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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 203-870-1 | CAS number: 111-44-4
- 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
Carcinogenicity
Administrative data
Description of key information
No study aiming at evaluating the carcinogenic potential of BCEE was conducted according to recognized guidelines. BCEE was found to induce an increased incidence of hepatomas in mice following repeated oral exposure to BCEE (Innes et al. 1969). This result was not confirmed in a similar study conducted on rats (Weisburg et al. 1981). BCEE did not induce an increased incidence of lung tumors following repeated i.p. injections (Theiss et al. 1977). BCEE was not tumorigenic but marginally sarcomagenic following repeated subcutaneous injections in female ICR/Ha Swiss mice (van Duuren, 1972) but did not increase the incidence of all malignant and benign tumours (e.g., mesenchymal, epithelial, sarcomas, carcinomas and unclassified) in male or female Sprague‐Dawley rats (Norpoth et al. 1986).
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Carcinogenicity: via oral route
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- carcinogenicity: oral
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 3 (not reliable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- significant methodological deficiencies
- Remarks:
- Study limited owing to small number of BCEE-exposed animals, use of single dose level and inadequate reporting of tumour pathology. Amount of BCEE was not adjusted during initial period to account for weight gain. Increased incidence of mouse liver hepatomas has been questioned as a reliable indication of true carcinogenic potential (Maronpot et al. 1987).
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The Maximal Tolerable Dose was estimated following a sequence of studies, during which the maximal levels resulting in zero mortality were determined for a single dose, then for 6 daily doses, and finally for 19 daily doses. In the full study, mice (7 days of age) were first given a daily dose (corresponding to the MTD) of test substance by stomach tube. At weaning (4 weeks old), the chemicals were mixed directly with the diet, which was provided ad libitum until the mice were 18 months of age; no vehicle was used.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Remarks:
- pre-GLP
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- TEST MATERIAL
- Name (as cited): Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
- Purity: commercial grade - Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- other: Two hybrid strains (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1 and (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Cumberland View Farms (Clinton, Tennessee)
- Age at study initiation: 7 days
- Weight at study initiation: not specified
- Fasting period before study: not specified
- Diet: ad libitum
- Water: not specified
- Acclimation period: not specified
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Not specified - Route of administration:
- oral: feed
- Vehicle:
- other: water prior to weaning then no vehicle
- Details on exposure:
- Mice (7 days of age) were first given a daily dose (corresponding to the MTD) of test substance by stomach tube. At weaning (4 weeks old), the chemicals were mixed directly with the diet, which was provided ad libitum; no vehicle was used.
Before weaning: 100 mg/kg bw/day
After weaning: 300 ppm in diet - Analytical verification of doses or concentrations:
- no
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- c.a. 18 months (see "Details on exposure")
- Frequency of treatment:
- Daily
- Post exposure period:
- None
- Dose / conc.:
- 41.3 mg/kg bw/day (nominal)
- Remarks:
- The time-weighted average dose calculated to be 41.3 mg/kg bw/day (US EPA, 1987)
- No. of animals per sex per dose:
- 18 animals/sex/strain
- Control animals:
- yes, concurrent no treatment
- Details on study design:
- - Dose selection rationale: corresponding to the MTD
- Positive control:
- see "Any other information on materials and methods incl. tables"
- Observations and examinations performed and frequency:
- None reported
- Sacrifice and pathology:
- GROSS PATHOLOGY: Yes
External examination and a thorough examination of thoracic and abdominal cavities.
HISTOPATHOLOGY: Yes
Histologic examination of major organs and of all grossly visible lesions. The cranium was not dissected. Thyroid glands were examined and sectioned in mice treated with Amitrol and in one negative control group, but not in other groups. The entire carcass and all internal organs were fixed and have been saved. Blood smears were made on all mice before they were killed, and then examined only in cases showing splenomegaly or lymphadenopathy. - Statistics:
- NEGATIVE CONTROLS: Negative control groups differed with respect to their location within the experimental rooms, time of entry into the experiment, and length of time until necropsy. The variance among these groups in the incidence of hepatomas, pulmonary tumors, lymphomas, and total mice with tumors was analyzed using the "chi-square test for heterogeneity of proportions after adjustment of stratification (Armitage, 1966, J. Royal Stat. Soc (B)., 28:150-163) and ordinary chi-square tests. No statistically significant differences were found.
