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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 219-371-7 | CAS number: 2425-79-8
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Additional information
In the GLP compliant, key bacterial reverse mutation assay (according to OECD guideline 471), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was tested at doses of 0, 10, 100, 333.3, 1,000, or 5,000 µg/plate in Salmonella typhimurium strains TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537, and TA 1538 both in the absence and presence of exogenous metabolic activation (Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9) (Timm, 1987). The experiment was conducted in triplicate; however, an independent repeat experiment was not performed. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as the vehicle and positive controls were included in all incubations. No cytotoxicity was observed at any Butanediol diglycidyl ether concentration either in the absence or presence of metabolic activation; however, increases in the reverse mutation rates were observed in strains TA 98, TA 100, and TA 1535 both in the absence and presence of metabolic activation and in strain TA 1538 in the absence of metabolic activation. Incubation with positive control substances in the presence or absence of metabolic activation resulted in anticipated increases in reverse mutation rates.
Similar mutagenic results were noted in a supportive, non-GLP bacterial reverse mutation assay (equivalent to OECD guideline 471) where Butanediol diglycidyl ether was tested at doses of 0, 25, 75, 225, 675, or 2,025 µg/0.1 mL in S. typhimurium strains TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, and TA 1537 both in the absence and presence of exogenous metabolic activation (Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9) (Arni and Müller, 1978). No cytotoxicity was noted; however, increases in the reverse mutation rates were noted in strain TA 98 in the absence of metabolic activation and in strains TA 100 and TA 1535 in the presence of metabolic activation. Incubation with positive control substances either in the presence or absence of metabolic activation resulted in anticipated increases in the reverse mutation rate.
In a key, GLP compliant mammalian chromosome aberration test (equivalent to OECD guideline 473), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was tested at doses of 0, 1, 5, 10, 50, or 100 µg/mL in Chinese hamster lung fibroblast (V79) cells in the absence or presence of exogenous metabolic activation (Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9) (Stammberger, 1992). Incubations at each concentration were done in duplicate; however, an independent repeat experiment was not performed. Minimum essential medium was used as the vehicle control and ethylmethanesulfonate and cyclophosphamide were used as the positive control compounds in the absence and presence of metabolic activation, respectively. No cytotoxicity was observed; however, chromosome damage was noted at concentrations of 5 µg/mL and above. Incubations with the positive control compound resulted in anticipated increases in chromatid damage. The scoring of less than 200 metaphase cells per concentration rendered this study reliable with restrictions.
In a key, GLP compliant mammalian gene mutation assay (equivalent to OECD guideline 476), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was tested at doses of 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, or 50 μg/mL in the absence of exogenous metabolic activation (Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9) and at doses of 0, 10, 50, 100, 175, or 200 μg/mL in the presence of exogenous metabolic activation in V79 cells (Stammberger, 1992). The experiment was conducted in duplicate and an independent repeat experiment was performed. Minimum essential medium was used as the vehicle and ethylmethanesulfonate and 9,10-dimethyl-1,2-benzanthracene were used as the positive control compounds in the absence and presence of metabolic activation, respectively. Cytotoxicity was noted at 50 μg/mL in the absence of metabolic activation in the second experiment only. Increases in the mutant frequency were observed both in the absence and presence of metabolic activation. Incubation with positive control substances in the absence or presence of metabolic activation resulted in anticipated increases in the mutation frequencies.
Similar mutagenic results were noted in a non-GLP mammalian gene mutation assay (equivalent to OECD guideline 476) in which Butanediol diglycidyl ether was tested at doses of 0, 1.31, 2.63, 5.25, 10.5, or 21 nL/mL in the absence of exogenous metabolic activation (Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9)and at doses of 0, 49.4, 65.8, 87.8, 117, or 156 nL/mL in the presence of exogenous metabolic activation in mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells (Beilstein, 1983). Cytotoxicity was noted at concentrations of 21 nL/mL and 156 nL/mL in the absence and presence of metabolic activation, respectively. Increases in the mutant frequency were observed both in the absence and presence of metabolic activation. Incubation with positive control substances ethylmethane sulfonate and dimethylnitrosamine in the absence and presence of metabolic activation, respectively, resulted in anticipated increases in the mutation frequencies.
In the key, GLP-compliant in vivo micronucleus assay (according to OECD guideline 474), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was administered via oral gavage to male ICR mice at doses of 0 (control), 187.5, 375, or 750 mg/kg body weight (Schisler, 2010). 0.5% Methocel was used as the vehicle and cyclophosphamide monohydrate was administered via gavage as the positive control compound. The test article was administered once/day for 2 consecutive days and animals were sacrificed 48 hours after the second administration (6 to 8 mice/dose). None of the mice died; however, 3 mice of the high-dose group had a decreased amount of feces (no other clinical signs of toxicity were noted). No statistically significant increases in the number of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes were noted following butanediol diglycidyl ether administration. The positive control compound caused anticipated increases in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes.
