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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Reliability:
3 (not reliable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: summary of the study report is available

Data source

Referenceopen allclose all

Reference Type:
other: USEPA TSCA 8(d) submission
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1958
Report date:
1958
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1958
Report date:
1958

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
no guideline available
Principles of method if other than guideline:
no data
GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of study:
intracutaneous test

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Triethylamine
EC Number:
204-469-4
EC Name:
Triethylamine
Cas Number:
121-44-8
Molecular formula:
C6H15N
IUPAC Name:
triethylamine
Details on test material:
Triethylamine, no further data

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Albino
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
no sufficient data

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
induction = 0.1% solution in 0.75% saline
challenge = not specified
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
induction = 0.1% solution in 0.75% saline
challenge = not specified
No. of animals per dose:
20
Details on study design:
Groups of 350 to 450 guinea pigs were given the usual cours of 8 intracutaneous injections of 0.1 % solution in 0.75 % saline made up in deionized water. Challenge doses were given 3 weeks after the last sensitizing dose.
Challenge controls:
no data

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
no data

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Results
Reading:
other: not sensitizing
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
no data
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no positive responses were noted in 12 survived animals
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: not sensitizing. Group: test group. Dose level: no data. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no positive responses were noted in 12 survived animals.

Any other information on results incl. tables

"It was obvious that these guinea pigs were not a particularly healthy although the survivors seemed to be in fair condition. We concluded that if these compounds are potential sensitizers they are extremely weak. This statement is made because we know that subnormal animals are often refractory to sensitization".

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: other: conclusion drawn in the study report
Conclusions:
No positive sensitisation response after challenge exposure to test substance was noted in all survived animals.
Executive summary:

Triethylamine was tested in male albino guinea pigs for its sensitization potential. 0.1% solutions of test material in 0.75% saline was administered to 20 test animals by intracutaneous injection 8 times (not specified if once each day). Challenge doses were given 3 weeks after the last sensitizing dose. 8 animals were infected, killed or died on study. No positive sensitization responses were noted in the 12 survived animals. The animals on study were considered to be not entirely healthy. Therefore if the test substance was a sensitizer, such animals would be more refractory to sensitization. The test substance was considered to be not sensitizing by the author of the study report.