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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 202-928-3 | CAS number: 101-25-7
- 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
REACH_positive | DPRA | OECD 442C | #key study#
REACH_negative | KeratinoSens | OECD 442D | #key study#
REACH_positive | h-CLAT | OECD 442E | #key study#
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2019-05-08 to 2019-05-20
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: KeratinoSens™, EURL ECVAM DB-ALM Protocol No. 155, July 1st, 2015
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, München, Germany
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The KeratinoSens™ assay is supposed to address the second key event of the skin sensitisation process as defined by the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), the induction of cyto-protective signalling pathways in keratinocytes in response to electrophiles and oxidative stress. The KeratinoSens™ assay addresses the effect on the antioxidant response element (ARE)-dependent pathway in the KeratinoSens™ cell line by measuring the induction of an ARE dependent gene product, the luciferase gene. The luciferase gene induction following exposure to test chemicals is measured in cell lysates by luminescence detection, allowing the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
Since activation of the Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway addresses only the second key event of the skin sensitisation AOP, information from test methods based on the activation of this pathway is unlikely to be sufficient when used on its own to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of chemicals. Therefore data generated according to OECD 442D should be considered in the context of integrated approaches, such as IATA, combining them with other complementary information e.g. derived from in vitro assays addressing other key events of the skin sensitisation AOP. - Details on the study design:
- The in vitro KeratinoSens™ assay enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the second molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely activation of keratinocytes, by quantifying the luciferase activity in the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™. The luciferase activity, assessed by luminescence measurement, compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
- Positive control results:
- The luciferase activity induced by the positive control at a concentration of 64 µM was between 2 and 8 (2,78 (experiment 1); 3,28 (experiment 2)).
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: luciferase activity
- Remarks:
- I max
- Value:
- 1.15
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Concentration 62.50 µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: cell viability [%]
- Value:
- 97.8
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Concentration 62.50 µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 [µM]
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- not determinable
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: luciferase activity
- Remarks:
- I max
- Value:
- 1.13
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Concentration 62.50 µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: cell viability [%]
- Value:
- 98.6
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Concentration 62.50 µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5 [µM]
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- not determinable
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- All acceptance criteria were fullfilled proving the validity of the test.
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Negative in the KeratinoSens Assay
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did not induce the luciferase activity in the transgenic KeratinoSens™ cell line in at least two independent experiment runs. Therefore, the test item can be considered as non-sensitiser.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on the absence of skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach such as IATA. - Executive summary:
In the present study the test item was dissolved in DMSO. Based on a molecular weight of 186.17 g/mol a stock solution of 200 mM was prepared.
Based on the stock solution a set of twelve master solutions in 100% solvent was prepared by serial dilution using a constant dilution factor of 1:2. These master solutions were diluted 1:100 in cell culture medium. The following concentration range was tested in the assay:
2000, 1000, 500, 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.63, 7.81, 3.91, 1.95, 0.98 µM
Cells were incubated with the test item for 48 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were lysed and luciferase activity was assessed by luminescence measurement.
In the first experiment, no significant luciferase induction > 1.5 was found in the tested concentration range. Therefore, no EC1.5 value could be calculated. From the concentration 125 µM onwards the test item was cytotoxic.
In the second experiment, no significant luciferase induction > 1.5 was found in the tested concentration range. Therefore, no EC1.5 value could be calculated. From the concentration 125 µM onwards the test item was cytotoxic.
No dose response for luciferase activity induction was observed for each individual run as well as for an overall luciferase activity induction.
Under the condition of this study the test item is therefore considered as non-sensitiser.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2019-05-15 to 2019-06-06
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) for Skin Sensitization Testing, DB-ALM Protocol n°154, January 12, 2013
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, München, Germany
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- In order to replace in vivo experiments validation studies on alternative, mechanistically based in chemico and in vitro test methods on skin sensitisation were conducted under the auspices of ECVAM and have been considered scientifically valid for the evaluation of the skin sensitisation hazard of chemicals. It was concluded that the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) showed evidence of being a reliable and relevant method to test for skin sensitisation testing. However, only combinations of several non-animal testing methods within an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) will be able to fully substitute for the animal test currently in use.
