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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 814-113-5 | CAS number: 253454-23-8
- 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
Description of key information
Skin corrosion (OECD TG 431): not corrosive
Skin irritation (OECD TG 439): not irritating
Eye irritation (OECD TG 438): not irritating
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin corrosion: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 21 April 2016 - 27 May 2016
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 431 (In Vitro Skin Corrosion: Reconstructed Human Epidermis (RHE) Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- Updated guideline adopted July 28, 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.40 (In Vitro Skin Corrosion: Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance Test (TER))
- Version / remarks:
- 30 May 2008
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: MatTek test protocol “In vitro EpiDerm(TM) Skin Corrosion Test (EPI-200-SCT)”
- Version / remarks:
- 07 November 2014
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- dd 14 September 2015
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Hysandol called Timberol in the test report may be a multi of the cis and trans-isomer, while Hysandol is a mono-trans isomer. The cis isomer is expected to have the same results for this endpoint because it is stereo isomer.
- Test system:
- human skin model
- Source species:
- human
- Cell type:
- other: epidermal keratinocytes
- Cell source:
- other: MatTek Corporation (Bratislava, Slovakia)
- Source strain:
- other: not applicable
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Details on test system:
- RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE
- Model used: EpiDerm™ tissue
- Tissue batch number(s): 23338
- Delivery date: 24 May 2016
- Date of initiation of testing: 24 May 2016
TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM
- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: 3 minutes exposure: at room temperature, 60 minute exposure: 37 ± 1.5 °C
REMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS
-Volume and number of washing steps: 20 times using a wash bottle containing DPBS
- Observable damage in the tissue due to washing: no
TEST FOR DIRECT MTT REDUCTION AND COLOUR INTERFERENCE
The substance was checked for possible interference with the MTT endpoint before the start of the study. 50 μL of the test item was added to 0.3 mL of deionised water (transparent glass test-tube). The mixture was incubated in the incubator (37 ± 1.5 °C, 5 ± 0.5 % CO2) for 60 min. At the end of the exposure time, the mixture was shaken and the presence and intensity of the staining (if any) was evaluated. The test item did not dye water when mixed with it.
To test if an item directly reduces MTT, 50 μL of the test item were added to 1 ml of a MTT/DMEM solution (1 mg/mL) and were incubated in the incubator (37 ± 1.5 °C, 5 ± 0.5 CO2) for 60 minutes. Untreated MTT/DMEM solution (1 mg/mL) medium was used as control. The test item did not prove to be a MTT reducer.
MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE
- MTT concentration: 1 mg/mL
- Incubation time: 3 hours
- Microplate reader: Versamax®, Molecular Devices, SoftMax Pro Enterprise (version 4.7.1)
- Wavelength: 570 nm
NUMBER OF REPLICATE TISSUES: 2
NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT TEST SEQUENCES / EXPERIMENTS TO DERIVE FINAL PREDICTION: 2 exposure times
EVALUATION
The mean OD of the duplicate negative control tissues was calculated after blank correction. This value corresponds to 100% tissue viability in the current test. For each individual tissue treated with the test item or the positive control the individual relative tissue viability is calculated according to the following formula:
Relative viability (%)= [mean OD(test item/positive control)/mean ODnegative control] *100
PREDICTION MODEL / DECISION CRITERIA: see Table 1
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
1. The mean OD of the tissue replicates treated with the negative control should be ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 2.8 for every exposure time
2. The mean viability of the tissue replicates treated with the positive control for 1 hour, should be <15% compared to the negative control
3. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) in the range 20 – 100% viability between tissue replicates should be ≤ 30% - Control samples:
- yes, concurrent negative control
- yes, concurrent positive control
- Amount/concentration applied:
- 50 μL (79.4 μL/cm^2)
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 3 +/- 0.5 minutes and 60 +/- 0.5 minutes
- Number of replicates:
- 2
- Irritation / corrosion parameter:
- % tissue viability
- Run / experiment:
- 3 minutes exposure / mean of 2 replicates
- Value:
- 97.7
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 100
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 16.2
- Irritation / corrosion parameter:
- % tissue viability
- Run / experiment:
- 60 minutes exposure / mean of 2 replicates
- Value:
- 105.4
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 100
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 10.7
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- - OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: no
- Direct-MTT reduction: no
- Colour interference with MTT: no
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: yes, the mean OD of the tissue replicates treated with the negative control is ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 2.8 for every exposure time (values between 1.627 and 1.755)
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: yes, the mean viability of the tissue replicates treated with the positive control for 1 hour, is <15% (10.7%) compared to the negative control
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: yes, the Coefficient of Variation (CV) in the range 20 – 100% viability between tissue replicates is ≤ 30% (values between 0.2% and 5.8%) - Interpretation of results:
- other: Not corrosive to the skin
- Remarks:
- In accordance with EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments).