POSITIVE CONTROLS AND EXPERIMENT GROUPS: The individual positive controls and experimental groups were compared with the grouped negative controls. The relative risk (a measure of tumor incidence) was determined for four tumors groups: hepatomas, pulmonary tumors, lymphomas, and total mice with tumors. The significance test of each sex-strain subgroup and their various combinations were tested by the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (Snedecor & Cochran, 1967, Cancer Epidemiology: Methods of Study, pp. 253-6), and the combined relative risk used the weighted geometric mean (Gart, 1962, Biometrics, 18:601-10). All tests used the 1/2 corrections (Gart & Zweifel, 1967, Biometrika, 54:181-7; Snedecor & Cochran, 1967, Cancer Epidemiology: Methods of Study, pp. 497). Finally, to compare the tumor incidence between test animals and positive controls, the 7 positive controls were lumped together and the corrected relative risk was calculated for each experimental group compared to this positive baseline. - Clinical signs:
- not examined
- Mortality:
- mortality observed, treatment-related
- Description (incidence):
- Increased mortality in male of the (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1 strain (statistical significance not evaluated)
- Body weight and weight changes:
- not examined
- Histopathological findings: neoplastic:
- effects observed, treatment-related
- Description (incidence and severity):
- Increased relative risk of developping hepatomas in males of both strains
- Conclusions:
- Exposure to Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether led to increased incidence of liver hepatomas, mainly in male mice of the two tested strains.
- Executive summary:
This study aimed at evaluating the tumorigenicity of various chemical in mice. The Maximal Tolerable Dose was following a sequence of studies, during which the maximal levels resulting in zero mortality were determined for a single dose, then for 6 daily doses, and finally for 19 daily doses. In the full study, mice (7 days of age) were first given a daily dose (100 mg/kg bw/day) of test substance by stomach tube. At weaning (4 weeks old), the chemicals were mixed directly with the diet (300 ppm), which was provided ad libitum; no vehicle was used. The time‐weighted average dose for these studies was calculated to be 41.3 mg/kg body weight per day (US EPA, 1987). Exposure duration was 18 months and mice were necropsied at time of death or at the end of the experiment.
Increased mortality was observed in male of the (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1 strain. In addition the males of both strains showed an increased relative risk of developing hepatomas. Hepatomas were found in 88 and 53% of males from strain (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1 and strain (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1, respectively. In females, no hepatomas were found in animals from strain (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1, while they were found in 22% of females from strain (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1. No distinction was made between "hepatomas" and liver carcinomas, due to the impossibility of making the distinction between benign and malignant liver tumors in the mouse. However, the author noted that metastasizing hepatic cell tumors were rare but concluded that the great of tumors majority had malignant potentiality. No significant increase in other tumor types was detected.
This study is limited owing to small number of BCEE-exposed animals, the use of single dose level, inadequate reporting of tumour pathology, the fact that the amount of BCEE was not adjusted during initial period to account for weight gain, and that the exact dose received by the test animals can only be extrapolated. In addition, increased incidence of mouse liver hepatomas has been questioned as a reliable indication of true carcinogenic potential (Maronpot et al. 1987).
- Endpoint:
- carcinogenicity: oral
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 451 (Carcinogenicity Studies)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- Prior to the promulgation of the NCI guidelines: low number of animals, 18 months exposure, only two dose levels, twice-weekly exposure
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- TEST MATERIAL
- Name (as cited): Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
- Source: Aldrich Chemical Co.
- Purity: 100 % (NMR) - Species:
- rat
- Strain:
- CD-1
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River Breeding Laboratories (North Wilmington, Mass.)