- Details on the study design:
- The in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by quantifying the reactivity of test chemicals towards synthetic peptides containing either lysine or cysteine.
In the present study 3,7-Dinitroso-1,3,5,7-tetraazabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane was dissolved in acetonitrile, based on the results of the pre-experiments.
Based on a molecular weight of 186.17 g/mol a 100 mM stock solution was prepared. The test item solutions were tested by incubating the samples with the peptides containing either cysteine or lysine for 24 ± 2 h at 25 ± 2.5 °C. Subsequently samples were analysed by HPLC. All test item solutions were freshly prepared immediately prior to use. - Positive control results:
- The 100 mM stock solution of the positive control (cinnamic aldehyde) showed high reactivity towards the synthetic peptides. The mean depletion of both peptides was 66.24%.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Prediction Model 1 (Cysteine/Lysine Peptide)
- Parameter:
- other: Mean Peptide Depletion [%]
- Value:
- 21.91
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 66.24
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Low Reactivity
- Run / experiment:
- other: Cysteine run
- Parameter:
- other: Mean Peptide Depletion [%]
- Value:
- 39.45
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 69.79
- Run / experiment:
- other: Lysine run
- Parameter:
- other: Mean Peptide Depletion [%]
- Value:
- 4.37
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks:
- 62.70
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- Acceptance Criteria for Cysteine Peptide
- coefficient of determination R² > 0.99 0.9999 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC A 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.5069 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC C (PC) 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.5038 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC C (TI) 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.5038 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC B < 15% 0.54 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC C (PC) < 15% 0.65 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC C (TI) < 15% 0.65 pass
- mean peptide depletion of the PC 60.8% < x < 100% 69.79 pass
- SD of peptide depletion of the PC replicates < 14.9% 0.24 pass
- SD of peptide depletion of the TI replicates < 14.9% 0.92 pass
Acceptance Criteria for Lysine Peptide
- coefficient of determination R² > 0.99 1.0000 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC A 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.5001 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC C (PC) 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.4977 pass
- mean peptide concentration of RC C (TI) 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.55 mM 0.4977 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC B < 15% 0.34 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC C (PC) < 15% 0.44 pass
- CV of the peak area of RC C (TI) < 15% 0.44 pass
- mean peptide depletion of the PC 40.2% < x < 69.0% 62.70 pass
- SD of peptide depletion of the PC replicates < 11.6% 0.18 pass
- SD of peptide depletion of the TI replicates < 11.6% 0.16 pass - Interpretation of results:
- other: Positive in the DPRA Assay
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item showed low reactivity towards both peptides. The test item is considered as “sensitiser”.
The data generated with this test should be considered in the context of integrated approached such as IATA, combining the result with other complementary information, e.g. derived from in vitro assays addressing other key events of the skin sensitisation AOP. - Executive summary:
In the present study the test item was dissolved in acetonitrile, based on the results of the pre-experiments.
Based on a molecular weight of 186.17 g/mol a 100 mM stock solution was prepared. The test item solutions were tested by incubating the samples with the peptides containing either cysteine or lysine for 24 ± 2 h at 25 ± 2.5 °C. Subsequently samples were analysed by HPLC.
All test item solutions were freshly prepared immediately prior to use.
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the cysteine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for any of the samples.
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the lysine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the samples of the test item. Phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control (including the co-elution control). Samples were not centrifuged prior to the HPLC analysis.
Since the acceptance criteria for the depletion range of the positive control were fulfilled, the observed phase separation was regarded as not relevant.
No co-elution of the test item with the peptide peaks was observed. Sensitising potential of the test item was predicted from the mean peptide depletion of both analysed peptides (cysteine and lysine) by comparing the peptide concentration of the test item treated samples to the corresponding reference control C (RC Cacetonitrile).
The 100 mM stock solution of the test item showed low reactivity towards the synthetic peptides. The mean depletion of both peptides was > 6.38% (21.91%). Based on the prediction model 1 the test item can be considered as sensitiser.
