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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 915-372-8 | CAS number: -
- 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
Genetic toxicity: in vitro
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- in vitro cytogenicity / chromosome aberration study in mammalian cells
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2016-02-08 to 2016-04-18
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 016
- Report date:
- 2016
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 473 (In Vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test)
- Version / remarks:
- 2014
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.5375 - In vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test
- Version / remarks:
- 1998
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.10 (Mutagenicity - In Vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test)
- Version / remarks:
- 2008
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of assay:
- in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Reaction mass of lauric acid, compound with morpholine (1:1) and 2-ethylhexyl dihydrogen phosphate, compound with morpholine (1:2) and bis(2-ethylhexyl) hydrogen phosphate, compound with morpholine (1:1)
- EC Number:
- 915-372-8
- Molecular formula:
- not applicable (multi-const.substance)
- IUPAC Name:
- Reaction mass of lauric acid, compound with morpholine (1:1) and 2-ethylhexyl dihydrogen phosphate, compound with morpholine (1:2) and bis(2-ethylhexyl) hydrogen phosphate, compound with morpholine (1:1)
- Test material form:
- liquid
Constituent 1
Method
Species / strain
- Species / strain / cell type:
- Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79)
- Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- CELLS USED
- Source of cells: ECACC (European Collection of Cell Cultures)
- Lot. No.: 10H016
- Suitability of cells: The V79 cell line is well established in toxicology studies. Stability of karyotype and morphology makes them suitable for gene toxicity assays with low background aberrations.
- Cell cycle length, doubling time or proliferation index: doubling time 12-14 h
- Modal number of chromosomes: 2n = 22
MEDIA USED
- Type and identity of media including CO2 concentration if applicable: The laboratory cultures were maintained in 75 cm2 plastic flasks at 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5 % CO2. The V79 cells for this study were grown in DME (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s) medium supplemented with L-glutamine and 1 % of Antibiotic-antimycotic solution (containing 10000 NE/mL penicillin, 10 mg/mL streptomycin and 25 μg/mL amphotericin-B) and heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (final concentration 10 %).
- Properly maintained: yes
- Periodically checked for Mycoplasma contamination: yes
- Periodically checked for karyotype stability: yes
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Metabolic activation system:
- S9 fraction of phenobarbital (PB) and β-naphthoflavone (BNF) induced rat liver
- Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
- Concentrations were chosen based on a preliminary cytotoxicty test:
Experiment A
150, 125, 100, 50 µg/mL
Experiment B
75, 50, 25, 12.5, 1.5 µg/mL - Vehicle / solvent:
- - Vehicle(s)/solvent(s) used: DMSO
- Justification for choice of solvent/vehicle: This vehicle is compatible with the survival of the V79cells and the S9 activity and was chosen based on the results of the preliminary Solubility Test, and its suitability is confirmed with the available laboratory’s historical database.
Controlsopen allclose all
- Untreated negative controls:
- no
- Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
- yes
- True negative controls:
- no
- Positive controls:
- yes
- Positive control substance:
- ethylmethanesulphonate
- Untreated negative controls:
- no
- Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
- yes
- True negative controls:
- no
- Positive controls:
- yes
- Positive control substance:
- cyclophosphamide
- Details on test system and experimental conditions:
- METHOD OF APPLICATION: in medium
- Cell density at seeding: 5 x 10^5 cells/dish
DURATION
- Exposure duration: 3 h with metabolic activation; 20 h without metabolic acitvation
- Expression time (cells in growth medium):
- Fixation time (start of exposure up to fixation or harvest of cells): 1.5 cell cycles (20 h, without S9 mix only) and at approximately 2 normal cell cycles (28 h, without and with S9 mix) from the beginning of treatment to cover a potential mitotic delay.
SPINDLE INHIBITOR: colchicine (0.2 μg/mL) 2.5-3 hours prior to harvest.