- Conclusions:
- The results of an in vitro skin corrosion test showed that the substance was not corrosive to the skin (tissue viability after 3 minutes exposure: 97.7% and tissue viability after 60 minutes exposure: 105.4%).
- Executive summary:
The substance was tested in duplicate in an in vitro skin corrosion test according to OECD TG 431 test guideline and GLP principles. Tissues were exposed to the substance, a negative control (deionised water) and a positive control (8.0 N KOH) for 3 minutes and 60 minutes. The substance was tested for direct MTT reduction and colour interference and both results were negative. Acceptability criteria for the negative control, positive control and variability between measurements were met. The cell viability of the tissues exposed to the substance were 97.4% and 105.4% for 3 minutes and 60 minutes exposure, respectively. Both values did not exceed thereshold for corrosivity (50% after 3 minutes exposure and 15% after 60 minutes exposure), therefore the substance is considered not to be corrosive.
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 13 February 2017 - 02 June 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- 28 July 2015
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.46 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model Test)
- Version / remarks:
- 30 May 2008
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- dd. 14 September 2015
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Hysandol called Timberol in the test report may be a multi of the cis and trans-isomer, while Hysandol is a mono-trans isomer. The cis isomer is expected to have the same results for this endpoint because it is stereo isomer.
- Test system:
- human skin model
- Source species:
- human
- Cell type:
- other: epidermal keratinocytes
- Cell source:
- other: MatTek Corporation (82105 Bratislava, Slovakia)
- Source strain:
- other: not applicable
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Details on test system:
- RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE
- Model used: Epi-200- SIT Kit (MatTek)
- Tissue lot number: 23395
- Delivery date: 21 February 2017
- Date of initiation of testing: 21 February 2017
TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM
- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: standard culture incubation conditions
- Temperature of post-treatment incubation: standard culture incubation conditions
REMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS
-Volume and number of washing steps: tissues were washed with DPBS (>= 15 washing steps), submerged in DPBS at least three times and washed once more with sterile DPBS from the inside and outside. Excess DPBS was removed by gently shaking the inserts and blotting the bottom with sterile blotting paper.
- Observable damage in the tissue due to washing: no
MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE:
- Incubation time: 3 hours
- Measurement method: microplate reader (Versamax® Molecular Devices, Softmax Pro, version 4.7.1) with a 570 nm filter
- MTT concentration: 1 mg/mL
- The test item was checked for interference with the MTT endpoint before the start of the study.
NUMBER OF REPLICATE TISSUES: 3 for the test substance, the negative and the positive control each.
NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT TEST SEQUENCES / EXPERIMENTS TO DERIVE FINAL PREDICTION: 1 single run
CELL VIABILITY MEASUREMENT: After incubation, tissues were incubated with 0.3 mL MTT-solution for 3 hours. After incubation, tissues were rinsed and transferred into a 24-well plates containing 2 mL of isopropanol. Formazan salt was extracted for 2.25 hours while shaking at room temperature. After the extraction period, inserts were pierced with an injection needle to allow the extract to run off. Inserts were discarded and the 24-well plates were placed on a shaker for 15 minutes until the solution was homogeneous in colour. Per tissue, 3 × 200 μL aliquots of the blue formazan solution were transferred into a 96-well flat bottom microtiter plate from the 15 minutes exposure. OD was read in a microplate reader (Versamax® Molecular Devices, Softmax Pro, version 4.7.1) with a 570 nm filter. Mean values were calculated from the 3 wells per tissue.
PREDICTION MODEL / DECISION CRITERIA: see Table 1
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
a) The absolute OD 570 nm of the negative control tissues should be ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 2.8.
b) The mean relative tissue viability of the positive control should be ≤20%.
c) The SD calculated from individual % tissue viabilities of the three identically treated replicates should be ≤18. - Control samples:
- yes, concurrent negative control
- yes, concurrent positive control
- Amount/concentration applied:
- TEST ITEM:
- Amount applied: 30 μL (47 μL/cm^2), spread to match the surface of the tissue
CONTROLS:
- Amount applied: 30 μL - Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 60 minutes
- Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):
- 42 hours
- Number of replicates:
- 3 replicates (3 tissues treated with the test item, the positive control and the negative control, each)
- Irritation / corrosion parameter:
- % tissue viability
- Remarks:
- Mean of three tissues
- Run / experiment:
- 60 minutes exposure
- Value:
- 88.2
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- Mean tissue viability: 3.1%
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- - OTHER EFFECTS:
- Visible damage on test system: no
- Direct-MTT reduction: no
- Colour interference with MTT: no
ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- After treatment with the negative control the absorbance values were well within the required acceptability criterion of mean OD ≥ 0.8 and ≤ 2.8 for the 60 minutes treatment interval (values between 1.674 and 2.014).