The 100 mM stock solution of the positive control (cinnamic aldehyde) showed high reactivity towards the synthetic peptides. The mean depletion of both peptides was 66.24%.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2019-05-10 to 2019-07-16
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, No. 442E: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the Key Event on activation of dendritic cells on the Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation”, adopted 25 June 2018
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) for Skin Sensitisation, DB-ALM Protocol n°158, July 1st, 2015
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, München, Germany
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The h-CLAT is supposed to address the third key event of the skin sensitisation process as defined by the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitisation, which is the activation of dendritic cells (DC) typically accompanied by expression of specific cell surface markers, chemokines and cytokines. The h-CLAT quantifies the expression of the two surface markers CD86 and CD54 which are considered to be associated with the process of DC activation by using the human monocytic leukemia cell line THP-1 as a surrogate. The expression level of CD86 and CD54 following exposure to test chemicals are used for supporting the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
However, as DC activation represents only one key event of the skin sensitisation AOP, information generated with test methods measuring markers of DC activation alone may not be sufficient to conclude on the presence or absence of skin sensitisation potential of chemicals. Therefore, data generated with the test methods described in the Guideline are proposed to support the discrimination between skin sensitisers (i.e. UN GHS Category 1) and non-sensitisers when used within Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). - Details on the study design:
- The in vitro human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) enables detection of the sensitising potential of a test item by addressing the third molecular key event of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP), namely dendritic cell activation, by quantifying the expression of the cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. The expression of the cell surface markers compared to the respective solvent controls is used to support discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
- Positive control results:
- The positive control (DNCB) led to an upregulation of the expression of CD54 and CD86 in both experiments.
The threshold of 150% for CD86 (380% experiment 1; 293% experiment 2) and 200% for CD54 (577% experiment 1; 471% experiment 2) were clearly exceeded. - Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1 [Concentration: 73.48 µg/mL]
- Parameter:
- other: relative fluorescence intensity CD86 [%]
- Value:
- 335
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 1 [Concentration: 73.48 µg/mL]
- Parameter:
- other: relative fluorescence intensity CD54 [%]
- Value:
- 200
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2 [Concentration: 51.03 µg/mL]
- Parameter:
- other: relative fluorescence intensity CD86 [%]
- Value:
- 192
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: 2 [Concentration: 42.53 µg/mL]
- Parameter:
- other: relative fluorescence intensity CD54 [%]
- Value:
- 110
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- All acceptance criteria were fullfilled proving the validity of the test.
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Positive in the h-CLAT Test
- Conclusions:
- In this study under the given conditions the test item did upregulate the cell surface marker in at least two independent experiment runs. Therefore, the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
The data generated with this method may be not sufficient to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of chemicals and should be considered in the context of integrated approach such as IATA. - Executive summary:
In the present study the test item was dissolved in DMSO. For the dose finding assay stock solutions with concentrations ranging from 230 mg/mL to 1.80 mg/mL were prepared by a serial dilution of 1:2. Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained with propidium iodide and cell viability was measured by FACS analysis.
A CV75 of 73.48 ± 0.04 µg/mL was derived in the dose finding assay. Based on the CV75, the main experiment was performed covering the following concentration steps:
88.18, 73.48, 61.24, 51.03, 42.52, 35.44, 29.53, 24.61 µg/mL
In the second dose-finding assay, little precipitation of the test item was observed for the highest concentration steps when mixing the test item stock solutions with cell culture medium.
Cells were incubated with the test item for 24 h at 37°C. After exposure cells were stained and cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 were measured by FACS analysis. Cell viability was assessed in parallel using propidium iodide staining.
Severe cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the highest test item concentrations. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 18.8% (CD86), 17.2% (CD54) and 15.4% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 20.1% (CD86), 17.7% (CD54) and 14.9% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment. At a concentration of 73.48 µg/mL for main experiment 1 and concentration of 51.03 µg/mL for main experiment 2 the cells were viable.
