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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 200-090-3 | CAS number: 51-34-3
- 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
Based on all available data and using the weight of evidence approach, scopolamine is classified for skin sensitization Cat. 1A H317 (May cause an allergic reaction to skin).
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2016-12-07 to 2017-01-28
- 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:
- February 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Details on the study design:
- - Preparation of the Test Item
The test item was freshly prepared immediately prior to use and dissolved in acetonitrile (vehicle).
Stock solutions with a concentration of 10 mM (lysine peptide run 2), 50 mM (lysine peptide run 3), and 100 mM (cysteine and lysine peptide run 1, experiment 1) were prepared.
- Controls
Reference controls, co-elution controls and a positive control were set up in parallel to the test item in order to confirm the validity of the test.
- Positive Control
Cinnamic aldehyde ((2E)-3-phenylprop-2-enal) was solved in acetonitrile and was used as positive control. A stock concentration of 100 mM was prepared and was included in every assay run.
- Co-elution Control
Co-elution controls were set up in parallel to sample preparation but without the respective peptide solution. The controls were used to verify whether a test chemical absorbs at 220 nm and co-elutes with the cysteine or lysine peptide. The co-elution controls were prepared for every test item preparation and the positive control and were included in every assay run.
- Reference Control
Reference controls were set up in parallel to sample preparation in order to verify the validity of the test run.
Reference control A was prepared using acetonitrile in order to verify the accuracy of the calibration curve for peptide quantification. Its replicates were injected in the beginning of each HPLC run.
Reference control B was prepared using acetonitrile in order to verify the stability of the respective peptide over the analysis time. Its replicates were injected in the beginning and in the end of each HPLC run.
Reference control C was set up for the test item and the positive control. Reference control C for the test item was prepared using the respective solvent used to solubilize the test item. Reference control C for the positive control was prepared using acetonitrile. Reference control C was used to verify that the solvent does not impact the percent peptide depletion (PPD). Additionally reference control C was used to calculate PPD. Reference control was included in every assay run for both peptides and was injected together with the samples.
- HPLC system
HPLC/DAD: Agilent, 1200 Series, with Chemstation, Rev. B.04.01
Detection: 220 nm signal for quantitation; 258 nm signal used as indicator for co-elution
Analytical Column: Zorbax SB-C18, 100 mm x 2.1 mm, 3.5 µ m, Agilent Art. Nr. 861753-902
Pre-Column: Phenomenex, AJO-4286, 4.0 x 2.0 mm. Art. Nr: AJO-4286
Column Temperature: 30 °C
Sample Temperature: 25 °C
Run time: 20 minutes
Injection volume: 10µL
HPLC Mobile Phase (Cysteine Run, Experiment 1; Lysine Run 2 and 3)
HPLC Mobile Phase A: 0.1% ( v/v) trifluoroacetic acid in water
HPLC Mobile Phase B: 0.085% ( v/v) trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile
HPLC Mobile Phase (Lysine Run 1, Experiment 1)
HPLC Mobile Phase A: 0.085% ( v/v) trifluoroacetic acid in water
HPLC Mobile Phase B: 0.1% ( v/v) trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile - Positive control results:
- Refer to "Any other information on result incl. tables"
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Cysteine Peptide Depletion
- Parameter:
- other: Mean Peptide Depletion
- Value:
- 0.54
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Run / experiment:
- other: Lysine Peptide Depletion Run 1
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- not determinable
- Run / experiment:
- other: Lysine Peptide Run 2
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Remarks:
- Due to the influence of the test item on the elution behaviour of the lysine peptide the lysine peak areas from the test item samples of run 2 were not evaluated
- Run / experiment:
- other: Lysine Peptide Run 3
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Remarks:
- Due to the influence of the test item on the elution behaviour of the lysine peptide the lysine peak areas from the test item samples of run 3 were not evaluated
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- Acceptance Criteria
The run met the acceptance criteria if:
-the standard calibration curve has a r² > 0.99,
- the mean percent peptide depletion (PPD) value of the three replicates for the positive control is between 60.8% and 100% for the cysteine peptide and the maximum standard deviation (SD) for the positive control replicates is < 14.9%,
-the mean percent peptide depletion (PPD) value of the three replicates for the positive control is between 40.2% and 69.0% for the lysine peptide and the maximum SD for the positive control replicates is < 11.6%,
-the mean peptide concentration of the three reference controls A replicates is 0.50 ± 0.05 mM,
- the coefficient of variation (CV) of peptide peak areas for the six reference control B replicates and three reference control C replicates in acetonitrile is < 15.0%.
The results of the test item meet the acceptance criteria if:
- the maximum standard deviation (SD) for the test chemical replicates is < 14.9% for the cysteine percent depletion (PPD),
- the maximum standard deviation (SD) for the test chemical replicates is < 11.6% for the lysine percent depletion (PPD),
- the mean peptide concentration of the three reference controls C replicates in the appropriate solvent is 0.50 ± 0.05 mM - Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- n/a
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Weight of Evidence approach
- Conclusions:
- In in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) under the given conditions the test item showed minimal reactivity towards the cysteine peptide. The test item might be considered as “non-sensitizer”. Mean cysteine peptide depletion for the test item was 0.54%.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on the absence of skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach. - Executive summary:
The in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by quantifying the reactivity of test chemicals towards synthetic peptides containing either lysine or cysteine.
In the present study (-) - Scopolamine was dissolved in acetonitrile. Based on a molecular weight of 303.35 g/mol different stock solutions were prepared. The test item solutions were tested by incubating the samples with peptides containing either cysteine or lysine for 24 ± 2 h at 25 ± 2.5 °C. Subsequently samples were analysed by HPLC.
