2-[(2-methyl-1-oxoallyl)oxy]ethyl hydrogen 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropylphthalate

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

13 June 2018 - 20 July 2018

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2018

Report date:

2018

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 438 (Isolated Chicken Eye Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Version / remarks:

25 June 2018

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU method B.48 (Isolated chicken eye test method for identifying occular corrosives and severe irritants)

Version / remarks:

14 February 2017

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

2-[(2-methyl-1-oxoallyl)oxy]ethyl hydrogen 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropylphthalate

EC Number:

259-130-3

EC Name:

2-[(2-methyl-1-oxoallyl)oxy]ethyl hydrogen 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropylphthalate

Cas Number:

54380-33-5

Molecular formula:

C17H19ClO7

IUPAC Name:

2-(3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)-6-({2-[(2-methylprop-2-enoyl)oxy]ethoxy}carbonyl)benzoic acid

Test material form:

liquid

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

chicken

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

SOURCE OF COLLECTED EYES
- Source: TARAVIS KFT. 9600 Sárvár, Rábasömjéni út 129. Hungary
- Storage, temperature and transport conditions of ocular tissue: Head collection was performed by a slaughter house technician. Heads were removed immediately after sedation of the chickens (sedation was happened by electric current). The heads were transported at the earliest convenience for use approximately within 2 hours from collection. The ambient temperature was optimal (19.3 ºC to 20.4 ºC) during the transport. All eyes used in the assay were from the same groups of eyes collected on one specific day.
- Time interval prior to initiating testing: 2 h
- Indication of any existing defects or lesions in ocular tissue samples: After collection, the heads were inspected for appropriate quality and wrapped with paper moistened with saline, then placed in a plastic box that can be closed (4-5 heads/box).

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes, concurrent positive control

yes, concurrent negative control

Amount / concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount applied: The test item was applied in such a way that the approximately 2 cm^2 entire surface of a plastic film was covered with test substance.

Duration of treatment / exposure:

10 sec

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

The control and test item treated eyes were evaluated pre-treatment and at approximately 30, 75, 120, 180 and 240 minutes after the post-treatment rinse. Minor variations within ± 5 minutes were considered acceptable.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

3

Details on study design:

SELECTION AND PREPARATION OF ISOLATED EYES
After removing the head from the plastic box, it was put on soft paper. The eyelids were carefully cut away with scissors, avoiding damaging the cornea. One small drop of fluorescein solution 2 % (w/v) was applied onto the cornea surface for a few seconds and subsequently rinsed off with 20 mL saline solution. Then the fluorescein-treated cornea was examined with a slit lamp microscope, with the eye in the head, to ensure that the cornea was not damaged (i.e., fluorescein retention ≤ 0.5). If the cornea was in good condition, the eyeball was carefully removed from the orbit. The eye ball was carefully removed from the orbit by holding the nictitating membrane with a surgical forceps, while cutting the eye muscles with bent scissors. Care was taken to remove the eyeball from the orbit without cutting off the optical nerve too short. The procedure avoided pressure on the eye while removing the eyeball from the orbit, in order to prevent distortion of the cornea and subsequent corneal opacity. Once removed from the orbit, the eye was placed onto damp paper. The nictitating membrane and other connective tissue were cut away. The prepared eyes were kept on wet papers in a closed box to maintain an appropriate humidity. The treatment group and the concurrent positive control consisted of three eyes. The negative control group consisted of one eye. The enucleated eye was placed in a steel clamp with the cornea positioned vertically with the eye in the correct relative position (same position as in the chicken head). Again, too much pressure on the eye by the clamp was avoided. Because of the relatively firm sclera of the chicken eyeball, only slight pressure was needed to fix the eye properly. The clamp with the eyeball was transferred to a chamber of the superfusion apparatus. The clamp holding the eye was positioned in such a way that the entire cornea was supplied with saline solution dripping from a stainless steel tube, at a rate of approximately 3 or 4 drops/minute. The door of the chamber was closed except for manipulations and examinations, to maintain temperature and humidity. The appropriate number of eyes was selected and, after being placed in the superfusion apparatus, the eyes were examined again with the slit lamp microscope to ensure that they were in good condition. The focus was adjusted to see clearly the saline solution which was flowing on the cornea surface. Eyes with a high baseline fluorescein staining (i.e., > 0.5) or a high corneal opacity score (i.e., > 0.5) were rejected. The cornea thickness was measured using the depth measuring device. Any eye with cornea thickness deviating more than 10 % from the mean value for the eyes, or eyes that showed any other signs of damage, were rejected and replaced. If the selected eyes were appropriate for the test, acclimatisation started and was conducted for approximately 45 to 60 minutes. The temperature of the circulating water was verified to ensure that the temperature in all chambers was in the range of 32 ± 1.5 °C during the acclimatisation and treatment periods.

EQUILIBRATION AND BASELINE RECORDINGS
At the end of the acclimatization period, a zero reference measurement was recorded for cornea thickness and opacity to serve as a baseline (t=0) for each individual eye. The cornea thickness of the eyes should not change by more than ±5-7 % within approximately 45 to 60 minutes before the start of application. Slight changes in thickness (0 % to 2 %) were observed in the eyes, finding considered as normal when maintaining enucleated eyes. Following the equilibration period, the fluoresce in retention was measured. Baseline values were required to evaluate any potential test item related effects after treatment. The location of any minor findings was marked on the record sheet as a drawing, if applicable. If any eye was considered to be unsuitable following baseline assessment, it was discarded.

