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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 442-480-8 | CAS number: 182893-11-4
- 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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 11 February 2002 - 28 March 2002
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 002
- Report date:
- 2002
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: "Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea-Pig: Identification of Contact Allergens" Magnusson B. Kligman A.M., 1970 published by C.C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USA.
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- study was commissioned before LLNA method was adopted
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- -
- EC Number:
- 442-480-8
- EC Name:
- -
- Cas Number:
- 182893-11-4
- Molecular formula:
- Mixture of C5H12O4 and C10H22O6
- IUPAC Name:
- reaction mass of 1,2-dimethylpropylidene dihydroperoxide and dimethyl 1,2-benzenedicarboxylate
- Details on test material:
- Identification: Trigonox R-938
Chemical name: Methyl Isopropyl Ketone Peroxide
CASRN: Mixture of 13921-99-8, 33372-83-7, 131-11-3 and 563-80-4
Description: Clear colourless liquid
Batch: 1510-14
Test substance storage: In refrigerator in the dark
Stability under storage conditions: Stable
Expiry date: 01 January 2003
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Himalayan
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Biotechnology & Animal Breeding Division (RCC Ltd.), Fullinsdorf, Switzerland.
- Age at study initiation: approx. 5 weeks old
- Weight at study initiation: mean ±358g
- Housing: Group housing of 5 animals per labelled metal cage with wire-mesh floors.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Free access to standard guinea pig diet, including ascorbic acid (1000 mg/kg); (Charles River Breeding and Maintenance Diet for Guinea Pigs, Altromin, Lage, Germany). Certificates of analysis were examined and retained in the NOTOX archives. Hay (B.M.I., Helmond, The Netherlands) was provided twice a week.
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): Free access to tap water. Certificates of quarterly analysis for tap-water were examined and retained in the NOTOX archives
- Acclimation period:The acclimatisation period was at least 5 days before the start of treatment under laboratory conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 21 ± 3
- Humidity (%): 30-70
- Air changes (per hr): 15
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
IN-LIFE DATES: 11 February 2002 - 28 March 2002
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction:
intradermal;
A) A 1:1 w/w mixture of Freunds' Complete Adjuvant (Difco, Detroit, U.S.A.) with water for injection (Fresenius AG, Bad Homburg, Germany).
B) The test substance at a 1% concentration.
C) A 1:1 w/w mixture of the test substance, at twice the concentration used in (B) and Freunds' Complete Adjuvant.
epicutaneous; 5%
Challenge:epicutaneous; 2%
Challengeopen allclose all
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- corn oil
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction:
intradermal;
A) A 1:1 w/w mixture of Freunds' Complete Adjuvant (Difco, Detroit, U.S.A.) with water for injection (Fresenius AG, Bad Homburg, Germany).
B) The test substance at a 1% concentration.
C) A 1:1 w/w mixture of the test substance, at twice the concentration used in (B) and Freunds' Complete Adjuvant.
epicutaneous; 5%
Challenge:epicutaneous; 2%
- No. of animals per dose:
- Control group: 5
Test group: 10 - Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A preliminary irritation study was conducted in order to select test substance concentrations to be used in the main study.
INDUCTION - Experimental animals
Day 1 The scapular region was clipped and three pairs of intradermal injections (0.1 ml/site) were made in this area as follows:
A) A 1:1 w/w mixture of Freunds' Complete Adjuvant (Difco, Detroit, U.S.A.) with water for injection (Fresenius AG, Bad Homburg, Germany).
B) The test substance at a 1% concentration.
C) A 1:1 w/w mixture of the test substance, at twice the concentration used in (B) and Freunds' Complete Adjuvant.
Note: One of each pair was on each side of the midline and from cranial A) to caudal C).
Day 3 The dermal reactions caused by the intradermal injections were assessed for irritation.
Day 8 The scapular area between the injection sites was clipped and subsequently treated with 0.5 ml of a 5% test substance concentration using a Metalline patch (2x3 cm) mounted on Medical tape, which was held in place with Micropore tape and subsequently Coban elastic bandage. The dressing was removed after 48 hours exposure, the skin cleaned of residual test substance using water and the dermal reactions caused by the epidermal exposure were assessed for irritation.
INDUCTION - Control animals
The control animals were treated as described for the experimental animals except that, instead of the test substance, vehicle alone was administered.