Experiment 1 (cysteine peptide run, lysine peptide run 1):
A 100 mM stock solution of the test item was prepared, the test item solutions were incubated with a peptide containing cysteine (cysteine peptide run) and with a peptide containing lysine (lysine peptide run 1).
After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis the cysteine and lysine peptide samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. For the cysteine peptide run no precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. A slight precipitation was observed for the samples of the positive control, no centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis. For the lysine peptide run no precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. A phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. No centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis.
The 100 mM stock solution of the positive control (cinnamic aldehyde) showed high reactivity towards the synthetic peptides.The mean depletion of both peptides was 65.26%.
In lysine peptide run 1 only a small peak was observed at the retention time of the lysine peptide (in comparison to the standards and reference controls), suggesting an almost complete depletion of the lysine peptide. However, the test item eluted closely to the retention time of the peptide peak and a peak not occurring in the test item co-elution control and near the expected elution of the lysine peptide was observed in the chromatogram (see Figure 5). The high concentration of the test item –indicating an overload of the system by the peak tailing– in comparison to the lysine peptide and the close elution of both compounds made an influence on the elution behaviour of the peptide peak seem possible. It was suspected that the lysine peptide had not been depleted but that the peak had been shifted (forward) due to the influence of the test substance. Since the OECD guideline 442c as well as the requirements of GLP do not allow the change of the chromatographic conditions without method validation, within the scope of this study and for better comparability, it was decided to only change the concentration of the test item. Two further lysine peptide runs with reduced test item concentrations (10 mM and 50 mM) were performed in order to observe a possible shifting of the lysine peptide peak. Since the positive control acceptance criteria are based on a combination of results from a lysine and a cysteine peptide run, these criteria were excluded from evaluation for lysine peptide runs 2 and 3.
For the lysine run 1 the coefficient of determination for the calibration curve was > 0.99 (0.9999). The mean peptide depletion of the lysine peptide was between 40.2% and 69.0% (57.48%).The mean peptide concentration of reference controls A and reference controls C was between 0.45 and 0.55 mM (RC A: 0.50 mM, RC Cacetonitrile: 0.50 mM). The coefficient of variation of the peak areas of reference controls B and reference controls C was < 15%. (RC B: 0.28%, RC Cacetonitrile: 0.15%). The standard deviation of the peptide depletion for the replicates of the positive control was < 11.6% (PC: 1.25%; test item: n.a.%).
Lysine peptide run 2:
A 10 mM stock solution of the test item was prepared, the test item solutions were incubated with a peptide containing lysine.
After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis the lysine peptide samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. Turbidity and phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. Samples were not centrifuged prior to the HPLC analysis.
Lysine peptide run 3:
A 50 mM stock solution of the test item was prepared, the test item solutions were incubated with a peptide containing lysine.
After the 24 h±2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis the lysine peptide samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. A phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. No centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis.
The chromatograms of the different test item concentrations showed that the lysine peptide peak was shifted, depending on the test item concentration, as shown inFigure 5. It was concluded that the (chromatographic) conditions with 100 mM test item are not suitable for a (correct) separation of test item and peptide. The strong tailing proves an overload of the system and the peptide cannot be retained/eluted in the required way with this amount of test material. Therefore, the experiment is not considered suitable to properly display the depletion of the lysine peptide. Hence, the lysine reactivity was excluded from evaluation and only the cysteine was considered. Due to the influence of the test item on the elution behaviour of the lysine peptide, the peak areas from all three runs were not evaluated.
The sensitiing potential of the test item was predicted only from the peptide depletion of the cysteine peptide run (experiment 1) by comparing the peptide concentration of the test item treated samples to the corresponding reference control C (RC C).
The 100 mM stock solution of the test item showed minimal reactivity towards the synthetic peptide. The mean depletion of the cysteine peptide was£6.38% (0.54%). Based on the prediction model 2 the test item can be considered as non-sensitiser.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 21 February 2017 to 23 March 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: 442E: “In vitro Skin Sensitisation: human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT)” adopted 29 July 2016
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Details of test system:
- THP-1 cell line [442E]
- Details on the study design:
- Method:
- Cell line:
The test was carried out using THP-1 cells (ATCC® TIB-202TM), an acute human monocytic leukemic cell line used as a surrogate for DC. Cells from frozen stock cultures, tested routinely for mycoplasma, were seeded in culture medium at an appropriate density and subcultured at least 2 weeks before they were used in the in vitro h-CLAT test. Cells at passage number <30 (p 9 – main experiment 1, p 12 - main experiment 2) were used.
Cells were cultured in 75 cm^2 culture flasks (Greiner) in RPMI-1640, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 25 mM HEPES, L-glutamine, 0.05 mM 2-mercaptoethanol and 100 U/ml penicillin/ 100 µg/mL streptomycin at 37°C and 5% CO2.
- CD54 and CD86 Expression:
THP-1 cells were pre-cultured for at least 48 h.
500 µL of cell suspension were seeded into a 24 well flat-bottom plate (1 x 10^6 cells/well).
The solvent controls, the positive control and the working solutions were mixed 1:1 (v/v) with the cell suspensions prepared in the 24-well plate.
Treated plates were incubated for 24 h ± 0.5 h at 37 °C ± 1 °C and 5% CO2.
Blocking solution: 600 µL of a FcR blocking buffer (FACS buffer containing 0.01% (w/v) Globulin Cohn Fraction) and incubated at 4 °C for 15 min.
Staining: with 50 µL of FITC-labelled anti-CD86, anti-CD54 or mouse IgG1 antibodies (diluted in FACS buffer) in the dark for 30 min.
