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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
August 30, 2001 to January 30, 2002
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP study performed according to international guidelines.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2002
Report date:
2002

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
Study was performed between 2001 and 2002, which is before the OECD guideline for the LLNA method was adopted (2002).

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
4-(Cyclopropylcarbonyl)-α,α-dimethyl-ethyl ester benzeneacetic acid
EC Number:
605-546-9
Cas Number:
169280-10-8
Molecular formula:
C16 H20 O3
IUPAC Name:
4-(Cyclopropylcarbonyl)-α,α-dimethyl-ethyl ester benzeneacetic acid
Details on test material:
Batch: W0147
Physical state: powder

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Diet: Raiffeisen-Ringfutter, Kaninchen Trockenfutter 52/P, Raiffesen Kraftfutterwerk Kehl
Water: Community tap water from Karlsruhe: free access for the animals by daily changing of the watering-bottles.
Husbandry: animals housed individually in Makrolon cages (740 cm²)
Temperature: 20-23 °C
Relative humidity: 30-70%
Light-dark rythm: 12 : 12
Animals were acclimated to the test conditions for 5 days prior to the administration.

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
5 % for intradermal injection;
50% for epicutaneous challenge.
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
5 % for intradermal injection;
50% for epicutaneous challenge.
No. of animals per dose:
10 in the test group (5 males and 5 females);
5 in the control group.
Details on study design:
2 small scale pilot tests were performed to determine the intradermal and challenge concentration using each 3 animals. The main study consisted of 5 days of acclimatization, followed by the induction phase (day 0 to 7) with an intradermal administration on day 0 and a dermal one on day 7 followed by a 14 days rest period (day 8 to day 20). The challenge was started by dermal administration on day 21 with subsequent valuation of potential sensitisation reactions on days 23 and 24.
Challenge controls:
Present.
Positive control substance(s):
yes
Remarks:
benzocaine, cas. 94-09-7

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
Six out of the ten animals exposed showed symptoms of allergic reactions.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
0
Clinical observations:
No effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 0.0. Clinical observations: No effects.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
0
Clinical observations:
No effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 50%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 0.0. Clinical observations: No effects.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
Conclusions:
According to a Magnuson-Kligman test, the substance is considered to have no skin sensitizing potential.