CHALLENGE - All animals
Day 22 One flank of all animals was clipped and treated by epidermal application of a 2% test substance concentration and the vehicle (0.1 ml each), using Patch Test Plasters (Curatest®, Lohmann, Almere, The Netherlands). The patches were held in place with Micropore tape and subsequently Coban elastic bandage. The dressing was removed after 24 hours exposure and the skin cleaned of residual test substance and vehicle using water. The treated sites were assessed for challenge reactions 24 and 48 hours after removal of the dressing.
Day 29 A re-challenge was conducted approximately one week after the first challenge, to clarify the results in the first challenge. The contralateral flank of all animals was similarly treated. - Positive control substance(s):
- no
Results and discussion
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 2
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- scaliness was observed in 6 animals
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 2.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: scaliness was observed in 6 animals.
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 192
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 192.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 216
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 216.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Key result
- Reading:
- rechallenge
- Hours after challenge:
- 216
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 7
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- scaliness was observed in 7 animals
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: rechallenge. . Hours after challenge: 216.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2%. No with. + reactions: 7.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: scaliness was observed in 7 animals.
Any other information on results incl. tables
PRELIMINARY IRRITATION STUDY
Based on the results, the test substance concentrations selected for the main study were a 1% concentration for the intradermal induction and a 5% concentration for the epidermal induction exposure. A 2% test substance concentration was selected for the challenge phase.
For further details on results see attached tables.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Based on the results the substance is classified as skin sensitizing category 1.
- Executive summary:
Assessment for Contact Hypersensitivity in the Albino Guinea Pig (Maximisation Test).
The study was carried out based on the guidelines described in: EC Commission Directive 96/54/EC, Part B.6, "Skin Sensitisation", OECD No. 406, "Skin Sensitisation" and EPA OPPTS 870.2600 "Skin Sensitisation", August 1998 and based on the method described by Magnusson and Kligman, "Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig - Identification of Contact Allergens".
Test substance concentrations selected for the main study were based on the results of a preliminary study.
In the main study, ten experimental animals were intradermally injected with a 1% concentration and epidermally exposed to a 5% concentration. Five control animals were similarly treated, but with vehicle alone (corn oil).
Two weeks after the epidermal application all animals were challenged with a 2% test substance concentration and the vehicle. A second challenge was performed one week later with a 2% test substance concentration and the vehicle.
In the first challenge phase skin reactions of grade 1, were observed in three experimental animals in response to the 2% test substance concentration. No skin reactions were evident in the control animals. Scaliness was seen in some treated skin sites of among the experimental
animals.
To confirm the results of the first challenge, a second challenge was performed one week later. In the second challenge phase skin reactions varying between grades 1 and 2, were observed in seven experimental animals in response to the 2% test substance concentration. No skin reactions were evident in the control animals. Scaliness was seen in some treated skin sites among the experimental animals.
Since scaliness was not observed in control animals, it may be indicative of sensitisation in the experimental animals. Therefore, scaliness was taken into account for the establishment of the sensitisation rate.
The skin reactions observed in the first challenge phase in response to a 2% test substance concentration in six (of the ten) experimental animals were confirmed in the second challenge phase and were therefore considered indicative of sensitisation, based on the absence of any response in the control animals. These results indicate a sensitisation rate of 60 per cent a 1% intradermal induction dose.
2018 Evaluation
The study was conducted in a proper way and the selection of the highest concentrations that could be used for the main study were performed in accordance with the test guidelines. For the evaluation of the first challenge results, the report states that “Since scaliness was not observed in control animals, it may be indicative of sensitization in the experimental animals”. This statement is scientifically sound by itself, but the guidelines and literature for proper interpretation of the data indicate that only positive skin reactions (grade 1 or more) and not scaliness should be considered as signs of sensitization, provided that such reactions are not observed or are less persistent in the control group. Applying this interpretation to the results of the first challenge, a sensitization rate of 30% would have been concluded since three of the ten animals showed a positive skin reaction (grade 1). This means that the first challenge was conclusive and hence there was no need to clarify or confirm the responses. It should be mentioned however that the responses were not strong, were observed at one time point for each animal and only 3 animals responded (which is exactly on the 30% threshold for classification). The strong positive response during the second challenge confirms that the compound has sensitizing capability in the guinea pig but no relevance for the sensitizing potential or potency for humans should be attached to this second challenge. Firstly, this challenge was performed while there was no need to clarify the response to the first challenge and secondly, the first challenge may have further induced the animals thereby significantly enhancing the response.
In conclusion, only the results of the first challenge should be used for interpretation and classification and although the results were not strong and exactly on the borderline for classification, the results suggest that MIPKP may act as a weak sensitizer in humans (Category 1B according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008).
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.