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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 200-317-6 | CAS number: 57-15-8
- 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
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Two in vitro studies have been performed to analyse the sensitising potential of Chlorobutanol. No relevant sensitisation has been observed under test conditions, thus Chlorobutanol is considered not skin sensitising
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Version / remarks:
- Due to a HPLC error causing a delayed start of the sequence, the calibration sam-ples had to be moved from the beginning to the end of the analysis sequence to ensure measurement of the peptide samples in a timely manner. The deviation was assessed and signed by the study director on 30. Jan. 2018.
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- see remarks
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Details on the study design:
- The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) is an in chemico assay to quantify the reactivity of the test item towards cysteine and lysine containing peptides. This reactivity is related to the skin sensitisation potential. This study was performed in order to estimate the skin sensitisation potential of Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate using a peptide model. To quantify the sensitisation potential, the depletion of the cysteine and lysine containing peptides caused by known amounts of the test item was measured using HPLC. The assay was used for supporting the discrimination between skin sensitizers (i.e. UN GHS Category 1) and non-sensitizers in accordance with the UN GHS. A categorization in the sub-categories 1 A and 1 B is not possible.
- Run / experiment:
- other: Cysteine
- Parameter:
- other: Cys-peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 2.77
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Lysine
- Parameter:
- other: Lys-Peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 1.75
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: mean (Cysteine and Lysine)
- Parameter:
- other: Mean peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 2.26
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- All acceptance criteria were fulfilled, therefore the test was considered valid. The DPRA prediction for the test item Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate was negative with reactivity class minimal according to the Cysteine 1:10/Lysine 1:50 prediction model.
No observations arousing doubts concerning the accuracy of the results and the validity of the study were made. - Executive summary:
The study was performed in order to evaluate the reactivity of the test item Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate towards cysteine (Cys-) and lysine (Lys-) containing peptides. A 100 mM test item in acetonitrile was incubated 24 ± 2 h at 25 °C together with cysteine and lysine peptides, respectively, and the peptide concentration after the incubation was measured using HPLC-UV.
Three replicates were prepared using 1:10 and 1:50 molar ratio of the test item with the Cys- and Lys-peptide, respectively. Triplicate samples of the solvent without test item were incubated and measured in parallel. The peptide depletion values after incubation are:
Cys-peptide
depletion [%]Lys-Peptide
depletion [%]Mean peptide
depletion [%]2.77
1.75
2.26
According to the cysteine 1:10/lysine 1:50 prediction model, the DPRA predicition is “negative” with minimal reactivity.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 09. Oct. 2017 - 10. Nov. 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- This in vitro study is performed to assess the sensitizing potential of the test item Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate by using the genetically modified keratinocyte cell-line “LuSens” (LuSens, Bauch et al. 2012). The LuSens test is an ARE Reporter Gene Assay that was developed by the BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany) and is based on the OECD 442D Guideline (KeratinoSens Assay). The assay differs in some points from the OECD guideline.The LuSens test employs the use of a reporter gene for luciferase placed under the control of the antioxidant response element (ARE) and hence monitors Nrf-2 transcription factor activity. The measured endpoint is the up-regulation of luciferase activity after 48 h of incubation with test substances. This up-regulation is an indicator for the activation of the Keap1/Nrf2/ARE signalling pathway (Ade et al. 2009, Natsch 2012, Natsch & Emter 2008, Vandebriel et al. 2010). In order to conclude on the skin sensitization potential of the test substance, a LuSens test, comprising at least two, but a maximum of three inde-pendent and valid experiments will be performed. The assay is used for supporting the discrimination between skin sensitizers (i.e. UN GHS Category 1) and non-sensitizers in accordance with the UN GHS. A categorization in the sub-categories 1 A and 1 B is not possible.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment I:
- Parameter:
- other: Induction of Luciferase
- Value:
- 0.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- for detailed information see table I
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Experiment II
- Parameter:
- other: Induction of Luciferase
- Value:
- 0.85
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- for detailed information see table II
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the experimental conditions of this study, the test item, Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate, was negative in the LuSens assay and is therefore considered not having the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor (no sensitizing potential).
- Executive summary:
This in vitro study evaluates the potential of the test item Chlorobutanol Hemihydrate to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor (sensitizing potential) by using the LuSens cell line. This test is part of a tiered strategy for the evaluation of skin sensitization potential. Thus, data generated with the present Test Guideline should be used to support the discrimination between skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers in the context of an integrated ap-proach to testing and assessment. The LuSens test is an ARE Reporter Gene Assay that was developed by the BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany) and is based on the OECD 442D Guideline (KeratinoSens As-say). The assay differs in some points from the OECD guideline. The assay included a cytotoxicity range finder test (CRFT) and two independent experiments (experiment I and II) with a treatment period of 48 h. The CRFT was performed to detect a potential cytotoxic effect of the test item. Based on the results of this test the concentrations for the two experiments were determined. In the experiments, the highest nominal applied concentration (2000 µM) was chosen based on the results obtained in the CRFT. A geometric series (factor 1.2 ) of eleven dilutions thereof was prepared. Precipitation of the test item was not visible in any of the experiments. DMSO (final concentration: 1 %) was used as solvent control and medium no. 3 as growth control. Lactic acid (5000 µM) was used as negative control and EGDMA (120 µM) as positive control. No substantial and reproducible dose dependent increase in luciferase induction above 1.5 fold was observed in both experiments up to the maximal tested concentration of the test item.
