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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 700-541-9 | CAS number: 1472634-24-4
- 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
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 16 APR - 2 AUG 2012
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 012
- Report date:
- 2012
Materials and methods
Test guidelineopen allclose all
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- 22 JUL 2010
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- During the acclimation phase the relative humidity was between 36 - 65 % instead of 45 - 65%. Furhtermore, the different test item concentrations were prepared individually instead of serially.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Version / remarks:
- 30 MAY 2008
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- sodium 1,5-dioxo-1,5-bis({[1-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropoxy)butan-2-yl]oxy})-3-({[1-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropoxy)butan-2-yl]oxy}carbonyl)pentane-2-sulfonate
- EC Number:
- 700-541-9
- Cas Number:
- 1472634-24-4
- Molecular formula:
- C27H34F15NaO12S
- IUPAC Name:
- sodium 1,5-dioxo-1,5-bis({[1-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropoxy)butan-2-yl]oxy})-3-({[1-(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropoxy)butan-2-yl]oxy}carbonyl)pentane-2-sulfonate
- Test material form:
- solid
Constituent 1
In vivo test system
Test animals
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Remarks:
- CBA/CaOlaHsd
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan Laboratories B.V. Postbus 6174 NL-5960 AD Horst
- Females (if applicable) nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Age at study initiation: 10 – 11 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 21.6 ± 1.4 g
- Housing: Grouped in Makrolon Type II cages with wire mesh top and granulated soft wood bedding
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Acclimation period: ≥ 5 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 ± 2°C
- Humidity (%): 45 – 65%
- Air changes (per hr): About 10 / hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 hrs dark / 12 hrs light
- IN-LIFE DATES: From: day 1 To: day 5
Study design: in vivo (LLNA)
- Vehicle:
- dimethylformamide
- Concentration:
- 5, 10 and 25 %
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- COMPOUND SOLUBILITY
The highest test item concentration, which can be technically used, was a 50 % (w/w) solution in dimethylformamide.
PRE-SCREEN TESTS:
To determine the highest non-irritant test concentration that did at the same time not induce signs of systemic toxicity, a pre-test was performed. Two animals were treated by application of test item concentrations of 25 and 50% (w/w) once daily each on three consecutive days. At the tested concentrations the animals did not show any signs of systemic toxicity. From day 2 to 6, the treated animals showed an erythema of ear skin (animal treated with 25%: day 2 to 6 erythema Score 1, animal treated with 50%: day 2, day 5, and day 6 erythema Score 2, and day 3 as well as day 4 erythema Score 3). Additionally, hair loss was observed from day 3 to day 6. Due to the signs of excessive local skin irritation noted at 50% (w/w) test item concentration, 25% (w/w) was chosen as highest test item concentration.
MAIN STUDY
ANIMAL ASSIGNMENT AND TREATMENT
- Criteria used to consider a positive response:
A test item is regarded as a sensitiser in the LLNA if the following criteria are fulfilled:
- First, that exposure to at least one concentration of the test item resulted in an incorporation of ³H-methyl thymidine (³HTdR) at least 3-fold or greater than that recorded in control mice, as indicated by the Stimulation Index.
- Second, that the data are compatible with a conventional dose response, although allowance must be made (especially at high topical concentrations) for either local toxicity or immunological suppression.
TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION:
Each test group of mice was treated by topical (epidermal) application to the dorsal surface of each ear with different test item concentrations of 5, 10, and 25% (w/w) in dimethylformamide. The application volume, 25 µL/ear/day, was spread over the entire dorsal surface (average ~ 8 mm) of each ear once daily for three consecutive days. A further group of mice was treated with an equivalent volume of the relevant vehicle alone (control animals). - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Statistics:
- - The mean values and standard deviations were calculated in the body weight tables and for the DPM values (group mean DPM ± standard deviation).
- The Dean-Dixon-Test and Grubb’s test were used for identification of possible outliers (performed with Microsoft Excel 2003). One outlier was identified by means of the Dean Dixon test only.
- The ANOVA (Dunnett-test) was conducted on the DPM values and ear weights to assess whether the difference was statistically significant between test item groups and negative control (vehicle) group. However, both biological and statistical significance were considered together.
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- Conc. Si
0% 1.00
5% 0.88
10% 1.51
In vivo (LLNA)
Resultsopen allclose all
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0% vehicle control group
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.16
- Test group / Remarks:
- 5%
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.77
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10%
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.5
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25%
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- CELLULAR PROLIFERATION DATA
0% vehicle control group: 714.2 mean DPM/animal
5% group: 829.4 mean DPM/animal
10% group: 552.8 mean DPM/animal
25% group: 1068.2 mean DPM/animal
DETAILS ON STIMULATION INDEX CALCULATION
Mean DPM/animal was determined by dividing the sum of the measured values from lymph nodes of all animals (2 lymph nodes/animal) within a group by the number of animals in that group (5 animals)
EC3 CALCULATION
The EC3 value could not be calculated, because all SIs are below the threshold value of 3 for a positive response.
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS:
No signs of systemic toxicity were observed during the study period. From day 2 to 5, the animals showed an erythema of the ear skin (animals treated with 5%: on day 3 and day 4 erythema Score 1, animals treated with 10%: from day 2 to 4 erythema Score 1, animals treated with 25%: day 2 (within 1 hour prior to the 2nd application), day 4 and day 5 erythema Score 1, and additionally, on day 2 (within 1 hour after the 2nd application) and day 3 erythema Score 2).
BODY WEIGHTS
The body weight of the animals, recorded prior to the first application and prior to treatment with ³HTdR, was within the range commonly recorded for animals of this strain and age.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Viability / mortality
No deaths occurred during the study period.
Ear weight
The measured ear weight of all animals treated was recorded on day 6 after necropsy. A statistically significant or biologically relevant increase in ear weight was not observed in any test item treated group in comparison to the vehicle control group.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- other: EU GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- It can be concluded that the test item was not a skin sensitiser under the test conditions of this study.
- Executive summary:
Study design
This GLP study was performed according to OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, No. 429: Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay (adopted on 22 July 2010). In the study the test item dissolved in dimethylformamide was assessed for its possible skin sensitising potential in mice. For this purpose a local lymph node assay was performed using test item concentrations of 5, 10, and 25% (w/w). The highest concentration tested was the highest concentration that could be applied whilst avoiding local skin irritation as confirmed by a pre-experiment.
Results
The animals did not show any signs of systemic toxicity during the course of the study and no cases of mortality were observed. From day 2 to 5, the animals showed an erythema of the ear skin (animals treated with 5%: on day 3 and day 4 erythema Score 1, animals treated with 10%: from day 2 to 4 erythema Score 1, animals treated with 25%: day 2 (within 1 hour prior to the 2nd application), day 4 and day 5 erythema Score 1, and additionally, on day 2 (within 1 hour after the 2nd application) and day 3 erythema Score 2). A statistically significant or biologically relevant increase in ear weight was not observed in any test item treated group in comparison to the vehicle control group. Stimulation Indices (S.I.) of 1.16, 0.77, and 1.50 were determined with the test item at concentrations of 5, 10, and 25% (w/w) in dimethylformamide, respectively. A statistically significant or biologically relevant increase in DPM values was not observed in any test item treated group in comparison to the vehicle control group and a dose response was also not observed. An outlier was identified in the vehicle control group (DPM value determined for animal number 4). However, as exclusion of the outlier did not change the overall test result, the value in question was not excluded from calculation.
Conclusion
The test item was thus not a skin sensitiser under the test conditions of this study.
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.