NUMBER OF REPLICATES: 3

NEGATIVE CONTROL USED: NaCl (9 g/L saline)

POSITIVE CONTROL USED: Acetic acid 10 % (v/v)

APPLICATION DOSE AND EXPOSURE TIME: 2 cm^2 for 10 sec

OBSERVATION PERIOD: up to 240 min

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Volume and washing procedure after exposure period: The time of application was monitored.After an exposure period of 10 seconds the cornea surface was rinsed thoroughly with 20 mL saline solution at ambient temperature, while taking care not to damage the cornea but attempting to remove the entire residual test item, if possible. The eye in the holder was then returned to its chamber. The time while the eye was out of the chamber was limited to a minimum.

SCORING SYSTEM:
- Mean corneal swelling (%)
- Mean maximum opacity score
- Mean fluorescein retention score at 30 minutes post-treatment

DECISION CRITERIA: decision criteria as indicated in the TG was used.

Results and discussion

In vitro

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

percent corneal swelling

Remarks:

at up to 240 min

Run / experiment:

1st run

Value:

3

Vehicle controls validity:

not examined

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Run / experiment:

1st run

Value:

0.8

Vehicle controls validity:

not examined

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

fluorescein retention score

Run / experiment:

1st run

Value:

1.2

Vehicle controls validity:

not examined

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Other effects / acceptance of results:

OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: No

DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY: Prior to routine use of the method the laboratory demonstrated the technical proficiency in a separate study using the ten Proficiency Chemicals according to OECD Test Guideline No. 438.

ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: Yes
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: Yes

Any other information on results incl. tables

Table 1: Results for the test item

Observation	Value	ICE Class
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 75 min	3%	I
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 240 min	4%	I
Mean maximum corneal opacity	0.8	II
Mean fluoresin retention	1.2	II
Other Observations	None
Overall ICE class	1xI, 2xII

Table 2: Results for positive control Acitic acid 10% (v/v) solution

Observation	Value	ICE Class
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 75 min	24%	III
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 240 min	33%	IV
Mean maximum corneal opacity	4.0	IV
Mean fluoresin retention	0.5	I
Other Observations	Corneal opacity score 3 was observed in three eyes at 30 minutes after the post-treatment rinse.
Overall ICE class	1xI, 2xIV

Based on the overall ICE Class the positive control Acetic acid 10 % (v/v) solution was classed as corrosive/severely irritating, UN GHS Classification: Category 1.

Table 3: Results for the negative control NaCl (9 g/L saline)

Observation	Value	ICE Class
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 75 min	0%	I
Mean maximum corneal swelling at up to 240 min	0%	I
Mean maximum corneal opacity	0.0	I
Mean fluoresin retention	0.0	I
Other Observations	None
Overall ICE class	3xI

Based on the overall ICE Class the negative control NaCl (9 g/L saline) had no significant effects on the chicken eye in this study.

Positive and negative control values were within the corresponding historical control data ranges.

Table 4: Historical control data of Positive control (Period of 2012 - 2017)

ACETIC ACID 10% (V/V) SOLUTION HISTORICAL CONTROL Dose level: 30 µL / eye

n=270	Relative obobservation time (m(min)	Corneal thickness					Corneal opacity score						Fluorescein retention
		30	75	120	180	240		30	75	120	180	240		∆FR
Maximium	swelling (%):	42	47	52	54	54	Max. OS:	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	Max. FR:	2.8
Minimum swelling (%):		2	4	6	9	11	Min. OS:	2.5	2.8	3.3	3.5	3.5	Min. FR:	0.2
Average:		18	24	28	31	33	Average:	3.5	3.8	3.9	3.9	3.9	Average:	0.6

 

Table 5: Historical control data of Negative control (Period of 2011 - 2017)

NaCl (9 g/L saline) SOLUTION HISTORICAL CONTROL Dose level: 30 µL / eye

n=188	Relative obobservation time (m (min)	Corneal thickness					Corneal opacity score						Fluorescein retention
		30	75	120	180	240		30	75	120	180	240		∆FR
Maximum	swelling (%):	3	5	5	5	5	Max. OS:	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	Max. FR:	0.5
Minimum swelling (%):		0	0	0	0	0	Min. OS:	0	0	0	0	0	Min. FR:	0.0
Average:		0.2	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.5	Average:	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	Average:	0.0

Remark:

n = number of examined eyes

∆FR = Difference between fluorescein retention and fluorescein retention reference value

OS = Opacity score

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

In this in vitro eye corrosive and severe irritant study, using the Isolated Chicken Eye model with the test item, no ocular corrosion or severe irritation potential was observed. The overall ICE score was 1xI, 2xII.

Executive summary:

A study according OECD TG 438 was performed (Isolated Chicken Eye Test, ICET) to evaluate the potential ocular corrosivity or severe irritancy of the test item by its ability to induce toxicity in enucleated chicken eyes. The test compound was applied in a single dose onto the cornea of isolated chicken eyes in order to potentially classify the test compound as either 1: causing "serious eye damage" [category 1 of the Globally Harmonised System for the Classification and Labelling of chemicals (GHS)], or 2: not requiring classification for eye irritation or serious eye damage according to the GHS.

The test item, Acetic acid 10 % (v/v) solution (positive control) and NaCl (9 g/L saline) (negative control) were applied in such a way that the entire surface of the cornea was uniformly covered with the test substance or positive or negative control. Three test item treated eyes and three positive control eyes and one negative control eye were used in this study.

After an exposure period of 10 seconds from the end of the application the cornea surface was rinsed thoroughly with ~20 mL saline solution at ambient temperature and this procedure was repeated for each eye.

In this ICET, the test item did not cause ocular corrosion or severe irritation in the enucleated chicken eyes. The overall ICE classes were once I (based on corneal swelling of 4 % within 240 min) and twice II (based on a fluorescein retention of 1.2 and opacity score of 0.8). Positive and negative controls showed the expected results. The experiments were considered to be valid.