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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 204-498-2 | CAS number: 121-79-9
- 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
Several animal and human studies indicate that propyl gallate has a high skin sensitising potential.
In a study by Basketter and Scholes (1992), propyl gallate was tested positive in both the murine local lymph node assay and guinea pig maximisation test. Other literature also supports the result of this key study. In the ‘Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of propyl gallate (E 310) as a food additive’, EFSA confirms the high sensitising potential of propyl gallate by citing several studies. Kahn et al. (1974) described a contact dermatitis in 5 of 10 people who applied propyl gallate for about 20 days. Furthermore, they conducted separate tests in guinea pigs in order to determine the sensitising potential of propyl gallate and concluded, based on these studies, that propyl gallate is a strong sensitiser when given intradermally and a less sensitiser when given cutaneous.
Human data (see IUCLID sections 7.10.4) on propyl gallate also provide evidence to indicate skin sensitising potential after exposure. Perez et al. (2008) reported 55 cases of allergic contact dermatitis to propyl gallate out of 9529 patients (0.57%) from 1988 to 2005. In a study from Dastychova et al. (2004), a group of 514 chronic eczema patients were tested by means of epicutaneous tests for contact hypersensitivity to selected auxiliary substances including propyl gallate. Propyl gallate was one of the most frequently sensitising antioxidising agents, inducing contact hypersensitivity in 0.6% of the patients.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- secondary literature
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- EFSA concludes in this review/scientific opinion that propyl gallate has a high sensitising potential and cases of allergic contact dermatitis have been reported (usually cheilitis and dermatitis of the hands). The frequency of allergic contact dermatitis appears to be low, and only very rare reactions have been reported after oral intake of gallates. The use of propyl gallate as a food additive raise concern as regards allergenicity, hypersensiivity and intolerance. This study cites Kimber et al. 1994 which concluded that propyl gallate (unspecified dose) tested positive in a murine local lymph node assay.
- Executive summary:
In the EFSA publication "Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of propyl gallate (E310) as a food additive", 2014 information on sensitizing potential of propyl gallate based on several studies is presented.
The Scientific Committee on Food stated in its evaluation in 198 that “Gallates may cause skin sensitisation and subsequent exacerbation of the resulting contact dermatitis occurs in some such sensitized individuals after ingestion of gallates.” (SCF, 1989).
Several publications have been reported that propyl gallate has a high sensitising potential and cases of allergic contact dermatitis to propyl gallate, such as cheilitis and dermatitis of the hands (Kraus et al., 1990; Garcia-Melgares et al., 2007; Perez et al., 2008). Furthermore, in a murine local lymph node assay, propyl gallate (dose not specified) was tested positive.
he most common sensitising agent in the case of cosmetics is lipstick and, in an occupational setting, are bakery products. Due to this potential, it has been recommended to limit its concentration in cosmetics (Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, 2007). However, the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis appears to be low. Previous exposure and orally induced tolerance, may explained the low rates of allergic contact dermatitis to propyl gallate (Kahn, 1974).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- abstract
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- In a publication from Kahn et al. (1974) information on skin sensitisation of propyl gallate is provided. It is described that experiments in guinea pigs showed that propyl gallate has a contact sensitisation potential comparable to that of dinitrochlorobenzene and caused contact dermatitis in five of ten people who applied it for about 20 days. However, no reports of contact sensitisation in the United States has been found. The authors proposed, that induced immunological unresponsiveness (tolerance) is responsible for this lack of overt clinical illness. An experimental model of tolerance has been established to support this hypothesis, in that they have induced specific unresponsiveness by feeding propyl gallate to sensitised guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
In a publication from Kahn et al. (1974) information on skin sensitisation of propyl gallate is provided. It is described that experiments in guinea pigs showed that propyl gallate has a contact sensitisation potential comparable to that of dinitrochlorobenzene and caused contact dermatitis in five of ten people who applied it for about 20 days. However, no reports of contact sensitisation in the United States has been found. The authors proposed, that induced immunological unresponsiveness (tolerance) is responsible for this lack of overt clinical illness. An experimental model of tolerance has been established to support this hypothesis, in that they have induced specific unresponsiveness by feeding propyl gallate to sensitised guinea pigs.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: Aldrich Chemical Co. (Gillingham, Dorset, UK) - Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA/Ca