STAIN: 5 % Giemsa
NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS: 2 plates/concesntration
NUMBER OF CELLS EVALUATED: 300
DETERMINATION OF CYTOTOXICITY
- Method: Relative Increase in Cell Counts (RICC)
- Any supplementary information relevant to cytotoxicity:
OTHER EXAMINATIONS:
- Determination of polyploidy: yes
- Determination of endoreplication: yes - Evaluation criteria:
- – The percentage of cells with structural chromosome aberration(s) was evaluated.
– Different types of structural chromosome aberrations were listed with their numbers and frequencies for experimental and control cultures.
– Gaps were recorded separately and reported but generally not included in the total aberration frequency.
– Concurrent measures of cytotoxicity for all treated and negative control cultures in the main aberration experiment(s) were recorded.
– Individual culture data were summarised in tabular form.
Interpretation of Results
Providing that all acceptability criteria are fulfilled, a test item is considered to be clearly positive if:
– at least one of the test concentrations exhibits a statistically significant increase compared with the concurrent negative control,
– the increase is dose-related when evaluated with an appropriate trend test,
– any of the results are outside the distribution of the laboratory historical negative control data.
Providing that all acceptability criteria are fulfilled, a test chemical is considered clearly negative because:
– none of the test concentrations exhibits a statistically significant increase compared with the concurrent negative control,
– there is no concentration-related increase when evaluated with an appropriate trend test,
– all results are inside the distribution of the laboratory historical negative control data. - Statistics:
- For statistical analysis, Fisher exact and CHI2 tests were utilized. The parameters evaluated for statistical analysis were the number of aberrations (with and without gaps) and number of cells with aberrations (with and without gaps). The number of aberrations in the treatment and positive control groups were compared to the concurrent negative control. The concurrent negative and positive controls and the treatment groups were compared to the laboratory historical controls, too.
Results and discussion
Test results
- Key result
- Species / strain:
- Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79)
- Metabolic activation:
- with and without
- Genotoxicity:
- negative
- Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
- cytotoxicity
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Untreated negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Additional information on results:
- TEST-SPECIFIC CONFOUNDING FACTORS
- Effects of pH: no differences to negative control
- Effects of osmolality: no differences to negative control
- Precipitation: There was no precipitation in the medium at any concentration tested.
RANGE-FINDING/SCREENING STUDIES: In order to determine the treatment concentrations of test item in the cytogenetic study a dose selection (cytotoxicity assay) was performed.
HISTORICAL CONTROL DATA (with ranges, means and standard deviation and confidence interval (e.g. 95%)
see table 1. - 5. in "any other information on results"
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CYTOTOXICITY:
- Measurement of cytotoxicity used: RICC
Any other information on results incl. tables
Table 1. 3 h/20 h treatment/sampling time without S9-mix
|
number of aberrant cells/150 cells |
|||
|
Negative control |
Positive control (Ethyl methanesulfonate) |
||
|
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Mean |
4.59 |
2.16 |
39.84 |
32.16 |
SD |
1.84 |
1.37 |
5.01 |
4.02 |
Lower confidence interval |
0.00 |
0.00 |
23.89 |
19.38 |
Upper confidence interval |
10.44 |
6.52 |
55.80 |
44.94 |
n |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Table 2. 3 h/20 h treatment/sampling time with S9-mix
|
number of aberrant cells/150 cells |
|||
|
Negative control |
Positive control (Cyclophosphamide) |
||
|
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Mean |
5.44 |
2.34 |
50.34 |
44.53 |
SD |
1.73 |
0.62 |
2.53 |
4.35 |
Lower confidence interval |
0.00 |
0.38 |
42.31 |
30.71 |
Upper confidence interval |
10.95 |
4.31 |
58.38 |
58.36 |
n |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Table 3. 20 h/20 h treatment/sampling time without S9-mix
|
number of aberrant cells/150 cells |
|||
|
Negative control |