Referenceopen allclose all
Table: Calculated peptide depletion values for the Lys-Peptide
Sample name |
Depletion [%] |
||
Single |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
|
Positive control Rep. 1 |
28.07 |
34.12 |
8.69 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
30.21 |
||
Positive control Rep. 3 |
44.08 |
||
Test item Rep. 1 |
0.00 |
1.75 |
3.04 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
0.00 |
||
Test item Rep. 3 |
5.26 |
Table: Calculated peptide depletion values for the Cys-Peptide
Sample name |
Depletion [%] |
||
Single |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
|
Positive control Rep. 1 |
83.72 |
84.28 |
0.75 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
85.13 |
||
Positive control Rep. 3 |
83.99 |
||
Test item Rep. 1 |
0.00 |
2.77 |
2.43 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
3.75 |
||
Test item Rep. 3 |
4.54 |
table I: results of experiment I
|
|
Induction of Luciferase |
Viability of the Cells |
||||
Parameter |
Concentration |
Induction |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation |
Relative Viability |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation |
|
[µM] |
fold |
|
[%] |
[%] |
|
[%] |
Solvent Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.05 |
5.38 |
100.0 |
4.09 |
4.09 |
Growth Control |
- |
1.1 |
0.07 |
6.22 |
133.1 |
6.70 |
5.04 |
Negative Control |
5000 |
1.0 |
0.03 |
3.15 |
103.3 |
6.81 |
6.60 |
Positive Control |
120 |
5.2 |
0.35 |
6.72 |
85.1 |
4.64 |
5.45 |
Test item |
269 |
1.0 |
0.04 |
3.52 |
103.6 |
3.49 |
3.36 |
Test item |
323 |
0.9 |
0.04 |
4.36 |
101.2 |
2.05 |
2.03 |
Test item |
388 |
0.8 |
0.03 |
3.68 |
99.4 |
0.82 |
0.82 |
Test item |
465 |
0.9 |
0.02 |
2.09 |
96.0 |
2.97 |
3.09 |
Test item |
558 |
0.8 |
0.01 |
1.36 |
92.8 |
2.47 |
2.67 |
Test item |
670 |
0.8 |
0.01 |
1.37 |
88.8 |
1.91 |
2.16 |
Test item |
804 |
0.8 |
0.02 |
1.93 |
87.4 |
0.52 |
0.59 |
Test item |
965 |
0.8 |
0.02 |
2.30 |
88.4 |
2.36 |
2.67 |
Test item |
1157 |
0.8 |
0.04 |
4.96 |
85.7 |
2.81 |
3.28 |
Test item |
1389 |
0.8 |
0.09 |
11.44 |
78.6 |
6.89 |
8.76 |
Test item |
1667 |
0.8 |
0.03 |
3.31 |
74.8 |
11.91 |
15.93 |
Test item |
2000 |
0.8* |
0.02 |
3.12 |
56.3 |
2.79 |
4.95 |
* = Due to cytotoxicity value was not used for evaluation
table II: results of experiment II
|
|
Induction of Luciferase |
Viability of the Cells |
||||
Parameter |
Concentration |
Induction |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation |
Relative Viability |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation |
|
[µM] |
fold |
|
[%] |
[%] |
|
[%] |
Solvent Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.10 |
9.63 |
100.0 |
3.62 |
3.62 |
Growth Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.06 |
5.84 |
139.9 |
5.84 |
4.18 |
Negative Control |
5000 |
1.0 |
0.05 |
5.20 |
111.5 |
6.75 |
6.05 |
Positive Control |
120 |
4.2 |
0.13 |
3.05 |
97.0 |
3.12 |
3.21 |
Test item |
269 |
1.0 |
0.03 |
3.32 |
110.5 |
3.49 |
3.16 |
Test item |
323 |
0.9 |
0.02 |
1.92 |
106.4 |
5.37 |
5.04 |
Test item |
388 |
0.9 |
0.01 |
1.31 |
102.8 |
4.77 |
4.64 |
Test item |
465 |
0.9 |
0.06 |
6.63 |
99.2 |
5.66 |
5.71 |
Test item |
558 |
0.8 |
0.02 |
1.86 |
90.8 |
2.67 |
2.95 |
Test item |
670 |
0.8 |
0.02 |
2.89 |
90.9 |
2.05 |
2.26 |
Test item |
804 |
0.8 |
0.05 |
5.71 |
92.7 |
1.50 |
1.62 |
Test item |
965 |
0.8 |
0.04 |
5.02 |
88.1 |
0.42 |
0.47 |
Test item |
1157 |
0.8 |
0.04 |
4.29 |
85.7 |
3.39 |
3.95 |
Test item |
1389 |
0.8 |
0.08 |
10.14 |
79.6 |
2.32 |
2.92 |
Test item |
1667 |
0.9 |
0.08 |
8.97 |
75.0 |
3.89 |
5.19 |
Test item |
2000 |
1.0* |
0.11 |
10.89 |
65.6 |
1.38 |
2.11 |
* = Due to cytotoxicity value was not used for evaluation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
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.