Registration Dossier

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Guideline study according to GLP

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2001
Report Date:
2001

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The LLNA was not available at time of study implementation. Existing data from Buehler study scientifically adequate.

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent
Test material form:
liquid: viscous

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: David Hall Limited, UK
- Age at study initiation: approximately 8 - 12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: < 300 g
- Housing: polypropylene cages
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 5 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 17 -23 °C
- Humidity (%): 30 - 70%
- Air changes (per hr): 15 per hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 hours

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction: 0.1% v/v in distilled water
Topical induction: 5% v/v in distilled water
Topical challenge: 5% and 1% v/v in distilled water
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction: 0.1% v/v in distilled water
Topical induction: 5% v/v in distilled water
Topical challenge: 5% and 1% v/v in distilled water
No. of animals per dose:
10 test animals
5 control animals
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
periodically tested two times per year

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
Positive control study confirmed validity of test system

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test group
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test group
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test group
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test group
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
no
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: no.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
Conclusions:
The test item produced a 0% (0/10) sensitisation rate and was classified as a non-sensitizer to guinea pig under the conditions of the test.
Executive summary:

The sensitization potential of the test item was investigated using the maximization method according to Magnusson and Kligman (OECD TG 406) in guinea pigs in accordance with the principles of GLP. 10 male test and 5 male control animals were used for the study. For selection of the test concentrations to be used in the main study, irritation screens following intradermal and topical administration of test substance were performed. After intradermal injection of 0.1, 0.5, 1 and 5% (v/v) the degree of erythema was assessed. Due to severe skin reactions the animals treated with 1% and 5% were killed for humane reasons following the 24 hour observation. 0.1% causing mild to moderate irritation was selected for the intradermal induction treatment for the main study. Screening for topical induction concentrations were performed using 75%, 50%, 25%, 5%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.1% (v/v) test substance in water. Due to severe dermal reactions the animals treated with 25% and higher were killed for humane reasons immediately after the 1 hour observation. 5% test item in water which was tolerated systemically and produced only mild to moderate dermal irritation was selected for the topical induction stage of the main study and 5% as well as 1% for the dermal challenge tretament. Patches for both topical induction and challenge were kept in contact with the skin under occlusive conditions for 48 and 24 hours respectively. Following the topical induction, discrete or patchy to moderate erythema was elicited by the test material in all animals from the test and control group. However, no skin reactions were noted at the challenge sites (5% and 1%) of the test or control group animals at the 24 or 48 hour observations. Based on the results, the test item produced a 0% (0/10) sensitisation rate and is considered to be a non-sensitiser to guinea pigs under the conditions of the test.