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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
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 based on various test chemicals
Justification for type of information:
Weight of evidence based on various test chemicals
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 based on various test chemicals
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Weight of evidence based on various test chemicals
GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of study:
other: Weight of evidence based on various test chemicals
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
not specified
Sex:
not specified
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
0.1% of the test chemical in saline
Adequacy of induction:
not specified
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Concentration / amount:
diluted test material
Day(s)/duration:
3 weeks
Adequacy of induction:
not specified
No.:
#1
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
diluted test material
Day(s)/duration:
24 hours
Adequacy of challenge:
not specified
No.:
#2
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Concentration / amount:
diluted test material
Day(s)/duration:
24-48 hours
Adequacy of challenge:
other: Re-chaleenge
No.:
#1
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Concentration / amount:
undiluted test chemical
Day(s)/duration:
week 5
Adequacy of challenge:
not specified
No.:
#2
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
petrolatum
Concentration / amount:
10% solution in petrolatum
Day(s)/duration:
24 hours
Adequacy of challenge:
other: Re-challenge
No. of animals per dose:
1. 20 (10/sex)
2. 20 (10/sex)
Details on study design:
The data is based on weight of evidence approach based on various test chemicals
Reading:
1st reading
Group:
test chemical
No. with + reactions:
0
Clinical observations:
no signs of dermal sensitization observed
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Interpretation of results:
other: not sensitizing
Conclusions:
Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.
Executive summary:

The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.

The skin sensitization study of the test chemical was assessed in guinea-pigs. Group of ten male and ten female guinea pigs were given several intra-dermal injections of 0.1% of the test chemical in saline together with an adjuvant. This was followed 2 weeks later by a challenge intra-dermal injection using the same concentration and, after a further 1 week, a 24-48- hour covered dermal application using a 30% solution in petroleum.

No skin reactions indicative of sensitisation were found. Thus, the the test chemical can be considered to be not a skin sensitizer.

 

This is supported by the results of a similar skin sensitisation study was performed on guinea pigs to determine the sensitisation potential of the test chemical.

The test was performed on 20 guinea pigs of both the sex using multiple subcutaneous injections of diluted test material for 3 weeks. After rest period of 14 days, on week 5 intradermal injections of test material were given as challenge dose. Re-challenge application given during week 7 using occlusive patch for 24hr duration in 10% solution in petrolatum. No skin reactions indicative of contact sensitisation were observed. Thus, it can be concluded that the test chemical was not a skin sensitizer.

Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

The dermal sensitization potential of the test chemical was assessed based on the available results from the various test chemicals.

The skin sensitization study of the test chemical was assessed in guinea-pigs. Group of ten male and ten female guinea pigs were given several intra-dermal injections of 0.1% of the test chemical in saline together with an adjuvant. This was followed 2 weeks later by a challenge intra-dermal injection using the same concentration and, after a further 1 week, a 24-48- hour covered dermal application using a 30% solution in petroleum.

No skin reactions indicative of sensitisation were found. Thus, the the test chemical can be considered to be not a skin sensitizer.

 

This is supported by the results of a similar skin sensitisation study was performed on guinea pigs to determine the sensitisation potential of the test chemical.

The test was performed on 20 guinea pigs of both the sex using multiple subcutaneous injections of diluted test material for 3 weeks. After rest period of 14 days, on week 5 intradermal injections of test material were given as challenge dose. Re-challenge application given during week 7 using occlusive patch for 24hr duration in 10% solution in petrolatum. No skin reactions indicative of contact sensitisation were observed. Thus, it can be concluded that the test chemical was not a skin sensitizer.

Based on the available data for the various test chemicals and applying the weight of evidence approach, it can be concluded that the test chemical will also behave in similar manner and was estimated to be not sensitizing to skin. Thus it can be further classified under the category “Not Classified” as per CLP regulation.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

The results of the experimental studies from the various test chemicals indicate a possibility that the test chemical can be not sensitizing to skin.

Hence, by applying the weight of evidence approach,the test chemicalcan be considered to be not sensitizing to skin.