PI staining: was done just prior to the measurement by adding PI solutions to each sample (final concentration of PI was 0.625 µg/mL).
Expression level and cell viability: the expression levels of CD86 and CD54 as well as cell viability were analysed by flow cytometry using an excitation wavelength of lambda = 488 nm and an emission wavelength of lambda = 530 nm for FITC and lambda > 650 nm for PI. Based on the geometric mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), the relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) of CD86 and CD54 and cell viability was calculated.
Each test item was tested in two independent runs using separate cultivated cells at passage 9 (first experiment) and 12 (second experiment).
- Concentrations:
Dose finding assay 1 and 2: 1000, 500, 250, 125, 62.50, 31.25, 15.63 and 7.81 µg/mL
Main expt. 1 and 2: 1000, 833.33, 694.44, 578.70, 482.25, 401.88, 334.90, 279.08 µg/mL
- Controls:
Negative control (NC): Culture medium
Positive control (PC): 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB, CAS no.: 97-00-7), 4.0 µg/mL in 0.2% DMSO in culture medium
Vehicle control (VC): 0.2% DMSO in culture medium
Isotype control: In order to help distinguish non-specific (“background”) staining from specific antibody staining each test-substance concentration and control is additionally incubated with mouse IgG1. - Positive control results:
- Refer to "Any other information on result incl. tables"
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1 and 2
- Parameter:
- other: RFI CD54 [%]
- Value:
- 200 %
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1 and 2
- Parameter:
- other: RFI CD 86 [%]
- Value:
- 150 %
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- The controls confirmed the validity of the study.
The viability of the solvent control was >90% (96.7% - 96.8%).
The number tested test item concentrations with cell viability >50% was >=4 (8).
The RFI for CD86 and CD54 of cells treated with the solvent DMSO was <=150% (105% experiment 1; 116% experiment 2) and <=200% (137% experiment 1; 156% experiment 2).
The MFI ratio of the medium control and isotype IgG1control was >=105% for CD86 (171% experiment 1; 158% experiment 2) and CD54 (121% experiment 1; 111% experiment 2).
The MFI ratio of the solvent control (DMSO) and isotype IgG1 control was >=105% for CD86 (173% experiment 1; 162% experiment 2) and CD54 (128% experiment 1; 115% experiment 2).
The positive control (DNCB) led to an upregulation of the expression of CD54 and CD86 in both experiments. The threshold of 150% for CD86 (615% experiment 1; 508% experiment 2) and 200% for CD54 (519% experiment 1; 811% experiment 2) were clearly exceeded. - Interpretation of results:
- other: Weight of Evidence approach
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did not upregulate the expression of the cell surface marker in at least two independent hCLAT experimental runs when tested up to the maximum recommended concentration in accordance with current guideline requirements (1000 mcg/mL, in DMSO). Therefore the test item is considered not to no a skin sensitiser in this test system.
- Executive summary:
The in vitro human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the third molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely dendritic cell activation, by quantifying the expression of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. The expression of the cell surface markers compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitiser and non-sensitisers.
Prior to the main study the cell batch was checked for its reactivity towards known positive and negative controls and was found to be acceptable for further testing.
In the present study (-)-Scopolamine was dissolved in DMSO. For the dose finding assay stock solutions with a concentration of 500 mg/mL to 3.91 mg/mL were prepared by a serial dilution of 1:2. Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained with propidium iodide and cell viability was measured by FACS analysis. No CV75 could be derived in the dose finding assay.
Based on this, the main experiment was performed covering the following concentration steps:
1000, 833.33, 694.44, 578.70, 482.25, 401.88, 334.90, 279.08 µg/mL
Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained and cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 were measured by FACS analysis. Cell viability was assessed in parallel using propidium iodide staining.
No cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the test item. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 96.9% (CD86), 97.2% (CD54) and 97.3% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 95.5% (CD86), 95.6% (CD54) and 95.2% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment.
The expression of the cell surface marker CD86 was not upregulated above the threshold of 150% in any of the experiments. The expression of cell surface marker CD54 was not upregulated above the threshold of 200% in any of the experiments. Therefore, the test item is considered to be no skin sensitiser.
The positive control (DNCB) led to an upregulation of the expression of CD54 and CD86 in both experiments. The threshold of 150% for CD86 (615% experiment 1; 508% experiment 2) and 200% for CD54 (519% experiment 1; 811% experiment 2) were clearly exceeded.
The controls confirmed the validity of the study. The viability of the solvent control was >90% (96.7% - 96.8%). The number tested test item concentrations with cell viability >50% was =4 (8). The RFI for CD86 and CD54 of cells treated with the solvent DMSO was =150% (105% experiment 1; 116% experiment 2) and =200% (137% experiment 1; 156% experiment 2). The mean (geometric) fluorescence intensity (MFI) ratio of the medium control and isotype IgG1 control was =105% for CD86 (171% experiment 1; 158% experiment 2) and CD54 (121% experiment 1; 111% experiment 2). The MFI ratio of the solvent control (DMSO) and isotype IgG1 control was =105% for CD86 (173% experiment 1; 162% experiment 2) and CD54 (128% experiment 1; 115% experiment 2).