The expression of the cell surface marker CD86 was upregulated to 335% in the first and to 192% in the second experiment.The upregulation above the threshold of 150% was observed at a concentration of 73.48 µg/mL in the first experiment and at a concentration of 51.03 µg/mL in the second experiment. The expression of the cell surface marker CD54 was upregulated to 200% in the first experiment, it was not upregulated in the second experiment.
Since one of the cell surface markers clearly exceeded the threshold in two independent experiments the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
Referenceopen allclose all
In the first experiment, no significant luciferase induction > 1.5 was found in the tested concentration range. Therefore, no EC1.5 value could be calculated. From the concentration 125 μM onwards the test item was cytotoxic.
In the second experiment, no significant luciferase induction > 1.5 was found in the tested concentration range. Therefore, no EC1.5 value could be calculated. From the concentration 125 μM onwards the test item was cytotoxic.
No dose response for luciferase activity induction was observed for each individual run as well as for an overall luciferase activity induction.
Under the condition of this study the test item is therefore considered as non-sensitiser.
Results of the Cytotoxicity Measurement
|
Concentration [µM] |
Cell Viability [%] |
||||
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
|
Mean |
SD |
||
Solvent Control |
- |
100 |
100 |
|
100 |
0.0 |
Positive Control |
4.00 |
99.5 |
97.1 |
|
98.3 |
1.7 |
8.00 |
103.7 |
101.6 |
|
102.6 |
1.5 |
|
16.00 |
106.3 |
101.9 |
|
104.1 |
3.1 |
|
32.00 |
104.8 |
105.6 |
|
105.2 |
0.5 |
|
64.00 |
107.8 |
103.5 |
|
105.6 |
3.1 |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
97.4 |
109.9 |
|
103.7 |
8.9 |
1.95 |
96.4 |
106.2 |
|
101.3 |
6.9 |
|
3.91 |
97.1 |
102.1 |
|
99.6 |
3.5 |
|
7.81 |
95.0 |
99.8 |
|
97.4 |
3.4 |
|
15.63 |
96.0 |
104.5 |
|
100.3 |
6.0 |
|
31.25 |
92.1 |
98.2 |
|
95.1 |
4.3 |
|
62.50 |
97.8 |
98.6 |
|
98.2 |
0.6 |
|
125.00 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
|
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
250.00 |
2.6 |
2.2 |
|
2.4 |
0.3 |
|
500.00 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
|
1.1 |
0.9 |
|
1000.00 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
0.3 |
0.0 |
|
2000.00 |
-0.1 |
0.3 |
|
0.1 |
0.3 |
Induction of Luciferase Activity Experiment 1
Experiment 1 |
Concentration [µM] |
Fold Induction |
Significance |
||||
Rep. 1 |
Rep. 2 |
Rep. 3 |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
Positive Control |
4.00 |
1.17 |
1.11 |
1.12 |
1.13 |
0.04 |
|
8.00 |
1.33 |
1.62 |
1.22 |
1.39 |
0.21 |
|
|
16.00 |
1.44 |
1.36 |
1.22 |
1.34 |
0.11 |
|
|
32.00 |
1.70 |
1.93 |
1.54 |
1.72 |
0.20 |
* |
|
64.00 |
2.79 |
3.07 |
2.47 |
2.78 |
0.30 |
* |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
1.03 |
1.10 |
1.14 |
1.09 |
0.06 |
|
1.95 |
0.96 |
1.07 |
1.03 |
1.02 |
0.05 |
|
|
3.91 |
1.00 |
1.05 |
0.94 |
1.00 |
0.06 |
|
|
7.81 |
0.98 |
1.05 |
0.98 |
1.00 |
0.04 |
|
|
15.63 |
1.01 |
1.00 |
0.94 |
0.98 |
0.04 |
|
|
31.25 |
1.11 |
1.20 |
0.99 |
1.10 |
0.10 |
|
|
62.50 |
1.08 |
1.19 |
1.18 |
1.15 |
0.06 |
|
|
125.00 |
0.11 |
0.12 |
0.11 |
0.11 |
0.01 |
|
|
250.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
500.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
1000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
2000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
* = significant induction according to Student’s t-test, p<0.05
Induction of Luciferase Activity Experiment 2