Positive control (Ethyl methanesulfonate) |
||
|
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Mean |
4.94 |
2.34 |
45.28 |
39.75 |
SD |
1.06 |
0.79 |
4.11 |
2.55 |
Lower confidence interval |
1.55 |
0.00 |
32.21 |
31.64 |
Upper confidence interval |
8.32 |
4.87 |
58.35 |
47.86 |
n |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Table 4. 20 h/28 h treatment/sampling time without S9-mix
|
number of aberrant cells/150 cells |
|||
|
Negative control |
Positive control (Ethyl methanesulphonate) |
||
|
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Mean |
5.06 |
2.16 |
45.94 |
40.69 |
SD |
0.87 |
0.36 |
4.61 |
12.43 |
Lower confidence interval |
2.31 |
1.01 |
31.27 |
28.26 |
Upper confidence interval |
7.82 |
3.03 |
60.61 |
53.11 |
n |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Table 5. 3 h/28 h treatment/sampling time with S9-mix
|
number of aberrant cells/150 cells |
|||
|
Negative control |
Positive control (Cyclophosphamide) |
||
|
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Incl. Gaps |
Excl. Gaps |
Mean |
4.97 |
2.16 |
47.91 |
40.59 |
SD |
0.36 |
0.94 |
2.81 |
3.10 |
Lower confidence interval |
3.82 |
0.00 |
38.97 |
30.72 |
Upper confidence interval |
6.12 |
5.14 |
56.84. |
50.47 |
n |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- The test item tested up to cytotoxic concentrations, both with and without mammalian metabolic activation system, did not induce structural chromosome aberrations in Chinese Hamster lung cells.
Therefore, the test item is considered as not clastogenic in this system. - Executive summary:
The test item, was tested in a Chromosome Aberration Assay in V79 cells. The test item was dissolved in DMSO and the following concentrations were selected on the basis of cytotoxicity investigations made in a preliminary study (with and without metabolic activation using S9 mix of phenobarbital and β-naphthoflavone induced rat liver). In the two independent experiments of the Chromosome Aberration Assay (Experiments A and B, both run in duplicate) at least 300 well-spread metaphase cells were analysed at concentrations and incubation/expression intervals given below:
Experiment A with 3/20 h treatment/sampling time
without and with S9 mix: 50, 100, 125 and 1501 μg/mL
with S9 mix: 100, 150, 175 and 200 μg/mL
Experiment B with 20/20 h treatment/sampling time
without S9 mix: 12.5, 25, 50 and 751 μg/mL
Experiment B with 20/28 h treatment/sampling time without S9 mix: 12.5, 25, 50 and 75 1 μg/mL
Experiment B with 3/28 h treatment/sampling time with S9 mix: 100, 150, 175 and 200 μg/mL
In Experiment A, there were no biologically significant increases in the number of cells showing structural chromosome aberrations, neither in the absence nor in the presence of metabolic activation, up to and including cytotoxic concentrations. There were no statistical differences between treatment and concurrent solvent and historical control groups and no dose-response relationships were noted. In Experiment B, the frequency of the cells with structural chromosome aberrations did not show significant alterations compared to concurrent and historical controls, up to cytotoxic concentrations without S9 mix over a prolonged treatment period of 20 hours with harvest at 20 or 28 hours following treatment start. Further, a 3-hour treatment up to cytotoxic concentrations in the presence of S9 mix with 28-hour harvest from the beginning of treatment did not cause an increase in the number of cells with structural chromosome aberrations. In both experiments, no statistically significant differences between treatment and concurrent solvent control groups and no dose-response relationships were noted. The observed chromosome aberration rates were within the ranges of historical control data. There were no biologically relevant increases in the rate of polyploid or endoreduplicated metaphases in either experiment in the presence or absence of metabolic activation. There was no precipitation of the test item at any dose level tested. No biologically relevant changes in pH or osmolality of the test system were noted at the different dose levels tested. The validity of the test was shown as the concurrent positive controls Ethyl methanesulfonate (0.4 or 1.0 μL/mL) and Cyclophosphamide (5.0 μg/mL) caused the expected increases in cells with structural chromosome aberrations and were compatible with the historical control range.
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.