In this study under the given conditions the test item did not upregulate the expression of the cell surface marker in at least two independent hCLAT experimental runs when tested up to the maximum recommended concentration in accordance with current guideline requirements (1000 mcg/mL, in DMSO). Therefore the test item is considered not to no a skin sensitiser in this test system.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2016-12-12 to 2017-01-20
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Justification for type of information:
- n/a
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Deviations:
- no
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- n/a
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- n/a
- Details of test system:
- Keratinoses transgenic cell line [442D]
- Details on the study design:
- TEST SYSTEM
- Cell line: transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™ (Givaudan, Switzerland) derived from human keratinocytes (HaCaT)
TEST-SUBSTANCE PREPARATION
- Concentrations: 2000, 1000, 500, 250, 125, 61.5, 31.25, 15.63, 7.81, 3.91, 1.95, 0.98 µM
- Stock: 4x concentration of the highest concentration (diluted 1:4 when incubated with the cells)
- Vehicle: DMSO (1% (v/v)
CONTROLS
- Positive control (PC): Cinnamic in 1% DMSO: 4 µM, 8 µM, 16 µM; 32 µM; 64 µM
- Vehicle control (VC): DMSO: 1% (v/v) in test item exposure medium
- Blank control: Culture medium without cells
MEDIUM
- Maintenance Medium: Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (GlutaMAX™) (Gibco Life Science, Cat. No.: 21885- 025) with 1.0 g/L D-glucose and Na-Pyruvate + 10% fetal bovine calf serum + 1% geneticin (500 µg/mL)
- Assay Medium: Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (GlutaMAX™) (Gibco Life Science, Cat. No.: 21885-025) with 1.0 g/L D-glucose and Na-Pyruvate + 10% fetal bovine calf serum
- Test Item Exposure Medium: Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (GlutaMAX™) (Gibco Life Science, Cat. No.: 21885- 025) with 1.0 g/L D-glucose and Na-Pyruvate + 1% fetal bovine calf serum
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Luciferase assay:
in Test Item Exposure Medium
- Replicates: 3
- Experiments: 2 independent run
- Exposure period: 48 hours
- Exposure temp.: 37°C (and 5% CO2)
- Washing cells: DPBS
- Incubation: 2 hours at room temperature in the absence of light
- Plate reader for luminescence measurement: Per well 50 µL of the luciferase substrate were injected by the injector of the plate reader. The plate reader waited for 1.000 ms before assessing the luciferase activity for 2.000 ms.
MTT assay:
in 200 µL Test Item Exposure Medium, 27 µL MTT solution (5 mg/mL MTT in DPBS), incubation 4h at 37°C and 5% CO2. Afterwards medium was removed and replaced by 200 µL 10% SDS solution (sodium dodecyl sulfate in dist. water), incubation overnight at 37°C and 5% CO2. After incubation, plate was shaken for 10 min and the OD was measured at ¿ = 600 nm.
All plates were sealed during incubation using a sealing tape.
ANALYSIS
- Calculation of Cell Viability
- Calculation of the Maximal Induction of the Luciferase Activity (Imax)
- Calculation of the EC1.5
- Calculation of IC50 and IC30
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- the luciferase activity induction of the positive control is statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 (using a t-test) in at least one of the tested concentrations
- the average induction in the three technical replicates for the positive control at a concentration of 64 µM is between 2 and 8
- the EC1.5 value of the positive control is within two standard deviations of the historical mean
- the average coefficient of variation (CV; consisting of 6 wells) of the luminescence reading for the negative (solvent) control DMSO is <20% in each repetition.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The test item is considered positive in accordance with UN GHS “Category 1” if the following conditions were met in at least two independently prepared test repetitions:
- Imax is >1.5 fold increased and statistically significant (p <0.05) compared to the negative control
- cell viability is >70% at the lowest concentration with an induction of luciferase activity >1.5
- EC1.5 value is <1000 µM
- an apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction - Positive control results:
- Refer to "Any other information on result incl. tables"
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: Cell viability (%)
- Value:
- 101.8 %
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 (µM)
- Value:
- 1 209.6 µM
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- Only at the highest test item concentration a significant luciferase induction >1.5 was
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: Cell viability (%)
- Value:
- 135.9 %
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 (µM)
- Value:
- 1 070.54 µM
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- Only at the highest test item concentration a significant luciferase induction >1.5 was
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- First experiment: Imax 2.6 at 2000 µM
Second experiment: Imax 3.09 at 2000µM
The controls confirmed the validity of the study. The luciferase activity induced by the positive controlat a concentration of 64 µMwas between 2 and 8 (2.16 (experiment 1); 6.60 (experiment 2)). The calculated EC1.5was between 7 and 30 µM (22.70 (experiment 1); 7.58 (experiment 2)). The average coefficient of variation (CV) of the luminescence reading for the negative (solvent) control DMSO was < 20% (9.4% (experiment 1); 12.3% (experiment 2)). - Interpretation of results:
- other: Weight of Evidence approach
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did not upregulate the expression of the cell surface marker in at least two independent ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase experimental runs when tested up to the maximum recommended concentration in accordance with current guideline requirements (2000 uM, in DMSO). Therefore the test item is considered not to no a skin sensitiser in this test system.
- Executive summary:
The in vitro ARE (antioxidative responsive element)-Nrf2 (nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2)Luciferase test method (KeratinoSens™) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the second molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely activation of keratinocytes, by quantifying the luciferase activity in the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™. The luciferase activity, assessed by luminescence measurement, compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
In the present study (-)-Scopolamine was dissolved in DMSO.
Based on a molecular weight of 303.35 g/mol a stock solution of 200 mM was prepared.
Based on the stock solution a set of twelve master solutions in 100% solvent was prepared by serial dilution using a constant dilution factor of 1:2. These master solutions were diluted 1:100 in cell culture medium. The following concentration range was tested in the assay :0.98 - 2000 µM (the maximum recommended concentration in accordance with current guideline requirements).
Cells were incubated with the test item for 48 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were lysed and luciferase activity was assessed by luminescence measurement.
