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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 949-812-5 | CAS number: -
- 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 vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- Experimental start date: 26 November 2018 and Experimental completion date: 13 December 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 019
- Report date:
- 2019
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The OECD TG 442 D may be used as part of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) to support the discrimination between skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers for the purpose of hazard classification and labelling.
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Alcohols, C12-14 (even numbered), propoxylated, aminated, ethoxylated
- EC Number:
- 949-812-5
- Molecular formula:
- C12H27N(C3H6O)n(C2H4O)m, C14H31N(C3H6O)n(C2H4O)m
- IUPAC Name:
- Alcohols, C12-14 (even numbered), propoxylated, aminated, ethoxylated
- Test material form:
- liquid
- Details on test material:
- Name: XTJ-785, experimental
Lot No.: 9570-2-6738
CAS No.: Not listed
Purity: >92% C1214 alcohol, propoxylated, aminated, ethyoxylated
Expiry Date: No date established
Constituent 1
In vitro test system
- Details on the study design:
- Cell Culture:
The cells used in this assay were the transgenic cell line KeratinoSens™ with a stable insertion of the luciferase construct supplied by Givaudan (Dubendorf, Switzerland). The cells were routinely grown and subcultured in maintenance medium at 37°C ± 2°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 in air.
Cell Culture from Frozen Stocks
Vials of KeratinoSens™ cells, stored frozen in cryotubes at -196°C under liquid nitrogen
Cell Passage
Actively growing cell stocks were maintained and expanded by subculturing (passage). When the cells had reached 80 – 90% confluence, the medium from each flask was removed and harvested using trypsin-EDTA solution. Cultures were incubated at 37 ± 2°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 in air until complete detachment and disaggregation of the cell monolayer had occurred. The cells were then resuspended in medium to neutralise the trypsin (cells from several flasks may have been pooled at this point). The cells were resuspended and distributed into flasks containing fresh maintenance medium. This passage procedure was repeated to provide a sufficient number of cells for a test, and were passaged at least twice before using the cells in a test. The passages of KeratinoSens™ cells were limited to 25 passages.
Preparation of Test Cell Cultures
The cells from flasks of actively growing cultures were detached and disaggregated as described above. The number of viable cells in the prepared cell suspension were determined by counting a trypan blue-stained cell preparation using an Improved Neubauer Haemocytometer. The cell suspension was diluted with maintenance medium without geneticin to give 1 x 105 viable cells/mL and 100 µL volumes pipetted into all wells except well H12 of sterile 96-well flat-bottomed microtitre plates. On each occasion four plates were prepared in parallel: three white plates for measuring luminescence and one transparent plate for measuring cell viability using the MTT assay. Well H12 of each plate received 100 µL maintenance medium without geneticin with no cells. The plates were incubated for 24 ± 2 hours at 37 ± 2°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air, to allow the cells to attach.
Preparation of the Positive Control
Cinnamic aldehyde (Sigma, 239968, lot: STBG0250V, expiry: July 2020) was prepared by weighing between 20 – 40 mg into a tared glass container and diluted to a final concentration of 200 mM in DMSO using the following formula:
V=5×((p÷100)×w) / MW- (w/1000)
Where
V = volume of DMSO in mL to be added
p = purity of the chemical in %
MW = molecular weight of the chemical in g/mol
w = exact weight of the chemical added to the vial in mg
The 200 mM cinnamic aldehyde solution was further diluted to a final concentration of 6.4 mM by adding 32 µL of the 200 mM solution to 968 µL of DMSO.
Test Item Solubility
The test item was found to be soluble in DMSO at 200 mM.
Preparation of the Test Item
A stock solution of the test item was prepared by weighing between 20 – 40 mg into a tared glass container and diluting to 200 mM in DMSO using the formula above.
V=5×(((p÷100)×w) / MW)- (w/1000)
Where
V = volume of DMSO in mL to be added
p = purity of the chemical in %
MW = molecular weight of the chemical in g/mol
w = exact weight of the chemical added to the vial in mg
The 200 mM cinnamic aldehyde solution was further diluted to a final concentration of 6.4 mM by adding 32 µL of the 200 mM solution to 968 µL of DMSO.
