Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 210-993-4 | CAS number: 627-31-6
- 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

Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
In a weight of evidence approach, the substance 1,3-Diiodopropane was tested in two in chemico/in vitro test systems for binding activity to proteins (adverse outcome pathway key event 1, DPRA study) and for the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor (adverse outcome pathway key event 2, LuSens study). Testing for a third key event was not required.
The DPRA prediction is ”positive” according to the Cysteine 1:10/Lysine 1:50 prediction model and under the experimental conditions reported, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane shows a reactivity towards the two model synthetic peptides. This assignment supports the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers in the framework of an integrated approach (IATA). For sensitising potency assessment within an IATA, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane could be assigned to the reactivity class that covers a moderate reactivity under the conditions of this study.
In the LuSens study, a statistically significant and reproducible dose-dependent increase in luciferase induction >1.5 fold in more than two non-cytotoxic consecutive test item concentrations was observed in both repetitions. Therefore, under the experimental conditions of this study, the test item, 1,3-Diiodopropane, was positive in the LuSens assay and is therefore considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor.
Resulting from moderate, positive outcome of the DPRA study and the positive outcome from the LuSens study on 1,3 -Diiodopropane, it can be concluded that the test substance is a moderate skin sensitizer and no further studies to assess skin sensitization are required.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Remarks:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2020
- 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:
- 18.6.2019
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Details on the study design:
- The OECD AOP (The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation) is initiated by key event 1 (Covalent interaction with skin proteins), which is followed sequentially by three key events (KE): (KE2) keratinocyte activation, (KE3) dendritic cell activation, and (KE4) proliferation of antigen-specific T cells. However, none of the assays addressing the different KEs is currently accepted as stand-alone test method and may not be sufficient to conclude on the presence or absence of skin sensitisation potential of chemicals, but may support the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non sensitisers in combination with other complementary data.
The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) addresses the molecular initiating event (KE1) of the AOP. It is an in chemico assay to quantify the depletion of synthetic model peptides caused by known amounts of the test item measured by HPLC.
This study is performed in order to evaluate the reactivity of 1,3-Diiodopropane towards cysteine and lysine containing peptides. The peptide depletion compared to the solvent controls is calculated and leads to a DPRA prediction (reactive/positive or non-reactive/negative) that could be used to support the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers. Additionally, an assignment to one of four reactivity classes could be made in order to possibly support a potency assessment.
The DPRA is part of a tiered strategy for the evaluation of the skin sensitisation potential. Thus, all data generated with the present Test Guideline OECD 442C and EU-Method B.59 should be used in the context of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA). - Run / experiment:
- other: Mean of triplicate measurements
- Parameter:
- other: Mean peptide depletion [%]
- Value:
- 32.67
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: DPRA prediction is positive and reactivity class moderate
- Interpretation of results:
- other: positive for key event 1 of adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation
- Conclusions:
- Under the experimental conditions reported, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane shows a positive, moderate reactivity towards the two model synthetic peptides.
- Executive summary:
This in chemico study was performed in order to evaluate the reactivity of the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane towards cysteine (Cys-) and lysine (Lys-) containing peptides. The calculated peptide depletion could be used to support the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers. The DPRA is part of a tiered strategy for the evaluation of skin sensitisation potential in the context of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA).
The test item was incubated for 22 h at 25 °C together with Cys- and Lys-peptides, respectively. 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 simultaneously.
Two experiments were performed.
Experiment 1 was not valid for the Lys-peptide assay, because the peptide calibration values and the reference controls A and B values couldn’t be analyzed as the retention time of the Lys-peptide was not in the normal range. For the Cys-peptide experiment 1 was valid.
In Experiment 2, only the Lys-peptide assay was performed and was found valid. The result of the Cys-peptide assay of experiment 1 and of the Lys-peptide assay of experiment 2 were used to calculate the mean peptide depletion. The invalid experiment is not reported in this report, but the raw data are kept in the test facility in the GLP- archive.