- Females nulliparous and non-pregnant: not specified
- Age at study initiation: not specified
- Weight at study initiation: not specified
- Fasting period before study: not specified
- Housing: housed 2 per large plastic cage (12 inchesX14 inchesX7 inches). on corncob bedding (San-i-cel; Paxton Processing Co., Inc., Paxton, Ill.)
- Diet:Wayne Lab Blox meal ad libitum
- Water: ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 7-10 days of quarantine
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Animal rooms were air-conditioned and were in a facility constructed on the "clean-dirty" corridor principle. - Route of administration:
- oral: gavage
- Vehicle:
- other: SSV=steroid suspending vehicle
- Details on exposure:
- PREPARATION OF DOSING SOLUTIONS:
Suspension of the test compound in SSV was freshly prepared on the day of administration.
VEHICLE
- Justification for use and choice of vehicle: not specified why water was not used
- Concentration in vehicle: not specified
- Amount of vehicle: not specified - Analytical verification of doses or concentrations:
- not specified
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- 18 months
- Frequency of treatment:
- twice-weekly
- Post exposure period:
- 6 months observation period
- Dose / conc.:
- 25 mg/kg bw/day (actual dose received)
- Dose / conc.:
- 50 mg/kg bw/day (actual dose received)
- No. of animals per sex per dose:
- 26
- Control animals:
- yes, concurrent no treatment
- yes, concurrent vehicle
- Details on study design:
- - Dose selection rationale: based on toxicity response following an acute toxicity study and a sub-chronic (30 days) study
- Positive control:
- Two groups of positive control animals received the carcinogen N-2-fluorenylacetamide in the diet at 80 ppm (32 rats) or 250 ppm (20 rats)
- Observations and examinations performed and frequency:
- None reported in the publication.
- Sacrifice and pathology:
- GROSS PATHOLOGY: Yes
HISTOPATHOLOGY: Yes
Organs examined: cerebrum, cerebellum, pituitary gland, spinal cord plus vertebrae, lung, heart, mediastinum, thymus, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland, liver, spleen, pancreas, adrenal gland, kidney, urinary bladder, ovary, uterus or testis, accessory sex organ, esophagus, stomach, intestinal tract, and any abnormal tissue or mass. - Statistics:
- Probabilities of survival were estimated by the product-limit procedure of Kaplan and Meier, which is commonly called the "life table method." For statistical analyses of a possible dose-related effect on survival, the method of Cox for testing 2 groups of equality and Tarone's extensions of Cox's methods for testing for a dose-related trend were used.
The one-tailed Fisher's exact probability test was used to determine whether animals receiving the test chemical developed a significantly higher proportion of tumors than did the control animals.The Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend in proportions, with continuity correction, was also used. Under the assumption of a linear trend, this test determined whether the slope of the dose-response curve is different from zero at the one-tailed 0.05 level of significance. - Clinical signs:
- not specified
- Mortality:
- mortality observed, treatment-related
- Description (incidence):
- Survival at 52 weeks:
- Males: 96% at 25 mg/kg and 100% at 50 mg/kg
Mortality in male rats was not associated with treatment,
- Females: 96% at 25 mg/kg and 65% at 50 mg/kg
Significant association of mortality with treatment among the high-dose females - Body weight and weight changes:
- effects observed, treatment-related
- Description (incidence and severity):
- There was a substantial difference between the mean weights of the treated females and the mean weights of the corresponding controls, and a reduction in mean weight in the high-dose males.
- Food efficiency:
- not examined
- Ophthalmological findings:
- not examined
- Haematological findings:
- not examined
- Clinical biochemistry findings:
- not examined
- Urinalysis findings:
- not examined
- Behaviour (functional findings):
- not examined
- Immunological findings:
- not examined
- Organ weight findings including organ / body weight ratios:
- not specified
- Gross pathological findings:
- not specified
- Neuropathological findings:
- not examined
- Histopathological findings: non-neoplastic:
- not specified
- Histopathological findings: neoplastic:
- no effects observed
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of this experiment bis(2-chloroethyl) ether was not carcinogenic in male or female rats.
