the 10% test substance concentration and in five experimental animals in response to the 5% concentration.
No skin reactions were evident in the control animals (see Table 4).
Table 4: SECOND CHALLENGE READINGS
|
Animal No. |
Day 24 Readings |
Day 25 Readings |
Comments |
||
10%# |
5% |
10% |
5% |
|||
Control |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Experimental |
21 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
sensitised ( 10%, 5%) |
22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
not sensitised |
|
23 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
sensitised (10%, 5%) |
|
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
not sensitised |
|
25 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
sensitised (10%) |
|
26 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
sensitised (10%, 5%) |
|
27 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
sensitised (10%, 5%) |
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
sensitised (10%, 5%) |
|
30 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
sensitised (10%) |
#. Test substance concentration.
Toxicity/Mortality
One experimental animal was removed from the study on day 10 following the observation of emaciation, dark eyes and labored respiration. Macroscopic postmortem examination of the animal showed haemorrhages in the lungs. It was considered that the death of this animal was incidental and that the study outcome, based on the healthy surviving animals, was not adversely affected.
No further mortality occurred and no further symptoms of systemic toxicity were observed in the animals of the main study.
Body Weights
Body weights and body weight gain of experimental animals remained in the same range as controls over the study period (see Table 5).
Table 5: BODY WEIGHTS (grams)
Group/Sex |
Animal |
Day 1 |
Day 32 |
Group 1/Females (Control) |
16 |
315 |
470 |
17 |
313 |
460 |
|
18 |
310 |
469 |
|
19 |
334 |
469 |
|
20 |
337 |
514 |
|
Mean |
322 |
476 |
|
St. Dev. |
13 |
21 |
|
N |
5 |
5 |
|
Group 2/Females (Experimental) |
21 |
324 |
510 |
22 |
336 |
451 |
|
23 |
319 |
497 |
|
24 |
301 |
462 |
|
25 |
342 |
518 |
|
26 |
339 |
468 |
|
27 |
322 |
528 |
|
28 |
310 |
- |
|
29 |
342 |
487 |
|
30 |
306 |
464 |
|
Mean |
324 |
487 |
|
St. Dev. |
15 |
28 |
|
N |
10 |
9 |
- Animal 28 was removed from the study on day 10 after showing signs of ill health.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1B (indication of skin sensitising potential) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- No conclusions regarding the sensitisation rate could be drawn from the responses to the 20% concentration, since comparable reactions were seen in the experimental and control animals. The skin reactions observed in response to the 10% and 5% test substance concentrations in seven and five (of the nine) experimental animals in the challenge phase, respectively, were considered indicative of sensitisation, based on the absence of any response in the control animals to those concentrations.
These results indicate a sensitisation rate of 78 per cent to the 10% concentration and a sensitisation rate of 56 per cent to the 5% concentration.
Based on these results and according to the EC criteria for classification and labelling requirements for dangerous substances and preparations (Guidelines in Commission Directive 93/21/EEC), TERT-BUTYLPEROXY ISOPROPYL CARBONATE, 75% SOLUTION IN AROMATIC FREE M INERAL SP IR IT should be labelled as: may cause sensitisation by skin contact (R 43). - Executive summary:
Assessment for Contact Hypersensitivity to TERT-BUTYLPEROXY ISOPROPYL CARBONATE, 75% SOLUTION IN AROMATIC FREE MINERAL SPIRIT in the Albino Guinea Pig (Maximisation Test).
The study was carried out based on the guidelines described in: EC Commission Directive 96/54/EC, Part 8.6, 'Skin Sensitisation' and OECD No. 406, "Skin Sensitisation", and based on the method described by Magnusson and Kligman, "Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig - Identification of Contact Allergens.
Test substance concentrations selected for the Main study were based on the results of a preliminary study. In the Main study, experimental animals were intradermally injected with a 10% concentration and epidermally exposed to the undiluted test substance. Control animals were similarly treated, but with vehicle alone (corn oil). Two weeks after the epidermal application all animals were challenged with a 20% test substance concentration and the vehicle. A second challenge was performed one week later with the test substance concentrations 10% and 5%.
First Challenge: Skin reactions of grade 1 were observed in experimental and control animals in response to the 20% test substance concentration. Scaliness was seen in the treated skin site of one experimental animal.
Second challenge: Since comparable skin reactions were observed in both experimental and control animals, a second challenge was performed one week later. The animals were then treated with a 10% and a 5% test substance concentration. Skin reactions of grade 1 were observed in seven experimental animals in response to the 10% test substance concentration and in five experimental animals in response to the 5% concentration. No skin reactions were evident in the control animals.
One experimental animal was removed from the study on day 10 following the observation of emaciation, dark eyes and labored respiration. Macroscopic postmortem examination of the animal showed haemorrhages in the lungs. It was considered that the death of this animal was incidental and that the study outcome, based on the healthy surviving animals, was not adversely affected. No further mortality occurred and no further symptoms of systemic toxicity were observed in the animals of the main study.
No conclusions regarding the sensitisation rate could be drawn from the responses to the 20% concentration, since comparable reactions were seen in the experimental and control animals. The skin reactions observed in response to the 10% and 5% test substance concentrations in seven and five (of the nine) experimental animals in the challenge phase, respectively, were considered indicative of sensitisation, based on the absence of any response in the control animals to those concentrations. These results indicate a sensitisation rate of 78 per cent to the 10% concentration and a sensitisation rate of 56 per cent to the 5% concentration.
Based on these results and according to the EC criteria for classification and labelling requirements for dangerous substances and preparations (Guidelines in Commission Directive 93/21/EEC), TERT-BUTYLPEROXY ISOPROPYL CARBONATE, 75% SOLUTION IN AROMATIC FREE MINERAL SPIRIT should be labelled as: may cause sensitisation by skin contact (R 43).
The substance is classified as a moderate skin sensitizer, Cat 1b per “Guidance to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures”, Version 5, July 2017 and per UN GHS. It is considered as a moderate skin sensitizer (Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Part E).
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.