Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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.
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: 200-578-6 | CAS number: 64-17-5
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- migrated information: read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: see 'Remark'
- Remarks:
- hypothesis As a hypothesis, methanol is the critical constituent of the substance (S-Ethanol, composition 2) based on its amount and with regards to its hazardous properties. It is the major constituent affecting the classification and labeling of the target substance (S-Ethanol). Therefore, data from methanol is used in the read-across approach in order to update the hazard assessment of this substance. Other impurities are taken into account for self-classification but there were no need to consider evaluating their properties in hazard assessment because of low concentrations. Analogue approach justification This substance (S-Ethanol, composition 2) has degree of ethanol purity between 76.4-81.9 %. Methanol is the main impurity of the target substance (conc. 13-14 %), and considered the major driver for adverse effects based on its properties and relative quantity in the substance. For chemical safety assessment certain physico-chemical properties are relevant for both human health and environmental health assessment. Also they are important for self-classification and for updating of the exposure assessment of the target substance. For toxicological endpoints, methanol is considered the major drivers for classification and overall safety assessment of the target substance. Therefore, methanol properties were included for chemical safety assessment and the endpoint robust summaries were provided also for methanol.
Data source
Referenceopen allclose all
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 979
- Report date:
- 1979
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 1 979
- Report date:
- 1979
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- Induction phase comprised 1st and 2nd induction, each subdivided into intradermal and epidermal treatment with 1-week-intervals between each treatment.
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Study was performed as modification of the Magnusson-Kligman test before the actual guideline was adopted.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Methanol
- EC Number:
- 200-659-6
- EC Name:
- Methanol
- Cas Number:
- 67-56-1
- Molecular formula:
- CH4O
- IUPAC Name:
- methanol
- Details on test material:
- - Name of test material (as cited in study report): methanol, substance no. 78/333
- Analytical purity: no data
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: Pirbright White
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Firma Hagemann, Lippische Versuchstierzucht, 4923 Extertal
- Weight at study initiation: 449 - 824 g
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Ssniff K, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Inductionopen allclose all
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 50 %
Challengeopen allclose all
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 50 %
- No. of animals per dose:
- 1st study: 10 test, 5 control
2nd study: 12 test, 5 control - Details on study design:
- MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 4
- Exposure period: d 0 (1st intradermal), 7 (1st epicutaneous), 14 (2nd intradermal), 21 ( 2nd epicutaneous)
- Test groups: 1st intradermal: 6 parallel injections with Freund's adjuvant, 50% methanol and Freund's adjuvant + 50% methanol, respectively; 2nd intradermal: 4 parallel injections with 50% methanol and Freund's adjuvant + 50% methanol, respectively; both epidermal: conc. methanol
- Control group: no induction treatment
- Site: shoulder region
- Frequency of applications: weekly
- Duration: epicutaneous: 48 h occlusive
- Concentrations: 50% intradermal, 100% epicutaneous
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 34 days after 1st intradermal induction
- Exposure period: 24 h occlusive
- Test groups: 1st study: right 50% methanol, left 25% formaldehyde epicutaneous; 2nd study: concentrated methanol epicutaneous
- Control group: 1st study: right 50% methanol, left 25% formaldehyde epicutaneous; 2nd study: concentrated methanol epicutaneous
- Site: flank
- Concentrations: 50% methanol and 25% formaldehyde, respectively (study 1), 100% methanol (study 2)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24, 48 and 72 hours - Challenge controls:
- Control groups (no induction treatment)
- Positive control substance(s):
- no
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- Positive controls not performed.
In vivo (non-LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- other: 1st study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 3
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythema (score 1)
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: 1st study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 3.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: slight erythema (score 1).
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- other: 1st study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: 1st study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- other: 1st study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: other: 1st study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- other: 2nd study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythema (score 1)
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: other: 2nd study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 12.0. Clinical observations: slight erythema (score 1).
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- other: 2nd study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythemy (score 1)
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: other: 2nd study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 12.0. Clinical observations: slight erythemy (score 1).
- Reading:
- other: 3rd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 72
- Group:
- other: 2nd study test group
- Dose level:
- 50 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 12
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: other: 3rd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: other: 2nd study test group. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 12.0. Clinical observations: none.
Any other information on results incl. tables
In the first study, 3/10 females exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 h after challenge, in the parallel test with formaldehyde 1/10 females exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 h after challenge, which can be interpreted as weak sensitizing potential.
In the second study using 12 female animals at a concentration of 50 % methanol, 1/12 exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 and 48 h after challenge which can be interpreted as a weak sensitising potential.
The intracutane inductions produced necroses and some open ulcerations in both studies.
In summary, the low number of 4/22 animals with slight erythema (score 1) gives no evidence of a notable sensitisation potential of methanol.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
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.