The peptide depletion values after incubation were 64.96% for Cys-peptide and 0.39% for Lys-peptide, resulting in amean depletion of 32.67%
Thus, the DPRA prediction is ”positive” according to the Cysteine 1:10/Lysine 1:50 prediction model and under the experimental conditions reported, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane shows a reactivity towards the two model synthetic peptides. This assignment supports the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers in the framework of an integrated approach (IATA). For sensitising potency assessment within an IATA, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane could be assigned to the reactivity class that covers a moderate reactivity under the conditions of this study.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Remarks:
- In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the AOP Key Event on Keratinocyte activation
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2020
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- 25.6.2018
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Run / experiment:
- other: repetition II, conc. 2000 µM
- Parameter:
- other: fold increase in luciferase induction
- Value:
- 29.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: repetition III, conc. 2000 µM
- Parameter:
- other: fold increase in luciferase induction
- Value:
- 28.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- "In the case of a cytotoxic result, the concentrations for the experiment should be determined so that at least one of them is in the cytotoxic range." In the main experiment, concentrations were chosen which were expected to produce at least one cytotoxic concentration. However, in both repetitions all concentrations were in the non-cytotoxic range. This deviation was considered uncritical since a statistically significant increase ≥1.5 fold in luciferase induction was measured in all concentrations. Only in the case a result is to be considered negative, at least one concentration should be cytotoxic.
- Interpretation of results:
- other: positive for key event 2 of adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation
- Conclusions:
- 1,3-Diiodopropane was positive in the LuSens assay and is therefore considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor.
- Executive summary:
This in vitro study evaluates the potential of the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor by using the LuSens cell line which 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 approach to testing and assessment. The LuSens test is an ARE Reporter Gene Assay performed according to the OECD 442D Guideline with the title “In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the AOP Key Event on Keratinocyte activation”.
The assay performed included a cytotoxicity range finder test (CRFT) and one experiment, consisting of two independent repetitions (repetition II and III) with a treatment period of 48 h. The CRFT was performed to detect a potential cytotoxic effect of the test item. Based on these results, the concentrations to be tested in the repetitions were determined.
In the experiment (repetition I, II and III) 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 repetitions. The first repetition was invalid (one acceptance criteria was not fulfilled as the growth control induced an induction of 1.5 fold). Those data are not reported, all documentation is kept with the raw data and will be archived at the GLP test facility.
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.
A statistically significant and reproducible dose-dependent increase in luciferase induction >1.5 fold in more than two non-cytotoxic consecutive test item concentrations was observed in both repetitions.
Therefore, under the experimental conditions of this study, the test item, 1,3-Diiodopropane, was positive in the LuSens assay and is therefore considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor.
Referenceopen allclose all
Measurements
Measurements were performed using the HPLC method described before and results are shown in the following two tables.
Measurements Cys-Peptide, experiment 1
Sample name |
Peak area 220 nm [mAU*min] |
Peak area 258 nm [mAU*min] |
Area ratio 220 nm/258nm [dimensionless] |
Blank |
n.a.* |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Standard 0.0167 mM |
0.6955 |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Standard 0.0334 mM |
1.3448 |
0.0425 |
31.64 |
Standard 0.0667 mM |
2.8552 |
0.0915 |
31.20 |
Standard 0.1335 mM |
5.9296 |
0.1875 |
31.63 |
Standard 0.267 mM |
11.8836 |
0.3730 |
31.86 |
Standard 0.534 mM |
23.3031 |
0.7417 |
31.42 |
Reference A Rep. 1 |
21.9809 |
0.6971 |
31.53 |
Reference A Rep. 2 |
22.0877 |
0.7011 |
31.51 |
Reference A Rep. 3 |
22.1613 |
0.7023 |
31.55 |
Co-elution control positive control |
n.a.* |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Co-elution control test item |
n.a.* |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Reference B Rep. 1 |
22.1472 |
0.7018 |
31.56 |
Reference B Rep. 2 |
21.8587 |
0.6943 |
31.48 |
Reference B Rep. 3 |
22.1524 |
0.6956 |
31.85 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 1 |