In the first experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 2.60 was determined at a test item concentration of 2000 µM. The corresponding cell viability was 101.8%. Only at the highest test item concentration a significant luciferase induction >1.5 was found. However, the calculated EC1.5 was > 1000 µM (1209.60 µM).
In the second experiment, a max luciferase activity (Imax) induction of 3.09 was determined at a test item concentration of 2000 µM. The corresponding cell viability was 135.9%. Only at the highest test item concentration a significant luciferase induction >1.5 was found. However, the calculated EC1.5 was > 1000 µM (1070.54 µM).
No clear dose response for luciferase activity induction was observed for each individual run as well as for an overall luciferase activity induction.
In this study under the given conditions the test item did not upregulate the expression of the cell surface marker in at least two independent ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase experimental runs when tested up to the maximum recommended concentration in accordance with current guideline requirements (2000 uM, in DMSO). Therefore the test item is considered not to no a skin sensitiser in this test system.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation, other
- Remarks:
- QSAR analysis
- Type of information:
- (Q)SAR
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model and falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
- Justification for type of information:
- 1. OECD Toolbox
2. OECD Toolbox (v. 3.4.0.17)
3. Input into model via CAS number / SMILES
4. SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE (Q)SAR MODEL
Workflow:
Profiling the structure of scopolamine from the chemical databases in the Toolbox produced positive results for:
- Aquatic toxicity classification by ECOSAR (primary grouping)
The following categories were therefore formed using this information
Mechanistic:
- DPRA cysteine peptide depletion
- DPRA lysine peptide depletion
- Protein binding by OASIS v1.4
- Protein binding by OECD
Sub-categorization
- Chemical elements (subcategorization)
- Lipinski Rule Oasis
Organic function group similarity and protein binding categories were then combined to give a category that was both structurally and mechanistically similar so as to increase the robustness of the estimations, resulting in the group of 28 analogues.
5. APPLICABILITY DOMAIN
The target chemical, scopolamine met the applicability domain used to provide a read-across estimation
The applicability domain is defined by following scheme
a) Referential boundary:
The target chemical should be classified as SN2 AND SN2 >> Ring opening SN2 reaction AND SN2 >> Ring opening SN2 reaction >> Epoxides, Aziridines and Sulfuranes by Protein binding by OASIS v1.4
b) Referential boundary:
The target chemical should be classified as Low reactive AND Low reactive >> Epoxides by DPRA Lysine peptide depletion
c) Referential boundary:
The target chemical should be classified as Group 14 - Carbon C AND Group 15 - Nitrogen N AND Group 16 - Oxygen O by Chemical elements
d) Referential boundary:
The target chemical should be classified as Group 14 - Metalloids Si,Ge OR Group 17 - Halogens Cl OR Group 17 - Halogens F,Cl,Br,I,At by Chemical elements
e) Referential boundary:
The target chemical should be classified as Bioavailable by Lipinski Rule Oasis ONLY
f) Parametric boundary:
The target chemical should have a value of log Kow which is >= -0.151
g) Parametric boundary:
The target chemical should have a value of log Kow which is <= 0.861
6. ADEQUACY OF THE RESULT
The predicition is based on 12 neighbours' values, 11 of them equal to prediction. Prediction confidence is measured by the p value = 0.00317 - Qualifier:
- no guideline available
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- QSAR analysis
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- other: in silico QSAR analysis
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Refer to report 0275962-TOX2 attached
- Details on the study design:
- Refer to report 0275962-TOX2 attached
- Details on the study design:
- Refer to report 0275962-TOX2 attached
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- n/a
- No. of animals per dose:
- n/a
- Details on study design:
- n/a
- Challenge controls:
- n/a
- Concentration:
- n/a
- No. of animals per dose:
- n/a
- Details on study design:
- n/a
- Statistics:
- n/a
- Positive control results:
- n/a
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: n/a
- Parameter:
- other: QSAR
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- not applicable
- Remarks on result:
- not measured/tested
- Remarks:
- the in silico estimates from the OECD Toolbox indicates that scopolamine is predicted to be a skin sensitizer based on protein binding domain
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- n/a
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- n/a
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Weight of Evidence approach
- Conclusions:
- In conclusion, the in silico estimates from the OECD Toolbox indicates that scopolamine is predicted to be a skin sensitizer based on protein binding, deemed to be an applicable domain.
Referenceopen allclose all
Solubility assessment
Solubility of the test item was determined prior to the main experiment. All test item solutions were freshly prepared immediately prior to use. The test item was soluble in acetonitrile. No turbidity, precipitation and phase separation was observed for the test item solutions. All test item preparations of the main experiment were prepared using acetonitrile.
Precipitation and Phase Separation
All test item solutions were freshly prepared immediately prior to use.
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the cysteine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples of the cysteine peptide run were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for test item samples. A slight precipitation was observed for the samples of the positive control, no centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis.
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the lysine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples of the cysteine peptide run were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. A phase separation observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. No centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis.
For the 10 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the lysine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis the lysine peptide samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. Turbidity and phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. Samples were not centrifuged prior to the HPLC analysis.
For the 50 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the lysine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis the lysine peptide samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the test item samples. A phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control and the respective co-elution control. No centrifugation was necessary to perform the HPLC analysis.
Since the positive control fulfilled all quality criteria the observed precipitation, turbidity and phase separations were considered as irrelevant.
Co-elution with the Peptide Peaks
Co-elution of the test item with the lysine peptide peak was observed.