- Treatment with the positive control induced a decrease in the relative absorbance as compared to the negative control to 3.1%.
- The relative standard deviations between the % variability values of the test item, the positive and negative controls in the main test were below 11%.
- Since the mean relative tissue viability for the test item was above 50% the test item is considered to be non-irritant. - Interpretation of results:
- other: Not a skin irritant
- Remarks:
- According to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments).
- Conclusions:
- The substance is not irritant to the skin (88.2% tissue viability after 60 minutes of treatment).
- Executive summary:
An in vitro study was performed according to OECD 439 and GLP principles, to assess the substance's potential to be irritant to the skin. Three tissues from the human skin model EpiDerm(TM) were exposed to the substance, a positive control and a negative control for 60 minutes. Before the start of the study, the test item was checked for interference with the MTT endpoint. Tissues were washed and incubated with MTT after the exposure period. Formazan was extracted by isopropanol and subsequently the tissues were read by a microplate reader at 570 nm. The positive control tissues showed a mean tissue viability of 3.1% indicating that the test system functioned properly. The negative control tissues had absorbance values within the required acceptability criteria. Since all acceptability criteria were met, the study was considered to be valid. The tissues treated with the substance showed a mean tissue viability of 88.2% compared to the negative control tissues. Based on this result, the substance is not irritant to the skin.
Referenceopen allclose all
Mean OD570 values and viabilities for the negative control, positive control and test item are given below:
Item |
Exposure Period (minutes) |
Individual OD570 of Individual tissues |
Mean OD570 of duplicate tissues (tvt) |
Water-Killed Tissues |
True Viability |
Relative mean viability (%) |
||
tkt |
ukt |
tkt-ukt |
||||||
Negative Control Item |
60 |
1.634 |
0.818 |
|
|
|
|
100* |
1.639 |
||||||||
Positive Control Item |
0.219 |
0.027 |
|
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
0.186 |
||||||||
Test Item |
3 |
1.587 |
1.611 |
97.7 |
||||
1.635 |
||||||||
60 |
1.780 |
1.710 |
105.4 |
|||||
1.640 |
||||||||
*= The mean viability of the negative control tissues is set at 100%
Table 2 Summary of results
Dose group |
Tissue No. |
Absorbance 570 nm Well 1 |
Absorbance 570 nm Well 2 |
Absorbance 570 nm Well 3 |
Mean absorbance of 3 wells |
Mean absorbance of three wells blank corrected |
Mean absorbance of 3 tissues after blank correction |
Relative absorbance (%) tissue 1, 2 + 3 |
Relative Standard Deviation (%) |
Mean relative absorbance (% of negative control) |
Blank |
|
0.036 |
0.036 |
0.036 |
0.036 |
0.000 |
|
|
|
|
Negative control |
1 |
2.032 |
1.993 |
2.017 |
2.014 |
1.978 |
1.775 |
111.4 |
10.1 |
100.0 |
2 |
1.749 |
1.741 |
1.746 |
1.746 |
1.710 |
96.3 |
||||
3 |
1.681 |
1.676 |
1.666 |
1.674 |
1.638 |
92.3 |
||||
Positive control |
1 |
0.085 |
0.106 |
0.089 |
0.093 |
0.057 |
0.055 |
3.2 |
4.1 |
3.1 |
2 |
0.093 |
0.091 |
0.092 |
0.092 |
0.056 |
3.1 |
||||
3 |
0.089 |
0.088 |
0.089 |
0.089 |
0.053 |
3.0 |
||||
Test item |
1 |
1.590 |
1.590 |
1.576 |
1.586 |
1.550 |
1.565 |
87.3 |
5.8 |
88.2 |
2 |
1.510 |
1.534 |
1.513 |
1.519 |
1.483 |
83.5 |
||||
3 |
1.701 |
1.696 |
1.701 |
1.699 |
1.663 |
93.7 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 28 Mar 2017 to 15 Mai 2017
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 438 (Isolated Chicken Eye Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)
- Version / remarks:
- 26 July 2013
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- Triskelion B.V., Utrechtseweg 48, 3700 AV, Zeist
- Species:
- other: Eyes of male or female chickens (ROSS, spring chickens)
- Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
- SOURCE OF COLLECTED EYES
- Source: Slaughterhouse v.d. Bor, Nijkerkerveen, The Netherlands
- Characteristics of donor animals: Approximately 7 weeks old, male or female chickens, body weight range approximately 1.5-2.5 kg, were used as eye donors.