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Age at study initiation: 8-12 weeks
- Animals of both sexes were used, but single experiments were limited to one sex. - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- 5%, 10%, 25%
- No. of animals per dose:
- 4
- Details on study design:
-
MAIN STUDY
Groups of 4 mice were treated by a daily topical application of 25 µL of each concentration on the dorsal surface of each ear for 3 consecutive days. Control mice were treated with the vehicle alone. Five days after the first topical application, all mice were injected intravenously through the tail vein with 250 µL phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing [3H]methyl thymidine (3HTdR; 20 µCi). After 5 hr the mice were killed by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, and the draining auricular lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each experimental group. A single-cell suspension of lymph node cells (LNC) was prepared by gentle mechanical disaggregation through a stainless-steel gauze (200-mesh size), using the plunger of a syringe. Pooled LNC were pelleted at 190g for 10 min, washed twice with 10 mL PBS and resuspended in 3 mL trichloroacetic acid (TCA; 5%) for the precipitation of macromolecules. After an overnight incubation with TCA at 4 °C, the precipitate was recovered by centrifugation, resuspended in 1 mL TCA and transferred to 10mL scintillation fluid. 3HTdR incorporation was measured by beta-scintillation counting. The proliferative response of LNC was expressed as radioactive disintegrations per min per lymph node (dpm/node), and as the ratio of 3HTdR incorporation into LNC of test nodes relative to that recorded for control nodes (test/control ratio).
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Name of test method: Local lymph node assay
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: A chemical was regarded as a sensitiser in the LLNA if at least one concentration of the chemical resulted in a three-fold or greater increase in 3HTdR incorporation compared with control values. Also, the data had to be compatible with a biological dose response although an allowance was made, especially at high doses, for either local toxicity or immunological suppression. - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- eugenol (CAS No 97-53-0)
- mercaptobenzothiazole (CAS No 149-30-4)
- Statistics:
- N/A
- Positive control results:
- Cinnamic aldehyde, eugenol and mercaptobenzothiazole were all classified as positive in this assay.
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 22.3
- Test group / Remarks:
- Concentration of 5%
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 18.3
- Test group / Remarks:
- Concentration of 10%
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- >= 33.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- Concentration of 25%
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION : Described in the study as "ratio of test to control lymphocyte proliferation (dpm/node)"
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- Using the local lymph node assay technique with [3H]thymidine, propyl gallate at all tested concentrations (5%, 10% and 25%) yielded a positive response (elicited more than a 3-fold increase in isotope incorporation in lymphocytes relative to vehicle controls). Propyl gallate is classified as a skin sensitiser under the conditions of this assay.
- Executive summary:
Using the local lymph node assay technique with [3H]thymidine in CBA/Ca mice, propyl gallate at all tested concentrations (5%, 10% and 25%) yielded a positive response (elicited more than a 3-fold increase in isotope incorporation in lymphocytes relative to vehicle controls). Propyl gallate is classified as a skin sensitiser under the conditions of this assay.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Remarks:
- Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The guinea pig maximisation test for 40 chemicals was performed to compare with results of the same chemicals using the local lymph node assay (LLNA).
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- Source and lot/batch No.of test material: Aldrich Chemical Co. (Gillingham, Dorset, UK) - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- not specified
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Weight at study initiation: 350 g - Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.35%
- Day(s)/duration:
- A series of six injections in the shoulder region
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 25%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 48 hours
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Concentration / amount:
- 5%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 24 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- Not specified
- Details on study design:
- MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 (induction injection followed by induction patch)
- Exposure period/Frequency of applications/Duration: A series of 6 induction injections (frequency not specified); after 6-8 days, sensitisation was boosted by a 48-hr occluded patch placed over the injection site.