Preparation of the 100x Solvent Plate
A 100x solvent plate was set up by adding 100 µL of DMSO to all wells of a 96 well plate except wells in column 12 and well H11 of the plate in test 1 and well B11 of the plate in test 2. 200 µL of the stock solution of the test item, Alcohols, C12-14 alkyl ethers, propoxylated, aminated, ethoxylated (XTJ-785, Experimental), was added to one well in column 12. The test item was serially diluted across the plate by transferring 100 µL from column 12 to column 11 and then mixed by repeat pipetting (at least 3 times) and then 100 µL was transferred from column 11 to column 10 and so forth across the plate.
200 µL of the 6.4 mM stock solution of cinnamic aldehyde was added to well H11 in test 1 and well B11 of the plate in test 2 and serially diluted from column 11 to column 7.
Preparation of the Dilution Plate
The 100x solvent plate was replicated into a fresh 96 well plate by adding 240 µL of assay medium to each well and then 10 µL solution per well from the 100x solvent plate was added to equivalent wells on the dilution plate. Assay medium was 495 mL DMEM (Gibco 21885), supplemented with 5.0 mL FBS.
Treatment of Cultured Plates
Approximately 24 hours after the test cell culture plates were established, the medium was removed from the wells by careful inversion of the plates and blotting onto sterile paper towel. 150 µL of assay medium was added to every well of the 96 well plates. 50 µL from each well of the dilution plate was transferred to equivalent wells in the 96 well plates. Three white plates were dosed for measuring luminescence and one transparent plate for measuring cell viability using the MTT assay.
The plates were then covered with a plate seal and placed in the incubator at 37 ± 2°C, in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air for 48 ± 2 hours.
Cell Viability Measurement
After incubation, the transparent plate was removed from the incubator and the plate seal discarded. The cell culture medium was removed by careful inversion of the plate and blotted onto sterile paper towel to remove residual culture medium. 100 µL fresh assay medium was added to each well. 10 µL of MTT solution (5 mg/mL in PBS) was added to each well of the 96-well plate. The plate was incubated at 37 ± 2C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air for 4 hours ± 10 minutes. The medium was then removed by careful inversion of the plate and blotted onto sterile paper towel to remove residual culture medium. 50 µL of DMSO was added to each well. The plate was then placed in the incubator at 37 ± 2°C, in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air, protected from light, for at least 10 minutes. The absorbance value of each well was read using a plate reader with a 540 nm filter.
Luciferase Measurement
Luciferase was measured using the Steady Glo® Luciferase Assay system kit supplied by Promega (E2550). Steady-Glo® luciferase reagent was prepared by transferring the contents of one bottle of Steady-Glo® buffer to one bottle of Steady-Glo® substrate. The reagent was mixed by inversion until the substrate had dissolved. The reconstituted reagent was used on the same day it was prepared for the repeat of test 1 and for test 2. Frozen reconstituted reagent was used for test 1 and was thawed to room temperature before use.
After incubation the medium was removed from the wells of the triplicate white plates by careful inversion of the plates and blotting on sterile absorbent paper. 100 µL of fresh assay medium was added to each well before 100 µL of Steady-Glo® luciferase reagent was added to each well of the plate. The plates were shaken on a plate shaker for at least 5 minutes until the cells had lysed. Luminescence (emitted light) was measured using a SpectraMax L luminometer. Each plate was read for total photon count with an integration time of 1 second. The plates were dark adapted for 1 minute prior to measurement.
Number of Tests Required
Two independent tests each containing three replicates (i.e. n=6) were required to make a conclusion.
Repeat Test
The first test was conducted between 26 November 2018 and 29 November 2018, however, the results for the average coefficient of variation of the luminescence reading for the DMSO solvent control was above than the acceptance criterion of below 20%. The first test was repeated between 03 December 2018 and 06 December 2018. Only the data and results from the repeat test are included in this report.
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- The luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde, was statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the tested concentrations (4 to 64 μM) in both tests.
The EC1.5 values of the positive control, cinnamic aldehyde were 11.24 μM and 10.84 μM for test 1 and 2, respectively, which lay within the historical control range for this laboratory (see Table 5). The average induction in the three replicates for cinnamic aldehyde at 64 µM were 5.09 and 4.15 for test 1 and 2, respectively, which met the acceptance criterion of between 2 and 8.