21.6619 |
0.6866 |
31.55 |
Positive control Rep. 1 |
6.5846 |
0.1973 |
33.37 |
Test item Rep. 1 |
8.7632 |
0.2687 |
32.61 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 2 |
21.6949 |
0.6938 |
31.27 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
6.6146 |
0.2018 |
32.78 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
7.2736 |
0.2229 |
32.63 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 3 |
21.7751 |
0.6916 |
31.49 |
Positive control Rep. 3 |
6.8072 |
0.2054 |
33.14 |
Test item Rep. 3 |
6.7872 |
0.2062 |
32.91 |
Reference B Rep. 4 |
22.3911 |
0.7094 |
31.56 |
Reference B Rep. 5 |
22.3782 |
0.7070 |
31.65 |
Reference B Rep. 6 |
22.2062 |
0.7043 |
31.53 |
Mean peak area ratio of reference controls A, B and C (ACN)*** |
31.54 |
* n.a. = no peak detected
** n.c. = not calculable
*** Used as reference for calculation of peak purity
Measurements Lys-Peptide, experiment 2
Sample name |
Peak area 220 nm [mAU*min] |
Peak area 258 nm [mAU*min] |
Area ratio 220 nm/258nm [dimensionless] |
Blank |
n.a.* |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Standard 0.0167 mM |
0.7883 |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Standard 0.0334 mM |
1.4845 |
0.0464 |
32.01 |
Standard 0.0667 mM |
2.9523 |
0.0951 |
31.04 |
Standard 0.1335 mM |
5.8159 |
0.1905 |
30.54 |
Standard 0.267 mM |
11.6027 |
0.3934 |
29.49 |
Standard 0.534 mM |
21.5994 |
0.7420 |
29.11 |
Reference A Rep. 1 |
21.2396 |
0.7285 |
29.15 |
Reference A Rep. 2 |
21.3696 |
0.7271 |
29.39 |
Reference A Rep. 3 |
21.4059 |
0.7203 |
29.72 |
Co-elution control positive control |
n.a.* |
0.0660**** |
n.c.** |
Co-elution control test item |
n.a.* |
n.a.* |
n.c.** |
Reference B Rep. 1 |
21.3720 |
0.7255 |
29.46 |
Reference B Rep. 2 |
21.2810 |
0.7154 |
29.75 |
Reference B Rep. 3 |
21.2179 |
0.7117 |
29.81 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 1 |
21.1301 |
0.7154 |
29.54 |
Positive control Rep. 1 |
16.2577 |
0.6106 |
26.63 |
Test item Rep. 1 |
21.3513 |
0.7232 |
29.53 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 2 |
21.2763 |
0.7138 |
29.81 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
16.0271 |
0.6051 |
26.49 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
20.9877 |
0.7221 |
29.07 |
Reference C ACN Rep. 3 |
21.2097 |
0.7165 |
29.60 |
Positive control Rep. 3 |
16.0423 |
0.5982 |
26.82 |
Test item Rep. 3 |
21.1763 |
0.7273 |
29.12 |
Reference B Rep. 4 |
21.0273 |
0.7106 |
29.59 |
Reference B Rep. 5 |
21.0179 |
0.7058 |
29.78 |
Reference B Rep. 6 |
20.9609 |
0.7036 |
29.79 |
Mean peak area ratio of reference controls A, B and C (ACN)*** |
29.61 |
* n.a. = no peak detected
** n.c. = not calculable
*** Used as reference for calculation of peak purity
**** Probable sign for co-elution. See discussion
Results
Calibration curve determination: From the peak areas of the peptide calibration standards detected at 220 nm, linear calibration curves in the form y = b * x + a were calculated for both peptides using validated Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets, with
y = Measured peak area [mAU*min]
b = Slope [mAU*min/mM]
a = Intercept [mAU*min]
x = Standard concentration [mM]
Linear calibration curves
Cys-Peptide: Slope b = 43.86465; intercept a = -0.01718; r² = 0.99982
Lys-Peptide: Slope b = 40.40715; intercept a = 0.29384; r² = 0.99869
Acceptance criteria
The r² of linear calibration should be > 0.99. The calibration curve was linear with acceptable coefficient of determination 0.99982 for the Cys-peptide and 0.99869 for the Lys-peptide, respectively.
Solvent controls
The peptide concentrations in the solvent controls were calculated using the linear regression (a = intercept, b = slope): Peptide concentration [mM] = (Peak area [mAU*min]-a)/b
Calculated peptide concentration for solvent controls
Sample name |
Cys-Peptide concentration [mM] |
Lys-Peptide concentration [mM] |
Reference A Rep. 1 |
0.501 |
0.518 |
Reference A Rep. 2 |
0.504 |
0.522 |
Reference A Rep. 3 |
0.506 |
0.522 |
Reference B Rep. 1 |
0.505 |
0.522 |
Reference B Rep. 2 |
0.499 |
0.519 |
Reference B Rep. 3 |
0.505 |
0.518 |
Reference B Rep. 4 |
0.511 |
0.513 |
Reference B Rep. 5 |
0.511 |
0.513 |
Reference B Rep. 6 |
0.507 |
0.511 |
Reference C (ACN) Rep. 1 |
0.494 |
0.516 |
Reference C (ACN) Rep. 2 |
0.495 |
0.519 |
Reference C (ACN) Rep. 3 |
0.497 |
0.518 |
Mean concentration of Reference controls A and C [mM] |
A: 0.50 |
A: 0.52 |
Variation coefficient (RSD) of Reference controls B and C (ACN) [%] |
1.3 |
0.7 |
Acceptance criteria: The mean peptide concentration of solvent control samples of sets A and C (ACN) should be 0.50 ± 0.05 mM and the variation coefficient (relative standard deviation, RSD) of measured values of the nine samples from sets B1, B2 and C should be <15%
Assessment: The mean peptide concentration of all solvent controls (Reference A and Reference C) were with 0.50 mM and 0.50 mM for the Cys-peptide and 0.52 mM and 0.52 mM for the Lys-peptide in the acceptable range of 0.50 ±0.05 mM and the variation coefficients (RSD) of the measured values of Reference controls B and C in acetonitrile were in the acceptable range with 1.3% for the Cys-peptide and 0.7% for the Lys-peptide, respectively.