- Executive summary:
This study aimed at testing chemicals for carcinogenicity by oral administration in male and female Charles River CD rats. The method used was similar to OECD Technical Guideline 453. 26 males and 26 females were expose twice a week to Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether at 25 and 50 mg/kg bw/day for 18 months followed by a 6 months observation period. All rats were necropsied and examined histopathologically. However, detailed results of these examinations are not reported.
The dose administered to male rats did not significantly impact survival at 72 weeks. Female survival was however significantly reduced at 50 mg/kg bw/day (65% survival et 52 weeks). No gross pathology and histopathological findings were reported, which suggest that these examinations were unremarkable. Female body weight was significantly different from control at the two dose tested and male body weight was reduced at 50 mg/kg bw/day.
Although there is some question whether the dose levels for males were sufficiently high to provide maximum test sensitivity, under the conditions of this experiment bis(2-chloroethyl) ether was not carcinogenic in male or female rats.
Referenceopen allclose all
## Tumors among negative control mice:
Treatment | Strain | Number of mice at term | Total mice necropsied | Weeks at term | Mice with hepatomas | Mice with pulmonary tumors | Mice with lymphomas | Total mice with tumors | |||||||
M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | ||
Untreated Control-OD group | X Y |
14 18 |
16 16 |
17 18 |
18 17 |
88 89 |
88 89 |
1 3 |
0 0 |
2 2 |
1 0 |
1 1 |
2 2 |
6 5 |
3 2 |
Untreated Control-OD group | X Y |
15 18 |
17 13 |
15 18 |
18 15 |
78 78 |
78 78 |
3 0 |
0 0 |
2 3 |
1 0 |
0 0 |
1 1 |
5 3 |
2 1 |
Untreated Control-OD group | X Y |
12 18 |
18 17 |
14 18 |
18 18 |
80 80 |
80 80 |
3 1 |
0 0 |
0 0 |
1 0 |
2 0 |
1 0 |
4 2 |
2 0 |
Untreated Control-OD group | X Y |
16 17 |
16 14 |
17 18 |
17 15 |
81 81 |
81 81 |
1 0 |
0 1 |
1 3 |
0 2 |
2 0 |
0 0 |
7 3 |
1 2 |
Gelatin Control group | X Y |
16 18 |
16 15 |
16 18 |
16 17 |
82 83 |
82 83 |
0 1 |
0 0 |
0 2 |
0 1 |
0 0 |
0 1 |
0 3 |
0 2 |
Total Negative control group | X Y |
73 89 |
83 75 |
79 90 |
87 82 |
- - |
- - |
8 5 |
0 1 |
5 10 |
3 3 |
5 1 |
4 4 |
22 16 |
8 7 |
Strain X: (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1; Strain Y: (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1
## Tumors among positive control mice:
Treatment | Strain | Number of mice at term | Total mice necropsied | Weeks at term | Mice with hepatomas | Mice with pulmonary tumors | Mice with lymphomas | Total mice with tumors | |||||||
M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | ||
Ethyl carbamate* | X Y |
9 15 |
13 18 |
20 22 |
23 19 |
71 73 |
69 74 |
8 14 |
12 5 |
6 15 |
6 17 |
1 6 |
3 1 |
13 20 |
19 18 |
Ethylene imine | X Y |
4 1 |
14 3 |
17 16 |
15 11 |
78 77 |
77 77 |
15 9 |
11 2 |
15 12 |
15 10 |
0 0 |
0 2 |
16 16 |
15 11 |
Amitrol** | X Y |
0 0 |
0 0 |
18 18 |
18 18 |
54 53 |
58 60 |
16 16 |
18 17 |
0 0 |
0 0 |
0 1 |
0 0 |
16 16 |
18 17 |
Aramite | X Y |
16 17 |
16 16 |
16 17 |
17 16 |
81 78 |
78 81 |
6 1 |
1 0 |
0 0 |
1 3 |
1 0 |
1 0 |
7 2 |
8 4 |
D ihydrosafrole | X Y |
16 15 |
16 15 |
17 17 |
17 18 |
82 82 |
82 82 |
10 8 |
0 1 |
4 5 |
5 4 |
1 0 |
1 1 |
12 11 |
7 6 |
Isosafrole | X Y |
18 17 |
16 15 |
18 17 |
16 16 |
82 82 |
82 82 |
5 2 |
1 0 |
3 0 |
1 0 |
1 1 |
0 0 |
8 4 |
2 0 |
Safrole | X Y |
14 17 |
14 16 |
17 17 |
16 17 |
82 82 |
82 82 |
11 3 |
16 16 |
0 0 |
0 0 |
0 0 |
0 0 |
11 3 |
16 16 |
Strain X: (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1; Strain Y: (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1
* Adenomas of the Harderian gland were found in 24 mice.