Results of the cysteine peptide depletion
Table 3: Depletion of the Cysteine Peptide
Sample |
Peak Area at 220 nm |
Peptide Conc. [mM] |
Peptide Depletion [%] |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
SD of Peptide Depletion [%] |
CV of Peptide Depletion [%] |
Test item |
4346.9439 4330.2656 4277.6216 |
0.4946 0.4927 0.4867 |
0.00* 0.20 1.42 |
0.54 |
0.77 |
142.1 |
Positive control |
1209.3923 1131.5034 1167.8929 |
0.1372 0.1283 0.1325 |
72.13 73.92 73.08 |
73.04 |
0.90 |
1.23 |
* Value was set to 0 due to negative depletion.
Results of the lysine peptide depletion
Table 4: Depletion of the Lysine Peptide: Run 1
Sample |
Peak Area at 220 nm |
Peptide Conc. [mM] |
Peptide Depletion [%] |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
SD of Peptide Depletion [%] |
CV of Peptide Depletion [%] |
Test item |
Co-elution Co-elution Co-elution |
- - - |
- - - |
- |
- |
- |
Positive control |
1802.2493 1749.5433 1855.6707 |
0.2125 0.2062 0.2188 |
57.49 58.73 56.23 |
57.48 |
1.25 |
2.18 |
Table 5: Depletion of the Lysine Peptide: Run 2 and 3
Sample |
Peak Area at 220 nm |
Peptide Conc. [mM] |
Peptide Depletion [%] |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
SD of Peptide Depletion [%] |
CV of Peptide Depletion [%] |
Positive control: Run 2 |
2051.3940 2078.4993 2113.1423 |
0.2418 0.2450 0.2491 |
52.31 51.68 50.87 |
51.62 |
0.62 |
0.01 |
Positive control: Run 3 |
1817.4902 1655.4071 1768.4237 |
0.2133 0.1942 0.2075 |
57.09 60.92 58.25 |
58.75 |
1.96 |
0.03 |
Due to the influence of the test item on the elution behaviour of the lysine peptide the lysine peak areas from the test item samples of run 2 and 3 were not evaluated.
Categorisation of the Test Item
Based on the results of the peptide depletion, categorization according to the prediction model might be performed.
Since co-elution with the lysine peptide was observed, prediction model 2 should be considered.
Table 6: Categorisation of the Test Item
Prediction model |
Prediction Model 1 (Cysteine Peptide and Lysine Peptide / Ratio: 1:10 and 1:50) |
Prediction Model 2 (Cysteine Peptide / Ratio: 1:10) |
||||
Test substance |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
Reactivity Category |
Prediction |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
Reactivity Category |
Prediction |
Test item |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
0.54 |
Minimal reactivity |
Not a sensitiser |
Positive control |
65.26* |
High reactivity |
Sensitiser |
73.04 |
Moderate reactivity |
Sensitiser |
* mean peptide depletion of cysteine peptide and lysine peptide
No cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the test item. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 96.9% (CD86), 97.2% (CD54) and 97.3% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 95.5% (CD86), 95.6% (CD54) and 95.2% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment.
Table 1: Results of the Cell Batch Activation Test
Sample |
Conc. [µg/mL] |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Activated |
||
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
yes/no |
||
DNCB |
4 µg/mL |
88.1 |
406 |
88.4 |
243 |
Yes |
NiSO4 |
100 µg/mL |
88.4 |
324 |
87.9 |
336 |
Yes |
LA |
1000 µg/mL |
96.7 |
69 |
96.7 |
77 |
No |
Table 2: Results of the Dose Finding Assay
Sample |
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
||
Conc. [µg/ml] |
Cell Viability [%] |
Concentration applied [µg/ml] |
Cell Viability [%] |
|
Medium Control |
0.00 |
97.70 |
0.00 |
98.00 |
Solvent Control (0.2% DMSO (v/v)) |
0.00 |
97.00 |
0.00 |
97.70 |
Scopolamine |
7.81 |
97.40 |
7.81 |
98.10 |
15.63 |
97.30 |
15.63 |
98.00 |
|
31.25 |
97.60 |
31.25 |
98.20 |
|
62.50 |
97.50 |
62.50 |
98.10 |
|
125.00 |
97.50 |
125.00 |
97.90 |
|
250.00 |
96.40 |
250.00 |
98.30 |
|
500.00 |
97.00 |
500.00 |
97.90 |
|
1000.00 |
97.10 |
1000.00 |
97.60 |
|
Calculated CV75 [µg/mL] |
No CV75 |
No CV75 |
||
Mean CV75 [µg/mL] |
No CV75 |
|||
SD CV 75 [µg/mL] |
No SD |
Table 3: CD54 and CD86 Expression Experiment 1
Sample |
Conc. [µg/mL] |
Cell Viability [%] |
Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
corrected Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
Relative Flourescence Intensity (RFI) |