- Storage, temperature and transport conditions of ocular tissue: Heads of the animals were cut off immediately after sedation of the animals by electric shock and incision of the neck for bleeding, and before they reached the next station on the process line. The heads were placed in small plastic boxes on a bedding of paper tissues moistened with isotonic saline. Next, they were transported to the testing facility. During transportation, the heads were kept at ambient temperature.
- Time interval prior to initiating testing: Within 2 hours after kill, eyes were carefully dissected and placed in a superfusion apparatus.
- Indication of any existing defects or lesions in ocular tissue samples: No
- Indication of any antibiotics used: No - Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- yes, concurrent positive control
- yes, concurrent negative control
- Amount / concentration applied:
- 30 μL neat substance
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 10 seconds
- Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):
- 240 minutes
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- Test group and positive control: triplicates
Negative control: Singlo - Details on study design:
- SELECTION AND PREPARATION OF ISOLATED EYES
Within 2 hours after kill, eyes were carefully dissected and placed in a superfusion apparatus using the following procedure: First the eye-lids were carefully removed without damaging the cornea and a small drop of Fluorescein sodium 2.0% w/v was applied to the corneal surface for a few seconds and subsequently rinsed off with isotonic saline at ambient temperature. Next, the head with the fluorescein-treated cornea was examined with a slit-lamp microscope (Slit-lamp 900 BP, Haag-Streit AG, Liebefeld-Bern, Switzerland) to ensure that the cornea was not damaged. If undamaged (e.g., fluorescein retention and corneal opacity scores of ≤ 0.5), the eye was further dissected from the head without damaging the eye or cornea. Care was taken to remove the eye-ball from the orbit without cutting off the optical nerve too short. The enucleated eye was placed in a stainless steel clamp with the cornea positioned vertically and transferred to a chamber of the superfusion apparatus. The clamp holding the eye was positioned in such a way that the entire cornea was supplied with isotonic saline from a bent, stainless steel tube, at a target rate of 0.10-0.15 mL/min. The chambers of the superfusion apparatus as well as the saline were temperature controlled at approximately 32 °C (water pump set at 36.4 °C). After placing in the superfusion apparatus, the eyes were examined again with the slit-lamp microscope to ensure that they were not damaged. An accurate measurement was taken at the corneal apex of each eye. Eyes with a corneal thickness deviating more than 10% of the average corneal thickness of the eyes, eyes showing opacity (score higher than 0.5), or were unacceptably stained with fluorescein (score higher than 0.5) indicating the cornea to be permeable, or eyes that showed any other signs of damage, were rejected as test eyes and replaced.
EQUILIBRATION AND BASELINE RECORDINGS
Each eye provided its own baseline values for corneal swelling, corneal opacity and fluorescein retention. For that purpose, after an equilibration period of 45-60 minutes, the corneal thickness of the eyes was measured again to determine the zero reference value for corneal swelling calculations.
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Volume and washing procedure after exposure period: 20 mL saline. After rinsing, each eye in the holder was returned to its chamber.
- Indicate any deviation from test procedure in the Guideline: none
METHODS FOR MEASURED ENDPOINTS:
- Corneal opacity: Slit-lamp microscope examination
- Damage to epithelium based on fluorescein retention: Slit-lamp microscope examination
- Swelling: measured with optical pachymeter on a slit-lamp microscope; slit-width setting: set at 0.095 mm
- Others: After the final examination, the test substance treated eyes, the negative and positive control eyes were preserved in a neutral aqueous phosphate-buffered 4% solution of formaldehyde. The corneas were embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at ca 4 μm and stained with PAS (Periodic Acid-Schiff). The microscopic slides were subjected to histopathological examination.
SCORING SYSTEM:
Defined scoring scales were used for each parameter to define the severity of effects into four categories (I-IV).
- Mean corneal swelling (%): According to OECD 438 guideline. Examination of the eyes after 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes
- Mean maximum opacity score: According to OECD 438 guideline. Examination of the eyes after 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes
- Mean fluorescein retention score at 30 minutes post-treatment: According to OECD 438 guideline.
