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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 270-185-2 | CAS number: 68412-38-4 This substance is identified in the Colour Index by Colour Index Constitution Number, C.I. 77899.
- 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 sensitisation: not sensitising (equivalent or similar to OECD guideline 429)
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Justification for type of information:
- REPORTING FORMAT FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
The analogy in structure, physico-chemical properties as well as the behaviour in the bioaccessability studies indicate that all three rutiles are of low bioavailability after dermal exposure. The higher release of manganese in artificial sweat solution from Manganese antimony titanium buff rutile is not considered relevant as soluble manganese ions are not known for a skin sensitising potential. All three rutiles do not show an irritation potential when applied onto skin (or into eyes).
Thus, based on the above-mentioned similarities the read across for the endpoint skin sensitization from Chrome antimony titanium buff rutile and Chrome tungsten titanium buff rutile to Manganese antimony titanium buff rutile is considered to be acceptable.
See read-across justification attached to IUCLID section 13.2 - Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across: supporting information
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across: supporting information
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10%
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.69
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25%
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50%
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
An in vivo skin sensitisation study (local lymph node assay (LLNA); OECD 429 (modified)) with manganese antimony titanium buff rutile was conducted (Haferkorn, 2022). Groups of 6 female NMRI mice were treated with 10, 25 and 50 % of the substance in propylene glycol. Signs of skin sensitisation but no irritation potential were noted for the highest test concentration of 50 % (w/w) test item. However, the findings in this local lymph node assay are considered to be inconclusive for the following reasons:
The results of the positive control group did unexpectedly reveal a skin irritant potential instead of a skin sensitisation potential. Therefore, a reference to the historical background data of the positive control item (35 studies performed between years 2017 and 2019) was made by the laboratory. It was argued that the positive control item is not mandatory (not included in the acceptance criteria of this test according to OECD 429). However, even the positive control is not mandatory, failure of a positive control that is run concurrently in a study should not occur, when the test substance give positive results. In addition, the OECD guideline 429 (2010) recommends the inclusion of a concurrent positive control, but also foresees the possibility of periodic testing: “While inclusion of a concurrent PC group is recommended, there may be situations in which periodic testing (i.e. at intervals ≤ 6 months) of the PC test substance may be adequate for laboratories that conduct the LLNA regularly (i.e. conduct the LLNA at a frequency of no less than once per month) and have an established historical PC database that demonstrates the laboratory’s ability to obtain reproducible and accurate results with PCs.” These conditions have not been accredited in the provided historical control data. In conclusion, the integrity of the study has been questioned, since the positive control group failed, and the validity of the periodic historical control data is not demonstrated.
The data of the lymph node cell count of the vehicle control group (propylene glycol) to which the test item groups are compared shows a high relative standard deviation of 44 %. This relative standard deviation is the highest standard deviation obtained in the current study. The relative standard deviation of the vehicle control group (acetone/olive oil; rel. standard deviation: 23 %) to which the positive control group is compared is lower as well as the relative standard deviation of the historical control data (rel. standard deviation: 29 %). However, the historical control data for controls combined all vehicles ((acetone/olive oil (4:1, v/v), N,N-dimethylformamide, propylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide) used by the laboratory in 35 studies conducted in the years 2017 - 2019. This implies that the controls are interchangeable. Therefore, if the vehicle group (acetone/olive oil (4:1, v/v)) would be used to calculate the stimulation index of the high dose group (50 % concentration of manganese antimony titanium buff rutile), a stimulation index of 1.23 would be obtained instead of 1.7, which indicate no skin sensitisation potential.
Lastly, reviewing the data for lymph node weight of the test item vehicle control group (propylene glycol), it can be observed that half of the values as well as the mean value were above the values of the historical control data. The mean value was even statistically significantly higher than the historical control data.
Overall, these data suggest that the results of the vehicle control group of the test item are unreliable and unsuitable for estimating stimulation index. Consequently, the stimulation index of 1.7 for the high dose group (50% (w/w) test item) is highly questionable and offers low reliability.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the open literature for any of the elements included in the test substance to be a skin sensitizer. A bioaccessibility study with manganese antimony titanium buff rutile in artificial sweat indicated that the element, which is mostly released from this compound, is manganese. The remaining elements (antimony and titanium) were below the limit of quantification.
Two references obtained during a literature search described local lymph node assays conducted with manganese chloride and manganese chloride tetrahydrate. These references were considered to be reliable and are summarised below:
Basketter et al. (1999) investigated the skin sensitisation potential of manganese chloride in groups of 4 CBA/CA mice using the local lymph node assay (LLNA). For application the following concentrations were used: 5.0, 10.0 and 25.0 % in petrolatum. Manganese chloride did not give rise to an increase in proliferation of lymph node cells and, therefore, was judged to have no skin sensitisation potential.
Furthermore, Ikarashi et al. (1992) investigated manganese chloride tetrahydrate for its potential to cause skin sensitisation using the local lmph node assay. Groups of 3 female Balb/c mice were treated with 10 % of the substance in 20 % ethanol on the dorsum of each ear. The surface of each ear was gently abraded prior to application. The mice exposed to the substance did not show an increase in lymph node cell proliferation compared with those exposed to vehicle alone. Therefore, manganese chloride tetrahydrate was not considered to be a skin sensitiser.
Lastly, a false positive reaction to skin sensitisation test can be assumed if a test substance does not have a structural alert. For the manganese antimony titanium buff rutile no structural alert exists.
In conclusion, based on the arguments present above this local lymph node assay with manganese antimony titanium buff rutile is considered to be inconclusive.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Manganese antimony titanium buff rutile does not possess a skin sensitisation potential and does not require classification as skin sensitiser according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 and subsequent adaptations.
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.