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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 217-793-6 | CAS number: 1955-46-0
- 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
Eventhough the estimated result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical has the potential to cause sensitization to skin, but the remaining experimental results suggest otherwise. Therefore by applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be considered to be “Not Classified”.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- data from handbook or collection of data
- Remarks:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Justification for type of information:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals. The study 2,3,4 are referred to as study 1,2,3
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- other: Weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- not specified
- Species:
- other: humans
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- not specified
- Route:
- other: not specified
- Vehicle:
- not specified
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)].
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal- 1.0%
EPicutaneous, occlusive - Day(s)/duration:
- 48 h
- Adequacy of induction:
- other: Preliminary irritation tests were carried out to determine the concentrations of the test substances suitable for induction of sensitization and for sensitization challenge.
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other:
- Concentration / amount:
- 3ml of a 30% (w/w) solution in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- other: not applicable
- Vehicle:
- not specified
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)].
- Concentration / amount:
- 10% in acetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)].
- Day(s)/duration:
- 24 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- other: maximum non irritant concentration of test chemical
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- DMSO
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.3 ml of a 70% (w/w) aqueous DMSO solution.
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 1. no data available
2. 6+
10 - Details on study design:
- no data available
- Challenge controls:
- no data available
- Positive control substance(s):
- not specified
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Group:
- test chemical
- Clinical observations:
- no dermal reactions observed
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: not sensitizing
- Conclusions:
- Eventhough the estimated result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical has the potential to cause sensitization to skin, but the remaining experimental results suggest otherwise. Therefore by applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be considered to be “Not Classified”.
- Executive summary:
Various studies have been reviewed to determine the degree of dermal sensitization caused by the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo experimental studies along with the estimated data for the test chemicals. The results are summarized below:
Skin sensitization effects were also estimated by four different models i.e, Battery, Leadscope, SciQSAR and CASE Ultra used within Danish QSAR database for the test chemical. Based on estimation, positive skin sensitization reactions were observed in guinea pigs and humans. Therefore, the test chemical was considered to be sensitizing.
The Magnusson and Kligman guinea-pig maximization test was performed to determine the dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical.
Preliminary irritation tests were carried out to determine the concentrations of the test substances suitable for induction of sensitization and for sensitization challenge. Albino Dunkin- Hartley guinea-pigs weighing approximately 350 g at the start of the study.
Guinea-pigs were treated by a series of six intradermal injections[1.0%] in the shoulder region to induce sensitization. After 6-8 days, sensitization was boosted by a 48-hr occluded patch [25.0% in acetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)] placed over the injection site. After a rest period of 12-14 days, the animals were challenged on one flank by a 24-hr occluded patch at the maximum non-irritant concentration [10% inacetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)].
Challenge sites were scored for erythema (scale 0-3) and oedema 24 and 48 hr after removal of the patches.
No dermal reactions were observed in the induction and challenge phase. Hence the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
These results are further supported by a Buehler Test conducted on ten male guinea pigs for chemical to assess its skin sensitization potential.
The test chemical was applied once a week at a dose of 0.3ml of a 30% (w/w) solution in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to the shaved backs of ten male guinea pigs during an induction period of three weeks. Another group of 10 male guinea pigs served as a vehicle control and was similarly dosed with 0.3ml of undiluted DMSO. A third group of ten sham control guinea pigs was handled in the same manner, but was not treated with test article or vehicle. Two weeks following application of the third induction dose, the treated andsham control guinea pigs each received a challenge dose of 0.3 ml of the 30% test article/DMSO solution; the vehicle control guinea pigs each received a challenge dose of 0.3 ml of a 70% (w/w) aqueous DMSO solution. All guinea pigs were scored for erythema approximately 24 and 48 hours following application of the first induction dose and the challenge dose.
Positive erythema reactions (i.e., a score >= 2) were observed in only one test article–treated guinea pig, compared to no vehicle or sham control guinea pigs during the challenge phase.
Since no sensitization reactions were observed in majority of treated animals, the chemical was considered as not sensitizing to the skin of guinea pigs.
Eventhough the estimated result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical has the potential to cause sensitization to skin, but the remaining experimental results suggest otherwise. Therefore by applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be considered to be “Not Classified”.
Reference
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Various studies have been reviewed to determine the degree of dermal sensitization caused by the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo experimental studies along with the estimated data for the test chemicals. The results are summarized below:
Skin sensitization effects were also estimated by four different models i.e, Battery, Leadscope, SciQSAR and CASE Ultra used within Danish QSAR database for the test chemical. Based on estimation, positive skin sensitization reactions were observed in guinea pigs and humans. Therefore, the test chemical was considered to be sensitizing.
The Magnusson and Kligman guinea-pig maximization test was performed to determine the dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical.
Preliminary irritation tests were carried out to determine the concentrations of the test substances suitable for induction of sensitization and for sensitization challenge. Albino Dunkin- Hartley guinea-pigs weighing approximately 350 g at the start of the study.
Guinea-pigs were treated by a series of six intradermal injections[1.0%] in the shoulder region to induce sensitization. After 6-8 days, sensitization was boosted by a 48-hr occluded patch [25.0% in acetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)] placed over the injection site. After a rest period of 12-14 days, the animals were challenged on one flank by a 24-hr occluded patch at the maximum non-irritant concentration [10% inacetone-polyethylene glycol 400 (70:30, v/v)].
Challenge sites were scored for erythema (scale 0-3) and oedema 24 and 48 hr after removal of the patches.
No dermal reactions were observed in the induction and challenge phase. Hence the test chemical was considered to be not sensitizing to skin.
These results are further supported by a Buehler Test conducted on ten male guinea pigs for chemical to assess its skin sensitization potential.
The test chemical was applied once a week at a dose of 0.3ml of a 30% (w/w) solution in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to the shaved backs of ten male guinea pigs during an induction period of three weeks. Another group of 10 male guinea pigs served as a vehicle control and was similarly dosed with 0.3ml of undiluted DMSO. A third group of ten sham control guinea pigs was handled in the same manner, but was not treated with test article or vehicle. Two weeks following application of the third induction dose, the treated andsham control guinea pigs each received a challenge dose of 0.3 ml of the 30% test article/DMSO solution; the vehicle control guinea pigs each received a challenge dose of 0.3 ml of a 70% (w/w) aqueous DMSO solution. All guinea pigs were scored for erythema approximately 24 and 48 hours following application of the first induction dose and the challenge dose.
Positive erythema reactions (i.e., a score >= 2) were observed in only one test article–treated guinea pig, compared to no vehicle or sham control guinea pigs during the challenge phase.
Since no sensitization reactions were observed in majority of treated animals, the chemical was considered as not sensitizing to the skin of guinea pigs.
Eventhough the estimated result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical has the potential to cause sensitization to skin, but the remaining experimental results suggest otherwise. Therefore by applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be considered to be “Not Classified”.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Eventhough the estimated result for the test chemical indicates that the test chemical has the potential to cause sensitization to skin, but the remaining experimental results suggest otherwise. Therefore by applying the weight of evidence approach, the test chemical can be estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be considered to be “Not Classified”.
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.