Ratio Isotype IgG1 to [%] |
|||||||
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
||
Medium Control |
- |
98.0 |
97.9 |
97.7 |
1134 |
805 |
663 |
471 |
142 |
95 |
73 |
171 |
121 |
DMSO Control |
0.20% |
97.9 |
98.1 |
97.8 |
1179 |
877 |
683 |
496 |
194 |
100 |
100 |
173 |
128 |
DNCB |
4.00 |
81.1 |
81.8 |
82.3 |
3968 |
1926 |
919 |
3049 |
1007 |
615 |
519 |
432 |
210 |
(-)-Scopolamine |
1000 |
96.9 |
97.2 |
97.3 |
1190 |
922 |
794 |
396 |
128 |
80 |
66 |
150 |
116 |
833.33 |
97.0 |
97.0 |
97.5 |
1189 |
933 |
810 |
379 |
123 |
76 |
63 |
147 |
115 |
|
694.44 |
97.5 |
97.4 |
97.3 |
1322 |
932 |
823 |
499 |
109 |
101 |
56 |
161 |
113 |
|
578.70 |
97.3 |
96.8 |
97.2 |
1312 |
950 |
826 |
486 |
124 |
98 |
64 |
159 |
115 |
|
482.25 |
97.4 |
97.3 |
97.6 |
1133 |
870 |
774 |
359 |
96 |
72 |
49 |
146 |
112 |
|
401.88 |
97.5 |
97.6 |
97.2 |
1141 |
936 |
803 |
338 |
133 |
68 |
69 |
142 |
117 |
|
334.90 |
97.6 |
97.6 |
97.8 |
1208 |
917 |
812 |
396 |
105 |
80 |
54 |
149 |
113 |
|
279.08 |
97.5 |
97.4 |
97.4 |
1284 |
984 |
860 |
424 |
124 |
85 |
64 |
149 |
114 |
Table 4: CD54 and CD86 Expression Experiment 2
Sample |
Conc. [µg/mL] |
Cell Viability [%] |
Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
corrected Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
Relative Flourescence Intensity (RFI) |
Ratio Isotype IgG1 to [%] |
|||||||
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Isotype IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
||
Medium Control |
- |
96.8 |
97.0 |
97.1 |
1270 |
892 |
806 |
464 |
86 |
86 |
64 |
158 |
111 |
DMSO Control |
0.20% |
96.7 |
96.8 |
96.8 |
1408 |
1002 |
868 |
540 |
134 |
100 |
100 |
162 |
115 |
DNCB |
4.0 |
85.3 |
85.7 |
85.8 |
3582 |
1924 |
837 |
2745 |
1087 |
508 |
811 |
428 |
230 |
(-)-Scopolamine |
1000.00 |
95.5 |
95.6 |
95.2 |
1211 |
1001 |
771 |
440 |
230 |
81 |
172 |
157 |
130 |
833.33 |
96.0 |
96.2 |
95.5 |
1319 |
1022 |
787 |
532 |
235 |
99 |
175 |
168 |
130 |
|
694.44 |
95.8 |
95.6 |
95.9 |
1523 |
1001 |
750 |
773 |
251 |
143 |
187 |
203 |
133 |
|
578.70 |
95.8 |
96.3 |
96.6 |
1318 |
942 |
740 |
578 |
202 |
107 |
151 |
178 |
127 |
|
482.25 |
96.5 |
96.5 |
96.7 |
1344 |
990 |
796 |
548 |
194 |
101 |
145 |
169 |
124 |
|
401.88 |
96.2 |
95.7 |
96.2 |
1536 |
1068 |
805 |
731 |
263 |
135 |
196 |
191 |
133 |
|
334.90 |
96.2 |
96.1 |
95.8 |
1476 |
1006 |
772 |
704 |
234 |
130 |
175 |
191 |
130 |
|
279.08 |
96.2 |
96.9 |
96.7 |
1444 |
946 |
713 |
731 |
233 |
135 |
174 |
203 |
133 |
Table 5: Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance Criteria |
range |
Expt. 1 |
pass/fail |
Expt.2 |
pass/fail |
cell viability solvent controls [%] |
>90 |
97.7 - 98.1 |
pass |
96.7 - 97.1 |
pass |
number of test dosed with viability >50% CD86 |
>4 |
8 |
pass |
8 |
pass |
number of test dosed with viability >50% CD54 |
>4 |
8 |
pass |
8 |
pass |
number of test dosed with viability >50% IgG1 |
>4 |
8 |
pass |
8 |
pass |
RFI of positive control of CD86 |
>150 |
615 |
pass |
508 |
pass |
RFI of positive control of CD54 |
>200 |
519 |
pass |
811 |
pass |
RFI of solvent control of CD86 |
<150 |
105 |
pass |
116 |
pass |
RFI of solvent control of CD54 |
<200 |
137 |
pass |
156 |
pass |
MFI ratio IgG1/CD86 for medium control [%] |
>105 |
171 |
pass |
158 |
pass |
MFI ratio IgG1/CD86 for DMSO control [%] |
>105 |
173 |
pass |
162 |
pass |
MFI ratio IgG1/CD54 for medium control [%] |
>105 |
121 |
pass |
111 |
pass |
MFI ratio IgG1/CD54 for DMSO control [%] |
>105 |
128 |
pass |
115 |
pass |
Table 1: Results of the Cytotoxicity Measurement
|
Conc. [µM] |
Cell Viability [%] |
|||
Expt. 1 |
Expt.2 |
Mean |
SD |
||
Solvent Control |
- |
100 |
100 |
100 |
0.0 |
Positive Control |
4.00 |
116.2 |
107.8 |
112.0 |
5.9 |
8.00 |
126.3 |
106.6 |
116.4 |
14.0 |
|
16.00 |
131.8 |
118.6 |
125.2 |
9.4 |
|
32.00 |
137.1 |
123.2 |
130.2 |
9.9 |
|
64.00 |
142.1 |
129.4 |
135.8 |
8.9 |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
96.2 |
103.2 |
99.7 |
4.9 |
1.95 |
95.7 |
110.3 |
103.0 |
10.3 |
|
3.91 |
90.4 |
117.8 |
104.1 |
19.4 |
|
7.81 |
101.2 |
116.1 |
108.7 |
10.5 |
|
15.63 |
100.2 |
116.8 |
108.5 |
11.7 |
|
31.25 |
93.4 |
118.8 |
106.1 |
18.0 |
|
62.50 |
101.6 |
122.5 |
112.0 |