Experiment 2 |
Concentration [µM] |
Fold Induction |
Significance |
||||
Rep. 1 |
Rep. 2 |
Rep. 3 |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
Positive Control |
4.00 |
1.35 |
1.22 |
1.94 |
1.50 |
0.39 |
|
8.00 |
1.33 |
1.49 |
1.29 |
1.37 |
0.10 |
|
|
16.00 |
1.66 |
1.87 |
1.60 |
1.71 |
0.14 |
* |
|
32.00 |
2.29 |
1.85 |
2.24 |
2.13 |
0.24 |
* |
|
64.00 |
3.57 |
3.46 |
2.80 |
3.28 |
0.42 |
* |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
1.16 |
1.32 |
0.88 |
1.12 |
0.22 |
|
1.95 |
1.11 |
0.91 |
0.88 |
0.97 |
0.12 |
|
|
3.91 |
0.88 |
0.92 |
0.87 |
0.89 |
0.03 |
|
|
7.81 |
0.91 |
0.99 |
0.82 |
0.91 |
0.09 |
|
|
15.63 |
0.90 |
0.90 |
0.84 |
0.88 |
0.04 |
|
|
31.25 |
0.93 |
0.88 |
0.88 |
0.90 |
0.03 |
|
|
62.50 |
1.09 |
1.25 |
1.04 |
1.13 |
0.11 |
|
|
125.00 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
|
|
250.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
500.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
1000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
2000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
* = significant induction according to Student’s t-test, p<0.05
Induction of Luciferase Activity – Overall Induction
|
Concentration [µM] |
Fold Induction |
|||
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
Mean |
SD |
||
Solvent Control |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
Positive Control |
4.00 |
1.13 |
1.50 |
1.32 |
0.26 |
8.00 |
1.39 |
1.37 |
1.38 |
0.01 |
|
16.00 |
1.34 |
1.71 |
1.53 |
0.26 |
|
32.00 |
1.72 |
2.13 |
1.93 |
0.28 |
|
64.00 |
2.78 |
3.28 |
3.03 |
0.35 |
|
Test Item |
0.98 |
1.09 |
1.12 |
1.11 |
0.02 |
1.95 |
1.02 |
0.97 |
0.99 |
0.04 |
|
3.91 |
1.00 |
0.89 |
0.95 |
0.07 |
|
7.81 |
1.00 |
0.91 |
0.96 |
0.07 |
|
15.63 |
0.98 |
0.88 |
0.93 |
0.07 |
|
31.25 |
1.10 |
0.90 |
1.00 |
0.15 |
|
62.50 |
1.15 |
1.13 |
1.14 |
0.02 |
|
125.00 |
0.11 |
0.01 |
0.06 |
0.07 |
|
250.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
500.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
2000.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
* = significant induction according to Student’s t-test, p<0.05
Additional Parameters
Parameter |
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
Mean |
SD |
EC1.5 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
Imax |
1.15 |
1.13 |
1.14 |
0.02 |
IC30 |
80.31 |
80.64 |
80.48 |
0.24 |
IC50 |
93.14 |
93.33 |
93.23 |
0.14 |
IC70 |
105.96 |
106.02 |
105.99 |
0.04 |
n.a. = not applicable
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the cysteine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for any of the samples.
For the 100 mM stock solution of the test item no turbidity or precipitation was observed when diluted with the lysine peptide solution. After the 24 h ± 2 h incubation period but prior to the HPLC analysis samples were inspected for precipitation, turbidity or phase separation. No precipitation, turbidity or phase separation was observed for the samples of the test item. Phase separation was observed for the samples of the positive control (including the co-elution control). Samples were not centrifuged prior to the HPLC analysis.
Since the acceptance criteria for the depletion range of the positive control were fulfilled, the observed phase separation was regarded as not relevant.
No co-elution of the test item with the peptide peaks was observed. Sensitising potential of the test item was predicted from the mean peptide depletion of both analysed peptides (cysteine and lysine) by comparing the peptide concentration of the test item treated samples to the corresponding reference control C (RCCacetonitrile).
