Ethylene di(acetate)

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

October 1984

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

1984

Report date:

1984

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Propane-1,2-diyl diacetate

EC Number:

210-817-6

EC Name:

Propane-1,2-diyl diacetate

Cas Number:

623-84-7

Molecular formula:

C7H12O4

IUPAC Name:

propane-1,2-diyl diacetate

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Three young adult, female, New Zealand White rabbits obtained from Ranch Rabbits, Crawley were used for the study.

At the start of the study the rabbits weighed between 4.00 and 4.45 kg and were aged between 11 and 20 weeks. They were acclimatised to the laboratory environment for at least 3 days and were examined for signs of ill health or eye defects shortly before the study started.

The animals were housed individually in grid floor cages in a single room at a temperature between 16 and 20 °C and relative humidity between 60 and 69%. Fluorescent lighting was automatically controlled to give a cycle of 14 h light and 10 h darkness.

Environmental conditions were monitored and recorded twice daily on weekdays and once daily at weekends.

The animals were allowed free access to mains drinking water and food (SQC Standard Rabbit Diet. Special Diets Services Ltd., Stepfield) throughout the study.

Filtered water was dispensed via an automatic system. A certificate relating to the quality of the drinking water was issued by the Yorkshire Water Authority. The diet and drinking water were not considered to contain any contaminant at a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.

Allocation to treatment groups
No formal randomisation procedure was adopted. On arrival at the laboratory the animals were placed into holding cages, one at a time, as they came to hand from the delivery crates working along the battery from left to right and from top to bottom, until each cage contained a single animal. Each animal served as its own control.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Remarks:

the untreated eye served as control

Controls:

yes, concurrent no treatment

other: the untreated eye served as control

Amount / concentration applied:

0.1 mL

Duration of treatment / exposure:

single application

Observation period (in vivo):

72 h
Reading time points: 1, 24, 48 and 72 h

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

3 females

Details on study design:

Treatment procedures
Each animal was held firmly but gently until quiet. A 'cup' was formed by gently pulling the lower lid of the left eye away from the eyeball and the test article (0.1 ml ) placed inside. Both the upper and lower lids were then held together for 1 - 2 seconds and the animal was released. The untreated right eye served as a control .

Irritation reactions were graded using the scale of Draize (Draize, J.H. (1959) Association of Food and Drug Officials of the U.S., Austin, Texas, "The Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals in Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics").

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

mean

Remarks:

out of all 3 animals

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: reversibility: not applicable

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

mean

Remarks:

out of all 3 animals

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: reversibility: not applicable

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Basis:

mean

Remarks:

out of all 3 animals

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

other: reversibility: not applicable

Results 4

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

mean

Remarks:

out of all 3 animals

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: reversibility: not applicable

Irritant / corrosive response data:

No eye irritation was noted during the study period. The eye irritation scores were interpreted by a modified Kay and Calandra scoring system.

Other effects:

No other effects noted.

Any other information on results incl. tables

TABLE 1 Mean eye irritation scores

	Mean scores
Time after treatment	Conjunctive (max 20)	Iris (max 10)	Cornea (max 80)	Mean total scores (max 110)
1 hour	0	0	0	0
1 day	0	0	0	0
2 days	0	0	0	0
3 days	0	0	0	0

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

other: CLP/EU GHS criteria not met, no classification required according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008