14.8 |
|
125.00 |
99.4 |
122.8 |
111.1 |
16.5 |
|
250.00 |
104.5 |
121.4 |
113.0 |
12.0 |
|
500.00 |
101.2 |
119.4 |
110.3 |
12.9 |
|
1000.00 |
106.3 |
132.8 |
119.6 |
18.7 |
|
2000.00 |
101.8 |
135.9 |
118.8 |
24.1 |
Table 2: Induction of Luciferase Activity Experiment 1
Expt.1 |
Conc. [µM] |
Fold Induction |
Significance |
||||
Rep. 1 |
Rep. 2 |
Rep. 3 |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
Positive Control |
4.00 |
1.24 |
1.09 |
1.07 |
1.13 |
0.10 |
|
8.00 |
1.20 |
1.25 |
1.31 |
1.25 |
0.06 |
||
16.00 |
1.42 |
1.33 |
1.32 |
1.36 |
0.06 |
||
32.00 |
1.81 |
1.60 |
1.69 |
1.70 |
0.10 |
* |
|
64.00 |
2.48 |
1.93 |
2.15 |
2.19 |
0.28 |
* |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
0.75 |
0.85 |
1.10 |
0.90 |
0.18 |
|
1.95 |
0.73 |
0.77 |
0.78 |
0.76 |
0.03 |
||
3.91 |
0.79 |
0.80 |
0.89 |
0.83 |
0.05 |
||
7.81 |
0.59 |
0.74 |
0.79 |
0.71 |
0.11 |
||
15.63 |
0.71 |
0.76 |
0.94 |
0.80 |
0.12 |
||
31.25 |
0.81 |
0.83 |
0.92 |
0.85 |
0.06 |
||
62.50 |
1.03 |
0.79 |
0.97 |
0.93 |
0.12 |
||
125.00 |
0.83 |
0.80 |
1.07 |
0.90 |
0.14 |
||
250.00 |
0.85 |
0.95 |
1.27 |
1.02 |
0.22 |
||
500.00 |
0.86 |
0.97 |
1.09 |
0.97 |
0.11 |
||
1000.00 |
1.09 |
1.09 |
1.45 |
1.21 |
0.21 |
||
2000.00 |
2.09 |
2.35 |
3.35 |
2.60 |
0.67 |
* |
* = significant induction according to Student’s t-test, p<0.05
Table 3: Induction of Luciferase Activity Experiment 2
Expt. 2 |
Conc. [µM] |
Fold Induction |
Significance |
||||
Rep. 1 |
Rep. 2 |
Rep. 3 |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
Positive Control |
4.00 |
1.09 |
1.11 |
1.26 |
1.15 |
0.10 |
|
8.00 |
1.28 |
1.39 |
1.95 |
1.54 |
0.36 |
|
|
16.00 |
1.52 |
1.57 |
2.68 |
1.92 |
0.65 |
|
|
32.00 |
2.29 |
2.16 |
3.78 |
2.74 |
0.90 |
* |
|
64.00 |
3.45 |
4.76 |
11.59 |
6.60 |
4.37 |
* |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
1.08 |
1.19 |
1.01 |
1.09 |
0.09 |
|
1.95 |
0.75 |
0.91 |
0.59 |
0.75 |
0.16 |
|
|
3.91 |
0.82 |
1.07 |
1.18 |
1.02 |
0.19 |
|
|
7.81 |
0.79 |
0.85 |
0.62 |
0.75 |
0.12 |
|
|
15.63 |
0.93 |
0.90 |
1.78 |
1.20 |
0.50 |
|
|
31.25 |
0.74 |
1.00 |
0.89 |
0.88 |
0.13 |
|
|
62.50 |
1.09 |
0.88 |
0.94 |
0.97 |
0.11 |
|
|
125.00 |
1.26 |
1.03 |
1.28 |
1.19 |
0.14 |
|
|
250.00 |
0.93 |
1.10 |
1.21 |
1.08 |
0.15 |
|
|
500.00 |
1.22 |
1.08 |
1.26 |
1.18 |
0.09 |
|
|
1000.00 |
1.05 |
1.44 |
1.65 |
1.38 |
0.30 |
|
|
2000.00 |
2.12 |
2.44 |
4.70 |
3.09 |
1.40 |
* |
* = significant induction according to Student’s t-test, p<0.05
n/a
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
A review of the available human reports concludes that the substance can causes allergic contact dermatitis (type IV delayed hypersensitivity) in humans using well established clincal criteria.
For determination regarding the dermal sensitization potential of scopolamine,in chemico and in vitro tests were conducted (OECD 422C, OEC 422D and OECD 422E). Each of these three in vitro tests are considered to be reliable and showed no evidence of skin sensitization. According to CLP the in vitro / in chemico tests are not regarded as stand alone tests and the result from such a test should be used together with other data in an overall weight of evidence assessment.
The in silico estimates from the OECD Toolbox indicates that scopolamine is predicted to be a skin sensitizer based on protein binding, deemed to be an applicable domain.
There are no animal data available to make decisions about classification. Scopolamine is acutely toxic by the dermal route (H310) and dermal application for sensitization testing using in vivo models is not scientifically justified. It is unlikely that dermal exposures sufficient to elicit an immune response could be achieved before acute toxic responses, including lethality.
Based on a weight of evidence approach using all available data (human data, in chemico / in vitro data, in sillico / QSAR), scopolamine is classified for skin sensitization Cat. 1A H317 (May cause an allergic reaction to skin).
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on a weight of evidence approach, scopolamine is classified for skin sensitization Cat. 1A H317 (May cause an allergic reaction to skin).
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.