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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
migrated information: read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Study was conducted according to internationally accepted guideline and GLP.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1996
Report date:
1996

Materials and methods

Test guidelineopen allclose all
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: Annex V, B6 Magnusson & Kligman
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test

Test material

Constituent 1
Reference substance name:
dienone
IUPAC Name:
dienone
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report):Dienone
- Substance type: off-white powder
- Physical state: solid
- Analytical purity: 99.5% (by DSC)
- Lot/batch No.: Y08696/002 C166/1
- Storage condition of test material: Ambient temperatures in the dark

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Charles River
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Species: Guinea Pig
Strain: Albino Dunkin Hartley
Source: David Hall, Darley Oaks, Newchurch, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Sex: Male
Number Used: Twenty test and 10 control
Specification: Young Adults
Weight: 386-500g at study initiation

Temperature: 17+/- 2 degC
Relative Humidity: 40-70%
Air: Approximately 25 changes/hour
Light cycle: Artificial, giving 12 hours light, 12 hours dark.

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
corn oil
Concentration / amount:
Concentration of test material and vehicle used at induction:
Intradermal injection - 3% w/v in corn oil
Topical induction - 92% w/v in corn oil (highest achievable
concentration)
One day prior to topical induction, 0.5ml of a 10% w/v
preparation of sodium lauryl sulphate in paraffin wax was
applied in order to provoke a mild inflammatory response.
Concentration of test material and vehicle used for each challenge:
92% and 75% in corn oil
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
corn oil
Concentration / amount:
Concentration of test material and vehicle used at induction:
Intradermal injection - 3% w/v in corn oil
Topical induction - 92% w/v in corn oil (highest achievable
concentration)
One day prior to topical induction, 0.5ml of a 10% w/v
preparation of sodium lauryl sulphate in paraffin wax was
applied in order to provoke a mild inflammatory response.
Concentration of test material and vehicle used for each challenge:
92% and 75% in corn oil
No. of animals per dose:
Number of animals in test group: 20
Number of animals in negative control group: 10
Positive control substance(s):
yes

Study design: in vivo (LLNA)

Positive control substance(s):
hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)

Results and discussion

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
92%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 92%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
75%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 75%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
92%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 92%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
75%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 75%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
92%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 92%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
75%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 75%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
92%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 92%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
75%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 75%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
Conclusions:
Based on read-across to dienone, didenac is not a sensitiser.
Maximum concentration not causing irritating effects in preliminary test: 10 %
Signs of irritation during induction:
No irritation was noted following intradermal injections or
the topical induction.
No irritation was observed in the control animals.
Evidence of sensitisation of each challenge concentration:
92% - Not a Skin Sensitiser. Net response 0%
75% - Not a Skin Sensitiser. Net response 0%
Executive summary:

There are no available skin sensitization studies on didenac. Results of a study conducted with a structurally similar compound (dienone) are reported and used for read-across.

The sensitisation potential of Dienone was assessed using a method based on the maximisation test described by Magnusson and Kligman (1970). The study involved the treatment of guinea pigs using two procedures: the potential induction of an immune response and a challenge by assessing the degree of erythema.

Following challenge of previously induced guinea pigs with a 92% or a 75% w/v preparation of the test substance in corn oil, no erthematous response was seen on any of the test or control animals. A positive control study using hexylcinnamaldehyde demonstrated the sensitivity of the test system.

Dienone is not a skin sensitiser under the conditions of the test.

By read across, didenac is also not a skin sensitiser under these conditions.