** Carcinomas of the thyroid were found in 64 mice.
## Tumors among mice receiving Bis(2 -chloroethyl) ether:
Compound | Strain | Number of mice at term | Total mice necropsied | Weeks at term | Mice with hepatomas | Mice with pulmonary tumors | Mice with lymphomas | Total mice with tumors | |||||||
M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | ||
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether | X Y |
11 15 |
18 17 |
16 17 |
18 18 |
80 80 |
80 80 |
14 9 |
4 0 |
0 2 |
0 0 |
2 0 |
0 1 |
16 10 |
4 1 |
Strain X: (C57BL/6 x C3H/Anf)F1; Strain Y: (C57BL/6 x AKR)F1
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed
- Study duration:
- chronic
- Species:
- mouse
- Quality of whole database:
- No study aiming at evaluating the carcinogenic potential of BCEE was conducted according to recognized guidelines.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on available data, there is limited evidence for the carcinogenic potential of BCEE in mammals. However, in Table 3.1. to Annex VI of the Regulation (EC) No 1271/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) a harmonized classification for Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether is provided and classifies the substance as Carcinogen Category II "Suspected human carcinogen".
Additional information
None of the available studies were conducted according to recognized guidelines. In most of time the period of treatment was shorter than 2 years, and a limited number of animals were used in most studies.
- Exposure route: oral
Innes et al.(1969) administered BCEE by gavage to two hybrid mouse strains, (C57Bl/6 x C3H/Anf)F1 and (C57Bl/6 x AKR)F1. Groups of 18 mice/sex/strain began treatment with 100 mg/kg at 7 days of age. At 4 weeks, after weaning, exposure was continued through the diet. Concentrations in diet were calculated so as to deliver the maximally tolerated dose (300 ppm estimated to be equivalent to daily intake of 100 mg/kg), and treatment was continued for 18 months. The time‐weighted average dose for these studies was calculated to be 41.3 mg/kg body weight per day (US EPA, 1987). There were multiple groups of controls consisting of animals of both strains and sexes. "Hepatomas" (representing benign hepatomas and malignant tumours), tumours of the pulmonary system (adenomas and adenocarcinomas) and lymphomas (Type‐B reticulum cell sarcomas and leukaemias) were the predominant types of tumours observed in these animals. Compared to unexposed controls, the incidence of "hepatomas" was significantly (p = 0.01) increased in the treated (C57BL/6 × C3H/Anf)F1 mice (in males, 8/79 versus 14/16; in females, 0/87 versus 4/18; in control and exposed animals, respectively) and in (C57BL/6 × AKR)F1 males (5/90 versus 9/17 in control and exposed animals, respectively). No distinction was made between "hepatomas" and liver carcinomas, due to the impossibility of making the distinction between benign and malignant liver tumors in the mouse. However, the author noted that metastasizing hepatic cell tumors were rare but concluded that the great of tumors majority had malignant potentiality. Theincidence of pulmonary tumours or lymphomas was not significantly increased in the BCEE‐exposed animals of eithersex. This study is limited owing to small number of BCEE-exposed animals, the use of single dose level, inadequate reporting of tumour pathology, the fact that the amount of BCEE was not adjusted during initial period to account for weight gain, and that the exact dose received by the test animals can only be extrapolated. In addition, increased incidence of mouse liver hepatomas has been questioned as a reliable indication of true carcinogenic potential (Maronpot et al. 1987).