Calculations of Peptide depletion: The peptide depletion was calculated for each individual sample using the following equations (shown for Cys-Peptide, Lys-peptide is calculated analogously):
Peptide depletion(Cys,i) = (1 - measured peptide peak area in sample/mean peptide peak area in Solvent controls C ) * 100%
The mean peptide depletion of the Cys-peptide was calculated as follows:
Peptide depletion(Cys) = (∑_Cys,I =1,2,3 Peptide depletion_i)/3
The mean peptide depletion of the test item was calculated using the following equation:
Mean peptide depletion [%] = (Peptide depletion(Cys) [%] + Peptide depletion(Lys [%] )/2
Results
Calculated peptide depletion values for the Cys-Peptide
Sample name |
Depletion [%] |
||
Single |
Mean |
SD |
|
Positive control Rep. 1 |
69.67 |
69.28 |
0.56 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
69.53 |
||
Positive control Rep. 3 |
68.65 |
||
Test item Rep. 1 |
59.64 |
64.96 |
4.74 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
66.50 |
||
Test item Rep. 3 |
68.74 |
Calculated peptide depletion values for the Lys-Peptide
Sample name |
Depletion [%] |
||
Single |
Mean |
SD |
|
Positive control Rep. 1 |
23.33 |
24.03 |
0.61 |
Positive control Rep. 2 |
24.42 |
||
Positive control Rep. 3 |
24.35 |
||
Test item Rep. 1 |
0 (-0.69)* |
0.39 |
0.56 |
Test item Rep. 2 |
1.03 |
||
Test item Rep. 3 |
0.14 |
* Note: Negative depletion values were considered as “zero” when calculating the mean.
Mean depletion of both peptides after incubation with the test item: 32.67 %
Acceptance criteria
- The mean peptide depletion value for the positive control cinnamaldehyde should be 60.8% - 100.0% with a maximum standard deviation (SD) of <14.9% for the Cys-peptide. The mean peptide depletion with 69.28 % and a standard deviation of 0.56 % of the three replicates of the positive control cinnamaldehyde were in the acceptable range of 60.8 – 100.0% and <14.9%, respectively, for the Cys-peptide.
- The mean peptide depletion value for the positive control 2,3-Butanedione should be 10.0% - 45.0% with a maximum standard deviation <11.6% for the Lys-peptide. The mean peptide depletion with 24.03% and a standard deviation of 0.61% of three replicates of the positive control 2,3-Butanedione were in the acceptable range of 10.0 – 45.0% and <11.6%, respectively, for the Lys-peptide.
- The standard deviation for the test item replicates should be <14.9% for the percent cysteine depletion and <11.6% for the percent lysine depletion. The standard deviation for the test item replicates with 4.74% was <14.9% for the percent cysteine depletion for the test item. The standard deviation for the test item replicates with 0.56% was <11.6% for the percent lysine depletion for the test item.
Evaluation of results
According to the test guideline OECD 442C and EU-Method B.59, the reactivity is classified as “high”, “moderate”, “low” or “minimal” using the Cysteine 1:10/Lysine 1:50 prediction model as follows:
Evaluation of results according to the Cysteine 1:10/Lysine 1:50 prediction model
Mean peptide depletion [%] |
Reactivity Class |
DPRA Prediction |
0 – ≤6.38 |
No or Minimal |
Negative |
>6.38 – ≤22.62 |
Low |
Positive |
>22.62 – ≤42.47 |
Moderate |
|
>42.47 - ≤100 |
High |
The mean peptide depletion in the Cys-peptide and Lys-peptide assay was 32.67 %, therefore the test item was classified with DPRA Prediction positive and reactivity class moderate.