The 100 mM stock solution of the test item showed low reactivity towards the synthetic peptides. The mean depletion of both peptides was > 6.38% (21.91%). Based on the prediction model 1 the test item can be considered as sensitiser.
The 100 mM stock solution of the positive control (cinnamic aldehyde) showed high reactivity towards the synthetic peptides. The mean depletion of both peptides was 66.24%.
The controls confirmed the validity of the study for both, the cysteine and lysine run
Cysteine and Lysine Values of the Calibration Curve
Sample |
Cysteine Peptide |
Lysine Peptide |
||
Peak Area |
Peptide Concentration [mM] |
Peak Area |
Peptide Concentration [mM] |
|
STD1 |
17.7390 |
0.5340 |
16.2710 |
0.5340 |
STD2 |
9.0140 |
0.2670 |
8.1100 |
0.2670 |
STD3 |
4.5420 |
0.1335 |
4.0200 |
0.1335 |
STD4 |
2.2270 |
0.0667 |
2.0340 |
0.0667 |
STD5 |
1.0700 |
0.0334 |
1.0090 |
0.0334 |
STD6 |
0.5090 |
0.0167 |
0.4970 |
0.0167 |
STD7 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Depletion of the Cysteine Peptide
Cysteine Peptide |
||||||
Sample |
Peak Area |
Peptide Conc. [mM] |
Peptide Depletion [%] |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
SD of Peptide Depletion [%] |
CV of Peptide Depletion [%] |
Positive Control |
5.1220 |
0.1534 |
69.51 |
69.79 |
0.24 |
0.35 |
5.0570 |
0.1515 |
69.90 |
||||
5.0470 |
0.1512 |
69.96 |
||||
Test Item |
10.2960 |
0.3086 |
38.71 |
39.45 |
0.92 |
2.33 |
10.2210 |
0.3064 |
39.16 |
||||
9.9990 |
0.2997 |
40.48 |
Depletion of the Lysine Peptide
Lysine Peptide |
||||||
Sample |
Peak Area |
Peptide Conc. [mM] |
Peptide Depletion [%] |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
SD of Peptide Depletion [%] |
CV of Peptide Depletion [%] |
Positive Control |
5.6490 |
0.1858 |
62.72 |
62.70 |
0.18 |
0.29 |
5.6810 |
0.1869 |
62.51 |
||||
5.6270 |
0.1851 |
62.87 |
||||
Test Item |
14.4670 |
0.4752 |
4.53 |
4.37 |
0.16 |
3.62 |
14.5150 |
0.4768 |
4.21 |
||||
14.4910 |
0.4760 |
4.37 |
Categorization of the Test Item
Prediction Model |
Prediction Model 1 |
Prediction Model 2 |
||||
Test Substance |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
Reactivity Category |
Prediction |
Mean Peptide Depletion [%] |
Reactivity Category |
Prediction |
Test Item |
21.91 |
Low Reactivity |
positive |
39.45 |
Moderate Reactivity |
positive |
Positive Control |
66.24 |
High Reactivity |
positive |
69.79 |
Moderate Reactivity |
positive |
Severe cytotoxic effects were observed for the cells treated with the highest test item concentrations. Relative cell viability at the highest test item concentration was reduced to 18.8% (CD86), 17.2% (CD54) and 15.4% (isotype IgG1 control) in the first experiment and to 20.1% (CD86), 17.7% (CD54) and 14.9% (isotype IgG1 control) in the second experiment. At a concentration of 73.48 μg/mL for main experiment 1 and concentration of 51.03 μg/mL for main experiment 2 the cells were viable.
The expression of the cell surface marker CD86 was upregulated to 335% in the first and 192% in the second experiment. The upregulation above the threshold of 150% was observed at a concentration of 73.48 μg/mL in the first experiment and at a concentration of 51.03 μg/mL in the second experiment. The expression of the cell surface marker CD54 was upregulated to 200% in the first experiment, it was not upregulated in the second experiment.
Since one of the cell surface markers clearly exceeded the threshold in two independent experiments the test item is considered to be a skin sensitiser.