DECISION CRITERIA: According to OECD 438 guideline - Irritation parameter:
- percent corneal swelling
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 3
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: maximum mean values
- Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 0
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: maximum mean values
- Irritation parameter:
- fluorescein retention score
- Run / experiment:
- slit-lamp examination
- Value:
- 0.5
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: maximum mean values
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- Slit-lamp examination: The test substance caused corneal effects consisting of very slight corneal swelling (mean of 3%), no opacity and very slight fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.5). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants.
Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance did not reveal any abnormalities. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities as well. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the positive control BAC 5% revealed slight or severe erosion and very slight or slight vacuolation of the epithelium and endothelial necrosis. - Interpretation of results:
- other: Not an eye irritant.
- Remarks:
- According to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments).
- Conclusions:
- Under the test conditions (OECD 438 and GLP) the test substance is not considered to be an eye irritant.
- Executive summary:
The test substance was examined for its in vitro eye irritating potential using the Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) test, in accordance with OECD guideline 438 and GLP. In the ICE test, 3 eyes were exposed to 30 µL test substance for 10 seconds. In addition, one negative control eye (30 µL saline) and three positive control eyes (30 µL 5% Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC)) were tested. After the exposure, the eyes were rinsed with 20 mL saline and were examined at approximately 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after treatment. Mean fluorescein retention score was determined at 30 minutes post-treatment. The test substance caused corneal effects consisting of very slight corneal swelling (mean of 3%), no opacity and very slight fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.5). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance did not reveal any abnormalities. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities as well. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the positive control BAC 5% revealed slight or severe erosion and very slight or slight vacuolation of the epithelium and endothelial necrosis. Based on these results, the substance is not considered to be irritating to the eyes.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Additional information
Skin corrosion:
The substance was tested in duplicate in an in vitro skin corrosion test according to OECD TG 431 test guideline and GLP principles. Tissues were exposed to the substance, a negative control (deionised water) and a positive control (8.0 N KOH) for 3 minutes and 60 minutes. The substance was tested for direct MTT reduction and colour interference and both results were negative. Acceptability criteria for the negative control, positive control and variability between measurements were met.
The cell viability of the tissues exposed to the substance was 97.4% and 105.4% for 3 minutes and 60 minutes exposure, respectively. Since the cell viabilities did not exceed the threshold for corrosivity (50% after 3 minutes exposure and 15% after 60 minutes exposure), the substance is considered not to be corrosive.
Skin irritation:
An in vitro study was performed according to OECD 439 and GLP principles, to assess the substance's potential to be irritant to the skin. Three tissues from the human skin model EpiDerm(TM) were exposed to the substance, a positive control and a negative control for 60 minutes. Before the start of the study, the test item was checked for interference with the MTT endpoint.
Tissues were washed and incubated with MTT after the exposure period. Formazan was extracted by isopropanol and subsequently the tissues were read by a microplate reader at 570 nm. The positive control tissues showed a mean tissue viability of 3.1% indicating that the test system functioned properly. The negative control tissues had absorbance values within the required acceptability criteria. Since all acceptability criteria were met, the study was considered to be valid. The tissues treated with the substance showed a mean tissue viability of 88.2% compared to the negative control tissues. Based on this result, the substance is not irritant to the skin.
Eye irritation:
The test substance was examined for its in vitro eye irritating potential using the Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) test, in accordance with OECD guideline 438 and GLP. In the ICE test, 3 eyes were exposed to 30 µL test substance for 10 seconds. In addition, one negative control eye (30 µL saline) and three positive control eyes (30 µL 5% Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC)) were tested. After the exposure, the eyes were rinsed with 20 mL saline and were examined at approximately 0, 30, 75, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after treatment. Mean fluorescein retention score was determined at 30 minutes post-treatment. The test substance caused corneal effects consisting of very slight corneal swelling (mean of 3%), no opacity and very slight fluorescein retention (mean score of 0.5). The negative control eye did not show any corneal effect and demonstrated that the general conditions during the tests were adequate. The positive control BAC 5% caused severe corneal effects and demonstrated the ICE test valid to detect severe eye irritants. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the test substance did not reveal any abnormalities. Microscopic examination of the cornea treated with the negative control (saline) did not reveal any abnormalities as well. Microscopic examination of the corneas treated with the positive control BAC 5% revealed slight or severe erosion and very slight or slight vacuolation of the epithelium and endothelial necrosis. Based on these results, the substance is not considered to be irritating to the eyes.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the results, the substance does not need to be classified for corrosion, skin irritation or eye irritation according to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments).
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.