In vitro / in chemico
Resultsopen allclose all
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 1
- Parameter:
- other: I max for test item
- Value:
- 0.69
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: The Imax tests was <1.5 fold compared to the DMSO control and therefore the EC1.5 could not be calculated.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 2
- Parameter:
- other: I max for test item
- Value:
- 0.94
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: The Imax tests was <1.5 fold compared to the DMSO control and therefore the EC1.5 could not be calculated.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 1
- Parameter:
- other: cellular viability in %
- Value:
- 70
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: The lowest two concentrations were non-toxic.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 2
- Parameter:
- other: cellular viability in %
- Value:
- 70
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: The lowest two concentrations were non-toxic.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 1 and test 2
- Parameter:
- other: IC30
- Value:
- 2.49
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: test 1
- Parameter:
- other: IC50
- Value:
- 2.89
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: µM
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Test 2
- Parameter:
- other: IC50
- Value:
- 2.92
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: µM
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- Test item results:
The Imax for the test item was 0.69 in test 1 and 0.94 in test 2.
The Imax tests was <1.5 fold compared to the DMSO control and therefore the EC1.5 could not be calculated.
he cellular viability at the highest ten concentrations fell below 70% in both tests. The lowest two concentrations were non-toxic.
The IC30 value was 2.49 µM in both tests and the IC50 values were 2.89 µM and 2.92 µM in tests 1 and 2, respectively.
Negative solvent results.
The average coefficient of variation of the luminescence reading for the negative solvent control (DMSO) was 18.3% and 13.7% for test 1 and 2, respectively, which met the acceptance criterion of below 20%.
Any other information on results incl. tables
Results for test item – Test 1
Test item conc. (µM) |
0.98 |
1.95 |
3.91 |
7.81 |
15.63 |
31.25 |
62.5 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
2000 |
Mean fold induction |
0.45 |
0.69 |
0.70 |
0.04 |
-0.01 |
0.01 |
-0.01 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
Statistically significant |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Viability (%) |
97.93 |
96.65 |
-0.64 |
-0.38 |
-0.70 |
-1.28 |
-1.28 |
-1.47 |
-1.02 |
-0.83 |
-1.09 |
-1.47 |
Imax |
0.69* |
|
||||||||||
EC1.5(µM) |
N/A |
|||||||||||
IC30(µM) |
2.49 |
|||||||||||
IC50(µM) |
2.89 |
Determination criteria for the skin sensitisation potential of the test item |
Result |
Is the Imax>1.5 fold and statistically significant |
No |
Is the cellular viability >70% at the lowest concentration at the EC1.5determining concentration |
N/A |
Is the EC1.5value <1000µM |
N/A |
Is there an apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction |
No |
KeratinoSens™ prediction |
Negative |
* As the Imaxvalue of 0.70 occurred at a cytotoxic concentration, it was not considered valid. The Imaxvalue was corrected to 0.69 as this was the highest induction value that occurred at a non-cytotoxic concentration.