Results of the Cell Batch Activation Test (batch 6)
Sample |
Concentration |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Activated |
Pass /Fail |
||||
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
Threshold OECD TG 442E |
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
Threshold OECD TG 442E |
yes/no |
|||
DNCB |
4 µg/mL |
85.4 |
327 |
>150 |
85.6 |
287 |
>200 |
yes |
pass |
NiSO4 |
100 µg/mL |
86.7 |
251 |
>150 |
86.5 |
269 |
>200 |
yes |
pass |
LA |
1000 µg/mL |
96.5 |
76 |
≤150 |
96.6 |
77 |
≤200 |
no |
pass |
Results of the Cell Batch Activation Test (batch 7)
Sample |
Concentration |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Activated |
Pass /Fail |
||||
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
Threshold OECD TG 442E |
Cell Viability [%] |
RFI |
Threshold OECD TG 442E |
yes/no |
|||
DNCB |
4 µg/mL |
86.9 |
422 |
>150 |
85.4 |
647 |
>200 |
yes |
pass |
NiSO4 |
100 µg/mL |
89.1 |
254 |
>150 |
90.0 |
454 |
>200 |
yes |
pass |
LA |
1000 µg/mL |
97.9 |
53 |
≤150 |
98.0 |
70 |
≤200 |
no |
pass |
Results of the Dose Finding Assay
Sample |
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
|||
Concentration applied [µg/mL] |
Cell Viability [%] |
Concentration applied [µg/mL] |
Cell Viability [%] |
||
Medium Control |
-- |
-- |
96.30 |
-- |
94.70 |
Solvent Control |
DMSO |
-- |
96.80 |
-- |
94.50 |
3,7-Dinitroso-1,3,5,7-tetraacabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane |
C8 |
3.59 |
96.70 |
3.59 |
94.50 |
C7 |
7.19 |
96.70 |
7.19 |
94.80 |
|
C6 |
14.38 |
96.50 |
14.38 |
94.30 |
|
C5 |
28.75 |
96.80 |
28.75 |
94.50 |
|
C4 |
57.50 |
95.60 |
57.50 |
94.10 |
|
C3 |
115.00 |
37.30 |
115.00 |
40.20 |
|
C2 |
230.00 |
44.80 |
230.00 |
52.10 |
|
C1 |
460.00 |
44.70 |
460.00 |
48.40 |
|
Calculated CV75 [µg/mL] |
73.46 |
73.51 |
|||
Mean CV75 [µg/mL] |
73.48 |
||||
SD CV 75 [µg/mL] |
0.04 |
CD54 and CD86 Expression Experiment 1
|
Sample |
Conc. |
Cell Viability [%] |
Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
corrected Mean Fluores-cence Intensity |
Relative Fluores-cence Intensity (RFI) |
Ratio Isotype IgG1 to [%] |
|||||||
CD86 |
CD54 |
Iso-type IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Iso-type IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
|||
Exp. 1 |
Medium Control |
- |
96.8 |
96.2 |
96.2 |
1330 |
1028 |
611 |
719 |
417 |
83 |
104 |
218 |
168 |
Solvent Control |
0.20% |
96.2 |
95.8 |
96.3 |
1508 |
1046 |
645 |
863 |
401 |
100 |
100 |
234 |
162 |
|
DNCB |
4.00 |
82.3 |
79.9 |
78.9 |
3955 |
2992 |
679 |
3276 |
2313 |
380 |
577 |
582 |
441 |
|
3,7-Dinitroso-1,3,5,7-tetraaza-bicyclo-[3.3.1] nonane |
88.18 |
18.8 |
17.2 |
15.4 |
2986 |
1694 |
1106 |
1880 |
588 |
218 |
147 |
270 |
153 |
|
73.48 |
75.1 |
75.3 |
70.8 |
3574 |
1482 |
681 |
2893 |
801 |
335 |
200 |
525 |
218 |
||
61.24 |
80.2 |
79.5 |
79.3 |
3363 |
1289 |
705 |
2658 |
584 |
308 |
146 |
477 |
183 |
||
51.03 |
95.0 |
93.9 |
93.8 |
1823 |
1126 |
605 |