Results of Repetition II: All control substances indicated the expected effect. No considerable reduction of the viability was detected (all values >100%). Regarding the Luciferase induction, the growth control and the negative control did not exceed the threshold of 1.5 fold in comparison to the solvent control (growth control: 1.0 fold, negative control: 1.0 fold). However, the positive control induced a clear effect with an induction value of 6.5 fold in comparison to the solvent control. No cytotoxic effect was observed up to the highest test item concentration. The viability values were all >100% and therefore analysable for luciferase induction.
In the Luciferase assay, all of the tested concentrations induced a statistically significant and extremely high increase (13.8 fold to 29.8 fold) in luciferase induction above the threshold of 1.5 fold in comparison to the solvent control.
Results of repetition II
Parameter |
Concentration [µM] |
Induction of Luciferase |
Viability of the Cells |
||||
Mean Induction [fold] |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation [%] |
Mean Relative Viability [%] |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation [%] |
||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.08 |
8.08 |
100.0 |
4.81 |
4.81 |
Growth Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.08 |
7.57 |
125.3 |
5.92 |
4.73 |
Negative Control |
5000 |
1.0 |
0.11 |
10.21 |
108.4 |
6.98 |
6.44 |
Positive Control |
120 |
6.5 |
0.94 |
14.46 |
102.7 |
2.85 |
2.78 |
Test item |
269 |
15.5 |
1.83 |
11.78 |
132.1 |
1.95 |
1.47 |
Test item |
323 |
13.8 |
2.50 |
18.17 |
118.3 |
4.03 |
3.40 |
Test item |
388 |
16.7 |
2.24 |
13.40 |
124.8 |
7.12 |
5.70 |
Test item |
465 |
16.4 |
1.56 |
9.54 |
123.0 |
4.76 |
3.87 |
Test item |
558 |
16.2 |
1.15 |
7.09 |
126.6 |
3.78 |
2.99 |
Test item |
670 |
18.5 |
2.04 |
11.03 |
125.5 |
3.28 |
2.62 |
Test item |
804 |
18.4 |
0.62 |
3.35 |
128.4 |
10.02 |
7.81 |
Test item |
965 |
19.6 |
1.96 |
9.99 |
126.2 |
1.62 |
1.29 |
Test item |
1157 |
22.2 |
3.57 |
16.06 |
125.4 |
4.78 |
3.81 |
Test item |
1389 |
24.4 |
3.24 |
13.25 |
126.5 |
4.83 |
3.82 |
Test item |
1667 |
22.8 |
2.02 |
8.84 |
121.7 |
5.29 |
4.34 |
Test item |
2000 |
29.8 |
5.10 |
17.12 |
129.1 |
3.86 |
2.99 |
Results of Repetition III: All control substances indicated the expected effect. No considerable reduction of the viability was detected (all values ≥99%). Regarding the Luciferase induction, the growth control and the negative control did not exceed the threshold of 1.5 fold in comparison to the solvent control (growth control: 1.1 fold, negative control: 1.0 fold). However, the positive control induced a clear effect with an induction value of 6.1 fold in comparison to the solvent control. No cytotoxic effect was observed up to the highest test item concentration. The viability values were all >100% and therefore analysable for luciferase induction.
In the Luciferase assay, all of the tested concentrations induced a statistically significant and extremely high increase (22.4 fold to 28.8 fold) in luciferase induction above the threshold of 1.5 fold in comparison to the solvent control.