In a non-GLP sister chromatid exchange study (no OECD guideline available with which to compare the study design), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was administered via oral (gavage) to male and female Chinese hamsters at doses of 600, 1,200, or 2,400 mg/kg body weight (Strasser, 1983). A combination of sodium carboxymethylcellulose and Tween 80 was used as the vehicle and 7,12-dimethylbenzanthracene was administered via gavage as the positive control compound. The test article was administered once and animals were sacrificed 24 hours after exposure (4 hamsters/sex/dose). No clinical signs of toxicity were observed and no statistically significant increases in the number of sister chromatid exchanges were noted following epoxy resin administration. The positive control compound caused anticipated increases in the number of sister chromatid exchanges.
In an earlier, non-GLP in vivo micronucleus assay (equivalent to OECD guideline 474), Butanediol diglycidyl ether was administered via oral gavage to male and female Chinese hamsters at doses of 600, 1,000, 1,200, 1,500, 2,000, 2,400, 2,500, or 3,000 mg/kg body weight (Strasser, 1984). Under the experimental conditions used, this report does not meet current guidelines for the in vivo micronucleus test and hence is not reliable for assessment of in vivo genetox potential. Although the current guideline standards (OECD 474, 1997) have changed from when this study was reported (1984), the study did not follow the guideline that was in effect at the time of the study conduct. Most notably, the protocol used for the study was a non-traditional and un-validated version of the micronucleus test and has a number of specific issues that preclude it from being suitable for inclusion. Most significantly, the methodological analysis of bone marrow cells was incompletely described in the report and used a flawed methodology that counted all bone marrow cells (both nucleated and non-nucleated). Specifically, the proportion of the 1000 cells counted for each individual cell type (i.e., single Jolly bodies, erythrocytes, erythroblasts, leucopoietic cells, and polyploid cells) may be highly variable between samples and makes a direct comparison impossible and, as a result, may inappropriately skew the counts due to the population of cells analysed. For example, the small differences seen between the control and some of the treated groups could have been simply due to differences in cell populations among the 1000 analysed cells. Furthermore, no assessment of bone marrow toxicity was undertaken, which is an essential to properly interpret the micronucleus data, especially when there were only marginal increases.
In addition, a number of other significant deviations from the current guideline raise questions as to the validity of the results, including: 1) the dose levels where positive effects are noted all exceed the current limit dose of 2000 mg/kg bw/day, 2) associated systemic toxicity including body temperature was not reported (except death), which is critical for assessment of a maximum tolerated dose for interpretation of the results, 3) the number of animals analysed per group was less than the required 5/sex/dose, which may distort group means, 4) the samples do not appear to have been blinded to the scorer for analysis, 5) although mean body weights for each group are not presented, the range in body weights suggest potential for greater than ±20% variability as stated in the guideline, 6) current guidelines require 2000 polychromatic erythrocytes/reticulocytes to be counted per animal (along with a PCE/NCE ratio), whereas only 1000 unspecified total cells were counted in this report, and 7) an inconclusive dose response was reported in the second experiment, where similar alterations were reported at 1500 and 2500 mg/kg, but no effect was seen at 2000 mg/kg.
Short description of key information:
The genetic toxicity of butanediol diglycidyl ether has been
assessed in 5 in vitro studies (including 2 bacterial reverse mutation
assays and a mammalian chromosome aberration test) as well as in 3 in
vivo studies (two micronucleus assays and a sister chromatid exchange
study). Positive results were reported in all studies in vitro studies,
with the exception of the unreliable in vivo hamster micronucleus study,
all of the in vivo studies were negative.
Endpoint Conclusion: No adverse effect observed (negative)
Justification for classification or non-classification
The submission substance produced five positive genotoxic in vitro results, one unreliable positive in vivo somatic cell genotoxic result, and two negative in vivo somatic cell genotoxic results. According to the Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria (ECHA Reference ECHA-09-G-02-EN), if positive results in vitro are supported by at least one positive local in vivo, somatic cell test, such an effect should be considered as enough evidence to lead to classification in Category 2. If there is also negative or equivocal data, a weight of evidence approach using expert judgement has to be applied. The positive in vivo somatic cell study is not reliable for the evaluation of in vivo cytogenetic effects as a result of the significant deviations from both current and contemporary guideline requirements for an acceptable in vivo micronucleus test. The submission substance contains highly reactive oxirane functional groups, thus the positive in vitro results are not unexpected. As a result of expert judgement, the substance does not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, Annex I section 3.5. (Additional details are reported in the field "Attached documents" and in section 13 "Assessment reports" see file "Assessment BDDGE Genotoxicity-Carcinogenicity").
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.