Weisburger et al. (1981) reported that the oral administration of BCEE to rats had no significant carcinogenic effect. BCEE (dissolved in a solution containing sodium chloride, Polysorbate 80, carboxy‐methylcellulose and benzyl alcohol) was administered (by gavage) to groups of 26 male and 26 female Charles River CD rats (at doses of 50 and 25 mg/kg body weight) twice weekly for 78 weeks, after which time the animals were observed for a further 26‐week period. Control groups of each sex (the size of which was not clearly stated) were administered vehicle alone. The authors reported (although no data on tumour incidence were presented) that BCEE was not carcinogenic in these male or female rats.
- Exposure route: intra-peritoneal injection
Theiss et al. (1977) assessed the potential of BCEE to produce lung tumours in groups of 20 male A/St mice injected intraperitoneally three times per week with 8, 20 or 40 mg/kg body weight BCEE (dissolved in tricaprylin). Mice injected with 8 and 20 mg/kg received a total of 24 injections while animals administered 40 mg/kg only received 4 injections. Controls (n = 20) were injected with vehicle (tricaprylin) alone. The mice were killed 24 weeks after the initial injection and the number of surface lung tumours (adenomas) determined. The incidence of lung tumours (expressed as the number of lung tumours/mouse) in the BCEE‐exposed animals was less than that observed in animals injected with vehicle alone.
- Exposure route: subcutaneous injection
Van Duuren et al. (1972) investigated the potential of BCEE to induce tumours in a study in which groups of 30 female ICR/Ha Swiss mice were injected subcutaneously with 1 mg BCEE (suspended in 0.05 ml mineral oil) once per week for life (the median survival time of animals was 656 days). Compared to animals injected with vehicle alone, where no tumours developed at the site of injection, 2/30 animals injected with BCEE developed sarcomas at the site of injection.BCEE was thus considered marginally sarcomatogenic at s.c. injection sites in female ICR/Ha Swiss mice.
Norpoth et al. (1986) also examined the carcinogenicity of BCEE in a study in which groups of 50 male and 50 female Sprague‐Dawley rats were injected subcutaneously with either 4.36 μmole (0.62 mg) or 13.1 μmole BCEE (1.87 mg) (dissolved in 0.25 ml DMSO) once per week over a 2‐year period. Controls were injected with DMSO (alone) or left untreated. The incidence of all malignant and benign tumours (e.g., mesenchymal, epithelial, sarcomas, carcinomas and unclassified) in the BCEE‐exposed animals was not significantly different from that in the controls. The median survival time of the untreated control, vehicle‐treated control, and low‐ and high‐dose groups was 696, 605, 590 and 643 (for males), and 639, 668, 629 and 654 days (for females), respectively.
Conclusion:
No study aiming at evaluating the carcinogenic potential of BCEE was conducted according to recognized guidelines. BCEE was found to induce an increased incidence of hepatomas in mice following repeated oral exposure to BCEE (Innes et al. 1969). This results was not confirmed in a similar study conducted on rats (Weisburg et al. 1981). BCEE did not induced an increased incidence of lung tumors following repeated i.p. injections (Theiss et al. 1977). BCEE was not tumorigenic but marginally sarcomagenic following repeated subcutaneous injections in female ICR/Ha Swiss mice (van Duuren, 1972) but did not increase the incidence of all malignant and benign tumours (e.g., mesenchymal, epithelial, sarcomas, carcinomas and unclassified) in male or female Sprague‐Dawley rats (Norpoth et al. 1986). Taking into account the methodological limitations of these studies, these conclusions should be taken with caution. However, considering available data, there is limited evidence for the carcinogenic potential of BCEE in mammals.
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.