Results of repetition III
Parameter |
Concentration [µM] |
Induction of Luciferase |
Viability of the Cells |
||||
Mean Induction [fold] |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation [%] |
Mean Relative Viability [%] |
Standard Deviation |
Standard Deviation [%] |
||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.0 |
0.08 |
7.72 |
100.0 |
3.64 |
3.64 |
Growth Control |
- |
1.1 |
0.09 |
8.16 |
142.8 |
5.52 |
3.87 |
Negative Control |
5000 |
1.0 |
0.05 |
4.72 |
106.5 |
3.09 |
2.90 |
Positive Control |
120 |
6.1 |
0.22 |
3.60 |
98.7 |
1.49 |
1.51 |
Test item |
269 |
22.4 |
1.51 |
6.76 |
132.6 |
3.79 |
2.86 |
Test item |
323 |
24.5 |
2.93 |
11.94 |
129.0 |
3.44 |
2.67 |
Test item |
388 |
23.4 |
1.21 |
5.16 |
137.7 |
7.67 |
5.57 |
Test item |
465 |
22.7 |
3.20 |
14.09 |
136.7 |
5.56 |
4.06 |
Test item |
558 |
23.6 |
0.64 |
2.72 |
134.2 |
6.43 |
4.79 |
Test item |
670 |
24.3 |
1.49 |
6.12 |
133.8 |
4.64 |
3.47 |
Test item |
804 |
26.2 |
2.25 |
8.59 |
138.1 |
6.50 |
4.70 |
Test item |
965 |
25.9 |
2.41 |
9.30 |
136.5 |
2.68 |
1.97 |
Test item |
1157 |
26.3 |
1.34 |
5.10 |
136.7 |
4.03 |
2.95 |
Test item |
1389 |
25.6 |
2.68 |
10.45 |
134.1 |
3.07 |
2.29 |
Test item |
1667 |
26.6 |
1.59 |
5.98 |
133.7 |
4.42 |
3.30 |
Test item |
2000 |
28.8 |
6.09 |
21.14 |
132.0 |
6.96 |
5.27 |
EVALUATION
Acceptability: In the following table the criteria for acceptability as well as the corresponding results in repetition II and III are given.
Acceptability of repetition II and III
Criteria |
Found in repetition II |
Found in repetition III |
The average induction for the positive control should be ≥2.5 fold and it should have a relative viability of at least 70%. |
Positive control Fold induction: 6.5, Relative viability: 102.7% |
Positive control Fold induction: 6.1, Relative viability: 98.7 % |
The induction triggered by the negative control and growth control should be <1.5 fold as compared to the induction of the solvent control and the viability should be above 70%. |
Negative control: 1.0 Fold induction, 108.4% Relative viability; Growth control: 1.0 Fold induction, 125.3% Relative viability |
Negative control: 1.0 Fold induction, 106.5% Relative viability; Growth control: 1.1 Fold induction, 142.8% Relative viability |
The average percentage standard deviation (luciferase induction) of the variability in at least 21 solvent control wells should be below 20%. |
8.08% |
7.72% |
At least 3 test concentrations must be within viability limits, i.e. have relative viability of at least 70%. |
12 concentrations are analysable |
12 concentrations are analysable |
In case a result is to be considered negative, at least one concentration should be cytotoxic, i.e. have a cell viability <70%, or the maximum concentration of 2000 µM (2000 µg/mL) should have been tested |
The result is positive and the maximum concentration of 2000 µM (2000 µg/mL) was tested |
The result is positive and the maximum concentration of 2000 µM (2000 µg/mL) was tested |
All validity criteria were met. Therefore, the study is valid.
Prediction Model: Each valid experiment (i.e. meeting all acceptance criteria, according to the procedure described above) is interpreted as follows: A test compound is considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor if the luciferase induction is ≥1.5 fold and statistically significant compared to the vehicle control in 2 (or more than) consecutive non-cytotoxic (relative viability ≥70%) tested concentrations whereby at least three tested concentrations must be non-cytotoxic in two independent valid repetitions. A test compound is considered not to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor if the effects mentioned above are not observed. A negative result obtained with test chemicals that do not form a stable dispersion and/or were not tested up to 2000 µM (or 2000 µg/mL for test chemicals with no defined molecular weight) and for which no cytotoxicity is observed in any of the tested concentration should be considered as inconclusive.
In order to come to a conclusion, a minimum of two valid and independent repetitions need to indicate a positive or negative result according to the criteria described above. If the first two repetitions come to the same result (i.e. either being negative or being positive) no further testing is required. In case that the first two repetitions give discordant results (i.e. one is negative and the other is positive), a third independent repetition needs to be conducted to complete the study. The potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor of a test substance is determined by the result of the majority of the repetitions of an experiment. If two of two or two of three repetitions are negative/positive, the substance is considered as negative/positive.
The luciferase induction was ≥ 1.5 fold and statistically significant compared to the solvent control in 2 (or more) consecutive non-cytotoxic tested concentrations in repetitions II and III. Therefore, the test item 1,3-Diiodopropane is considered to have the potential to activate the Nrf2 transcription factor under the conditions of the LuSens test.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the outcome of two key event studies in the adverse outcome pathway approach, the substance is to be classified as a moderate skin sensitiser, category 1B according to CLP (Regulation EC No 1272/2008).
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.

EU Privacy Disclaimer
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our websites.