Results for Cinnamic Aldehyde – Test 1
Positive control conc. (µM) |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
64 |
Mean fold induction |
1.17 |
1.35 |
1.72 |
2.71 |
5.09 |
Statistically significant |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Viability (%) |
110.99 |
118.62 |
114.26 |
103.18 |
110.35 |
Imax |
5.09 |
|
|||
EC1.5(µM) |
11.24 |
||||
IC30(µM) |
N/A |
||||
IC50(µM) |
N/A |
Test Acceptance Criteria |
Result |
|
Luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the test concentrations |
Yes |
Pass |
Average induction of positive control at 64 µM between 2 – 8 |
Yes (5.09) |
Pass |
EC1.5of positive control within two standard deviations of the historical mean (-6.79 to 42.08) |
Yes (11.24) |
Pass |
CV% of blank values < 20% |
Yes (18.3%) |
Pass |
Results for test item – Test 2
Test item conc. (µM) |
0.98 |
1.95 |
3.91 |
7.81 |
15.63 |
31.25 |
62.5 |
125 |
250 |
500 |
1000 |
2000 |
Mean fold induction |
0.94 |
0.88 |
0.34 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Statistically significant |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Viability (%) |
105.06 |
95.62 |
3.48 |
3.71 |
5.62 |
1.80 |
1.24 |
1.46 |
2.25 |
1.80 |
3.93 |
3.15 |
Imax |
0.94 |
|
||||||||||
EC1.5(µM) |
N/A |
|||||||||||
IC30(µM) |
2.49 |
|||||||||||
IC50(µM) |
2.92 |
Determination criteria for the skin sensitisation potential of the test item |
Result |
Is the Imax>1.5 fold and statistically significant |
No |
Is the cellular viability >70% at the lowest concentration at the EC1.5determining concentration |
N/A |
Is the EC1.5value <1000µM |
N/A |
Is there an apparent overall dose-response for luciferase induction |
No |
KeratinoSens™ prediction |
Negative |
Results for Cinnamic Aldehyde – Test 2
Positive control conc. (µM) |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
64 |
Mean fold induction |
1.18 |
1.43 |
1.63 |
2.29 |
4.15 |
Statistically significant |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Viability (%) |
106.07 |
110.00 |
112.70 |
119.21 |
118.09 |
Imax |
4.15 |
|
|||
EC1.5(µM) |
10.84 |
||||
IC30(µM) |
N/A |
||||
IC50(µM) |
N/A |
Test Acceptance Criteria |
Result |
|
Luciferase activity induction obtained with the positive control statistically significant above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the test concentrations |
Yes |
Pass |
Average induction of positive control at 64 µM between 2 – 8 |
Yes (4.15) |
Pass |
EC1.5of positive control within two standard deviations of the historical mean (-6.79 – 42.08) |
Yes (10.84) |
Pass |
CV% of blank values < 20% |
Yes (13.7%) |
Pass |
Historical Control Data for Cinnamic Aldehyde
n |
Date |
EC1.5(µM) |
1 |
21-Jul-17 |
20.43 |
2 |
11-Aug-17 |
34.51 |
3 |
16-Nov-17 |
33.93 |
4 |
16-Nov-17 |
29.04 |
5 |
15-Dec-17 |
45.81 |
6 |
15-Dec-17 |
43.48 |
7 |
15-Feb-18 |
15.84 |
8 |
15-Feb-18 |
19.90 |
9 |
22-Feb-18 |
21.07 |
10 |
22-Feb-18 |
27.98 |
11 |
12-Jul-18 |
10.18 |
12 |
26-Jul-18 |
16.09 |
13 |
02-Aug-18 |
8.88 |
14 |
09-Aug-18 |
17.01 |
15 |
21-Sep-18 |
6.36 |
16 |
25-Oct-18 |
4.85 |
17 |
25-Oct-18 |
6.10 |
18 |
25-Oct-18 |
5.28 |
19 |
01-Nov-18 |
4.33 |
20 |
01-Nov-18 |
12.43 |
21 |
01-Nov-18 |
7.50 |
22 |
08-Nov-18 |
10.45 |
23 |
08-Nov-18 |
10.93 |
24 |
08-Nov-18 |
11.12 |
Mean |
17.65 |
|
SD |
12.22 |
|
Laboratory Historical Data Range (Mean +/- 2xSD) |
||
-6.79 |
to |
42.08 |
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Test item is negative in the ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test (KeratinoSens™)
- Conclusions:
- It was concluded that the test item gave a negative response in the ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test (KeratinoSens™), supporting the prediction that the tes item is not a skin sensitizer.
- Executive summary:
The purpose of this study was to support a predictive, adverse-outcome-pathway based evaluation of whether the test item is likely to be a skin sensitizer using the ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test (KeratinoSens™).
The Imaxfor the test item was 0.69 in test 1 and 0.94 in test 2. The Imaxfor both tests was <1.5 fold compared to the DMSO control and therefore the EC1.5could not be calculated. The cellular viability at the highest ten concentrations fell below 70% in both tests. The lowest two concentrations were non-toxic. The IC30value was 2.49 µM in both tests and the IC50values were 2.89 µM and 2.92 µM in tests 1 and 2, respectively. Graphs for the test item showed no overall dose-response for luciferase induction.
All acceptance criteria for the positive control,cinnamic aldehyde,were met.
It was concluded that the test item gave a negative response in the ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test (KeratinoSens™), supporting the prediction that the test item is not a skin sensitizer.
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.