1218 |
521 |
141 |
130 |
301 |
186 |
||
42.53 |
95.0 |
94.8 |
94.1 |
1609 |
1135 |
590 |
1019 |
545 |
118 |
136 |
273 |
192 |
||
35.44 |
95.5 |
95.2 |
94.1 |
1576 |
1117 |
714 |
862 |
403 |
100 |
101 |
221 |
156 |
||
29.53 |
95.2 |
95.5 |
95.1 |
1673 |
1151 |
568 |
1105 |
583 |
128 |
145 |
295 |
203 |
||
24.61 |
95.5 |
95.3 |
94.5 |
1621 |
1166 |
673 |
948 |
493 |
110 |
123 |
241 |
173 |
CD54 and CD86 Expression Experiment 2
|
Sample |
Conc. |
Cell Viability [%] |
Mean Fluorescence Intensity |
corrected Mean Fluores-cence Intensity |
Relative Fluores-cence Intensity (RFI) |
Ratio Isotype IgG1 to [%] |
|||||||
CD86 |
CD54 |
Iso-type IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
Iso-type IgG1 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
CD86 |
CD54 |
|||
Exp. 2 |
Medium Control |
- |
97.5 |
97.9 |
97.6 |
1194 |
902 |
556 |
638 |
346 |
82 |
88 |
215 |
162 |
Solvent Control |
0.20% |
98.0 |
97.4 |
97.9 |
1348 |
966 |
571 |
777 |
395 |
100 |
100 |
236 |
169 |
|
DNCB |
4.0 |
84.9 |
86.5 |
87.3 |
2903 |
2486 |
624 |
2279 |
1862 |
293 |
471 |
465 |
398 |
|
3,7-Dinitroso-1,3,5,7-tetraaza-bicyclo-[3.3.1] nonane |
88.18 |
20.1 |
17.7 |
14.9 |
2171 |
1409 |
928 |
1243 |
481 |
160 |
122 |
234 |
152 |
|
73.48 |
18.9 |
18.6 |
15.1 |
2698 |
1190 |
873 |
1825 |
317 |
235 |
80 |
309 |
136 |
||
61.24 |
24.4 |
22.8 |
21.4 |
2922 |
1245 |
814 |
2108 |
431 |
271 |
109 |
359 |
153 |
||
51.03 |
94.3 |
94.8 |
94.8 |
2057 |
980 |
562 |
1495 |
418 |
192 |
106 |
366 |
174 |
||
42.53 |
95.8 |
96.4 |
96.8 |
1406 |
978 |
544 |
862 |
434 |
111 |
110 |
258 |
180 |
||
35.44 |
96.8 |
96.5 |
96.4 |
1432 |
915 |
532 |
900 |
383 |
116 |
97 |
269 |
172 |
||
29.53 |
96.5 |
96.8 |
96.2 |
1377 |
834 |
562 |
815 |
272 |
105 |
69 |
245 |
148 |
||
24.61 |
97.2 |
97.1 |
97.0 |
1360 |
812 |
511 |
849 |
301 |
109 |
76 |
266 |
159 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
DNPT was submitted to in vitro sensitization testing in an OECD 442C (DPRA), OECD 442D (Keratinosens) and an OECD 442E study (h-CLAT). Positive results were obtained in the DPRA and h-CLAT indicating that there is a potential to covalently interact with proteins and to activate dendritic cells. Furthermore, DNPT is not stable in aqueous solution and at acidic pH, under these conditions DNPT undergoes ring cleavage.
Formation of formaldehyde, ammonia and nitramide is postulated. Under neutral conditions condensation of formaldehyde and ammonia occurs (Scranage J.K., Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6562/). The so called Mannich reaction between formaldehyde and ammonia results in generation of hexamethylenetetramine (Mannich, C.and Kroesche W.,Archiv der Pharmazie250 (1): 647–667, 1912), which exhibits like formaldehyde skin sensitizing properties. For this reason, DPNT is precautionarily classified as skin sensitizer category 1 based on a Weight of Evidence approach.
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.