- Test groups: Propyl gallate
- Control group: Not specified
- Site: Shoulder (induction injection and patch)
- Concentrations: 0.35% (injection); 25% (patch)
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 1
- Exposure period: 24 h
- Test groups: Propyl gallate
- Control group: Not specified
- Site: Flank
- Concentrations: 5% (maximum non-irritant concentration)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): Challenge sites were scored for erythema (scale 0-3) and oedema 24 and 48 hr after removal of the patches.
OTHER: Animals were challenged 12-14 days after the induction patch phase. - Challenge controls:
- Not specified
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- Forty chemicals including some known skin sensitisers were tested in this study.
- Key result
- Reading:
- other: Positive response [%]
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.35% induction injection; 25% induction patch; 5% challenge patch
- Clinical observations:
- Not specified
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- 100% of the tested animals showed positive outcomes; Classified as "extreme" sensitiser
- Group:
- negative control
- Remarks on result:
- other: Not specified
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- other: Not specified
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Conclusions:
- Using the guinea pig maximisation test, 100% of the animals exposed to propyl gallate showed positive skin sensitisation potential. Therefore, propyl gallate was classified to be an extreme skin sensitiser under the conditions of this test.
- Executive summary:
In this in vivo skin sensitisation test, Albino Dunkin-Hartley guinea-pigs treated by a series of six intradermal injections of the test item propyl gallate (0.35%) in the shoulder region to induce sensitisation. After 6 -8 days, sensitisation was boosted by a 48-hr occluded patch containing 25% of propyl gallate placed over the injection site. 12-14 days later, the animals were challenged on one flank by a 24-hr occluded patch at the maximum non-irritant concentration (5%). Challenge sites were scored for erythema (scale 0-3) and oedema 24 and 48 hr after removal of the patches. 100% of the animals exposed to propyl gallate showed positive skin sensitisation potential. Therefore, propyl gallate was classified to be an extreme skin sensitiser under the conditions of this test.
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
Several animal and human studies indicate that propyl gallate has a high skin sensitising potential.
In a study by Basketter and Scholes (1992), propyl gallate was tested positive in both the murine local lymph node assay (all 3 tested concentrations eliciting more than 3-fold increase in isotope incorporation in lymphocytes relative to vehicle controls) and guinea pig maximisation test (100% of the tested animals showed positive outcomes by 48h after challenge). In the ‘Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of propyl gallate (E 310) as a food additive’, EFSA confirmed the high sensitising potential of propyl gallate, citing several studies. In these studies, cases of contact dermatitis have been reported, usually cheilitis and dermatitis of the hands.
Kahn et al. (1974) described contact dermatitis in 5 of 10 people who applied propyl gallate for about 20 days. Furthermore, they conducted separate tests in guinea pigs in order to determine the sensitizing potential of propyl gallate and concluded, based on these studies, that propyl gallate is a strong sensitiser when given intradermally and a less sensitiser when given cutaneous. Perez et al. (2008) reported 55 cases of allergic contact dermatitis to propyl gallate out of 9529 patients (0.57%) from 1988 to 2005. In a study from Dastychova et al. (2004), a group of 514 chronic eczema patients were tested by means of epicutaneous tests for contact hypersensitivity to selected auxiliary substances including propyl gallate. Propyl gallate was one of the most frequently sensitising antioxidizing agents, inducing contact hypersensitivity in 0.6% of the patients.
Based on the result of the key study as well as the information from public literature it can be concluded that propyl gallate is a skin sensitiser.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the result of the key study as well as the information from public literature it can be concluded that propyl gallate is a skin sensitiser and is considered to be classified for Skin Sensitisation Category 1 (H317).
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.