Registration Dossier

Diss Factsheets

Administrative data

Description of key information

Not sensitising to skin (non guideline, Williamson 1972)

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation
Remarks:
in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
4 (not assignable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
documentation insufficient for assessment
Qualifier:
no guideline followed
Principles of method if other than guideline:
A solution of the test item in DMF was applied over three days to the ears of four guinea pigs. Four days after the last induction, the flanks of the animals have been challenged with different concentrations of the test item. The skin reaction produced 24 h later was rated and compared to unsensitized controls.

method publication; Stevens MA, 1967
Use of the albino guinea-pig to detect the skin-sensitizing ability of chemicals
Br J Ind Med. 1967, 24(3):189-202;
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
other: Study performed according to the method of Stevens (Br J Ind Med. 1967, 24(3):189-202)
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: albino
Sex:
not specified
Positive control results:
no positive controls were reported.

After challenge of the shaved guinea pig flank with different concentrations of 2,2'-bipyridine in DMF, only the 10 % concentration produced erythema, whereas the 1.0 % and the 0.1 % solutions did not.

Erythema were also observed in the 10 % group of unsensitized controls.

It can therefore be concluded that the observed reaction is due to potential skin irritating properties of 2,2'-bipyridine and that the test item is not a skin sensitizer.

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
The test item 2,2'-bipyridine was found not to be a strong sensitizer to skin in the ear-flank test according to Stevens (1967).
Executive summary:

Skin sensitizing properties of the test item 2,2’-bipyridine were assessed according to the method of Stevens (Br J Ind Med. 1967, 24(3):189-202): the test item (dissolved in DMF) was applied over three days to the ears of four guinea pigs. Four days after the last induction, the flanks of the animals have been challenged with different concentrations of the test item. The skin reaction produced 24 h later was rated and compared to unsensitized controls.

After challenge of the shaved guinea pig flank with different concentrations of 2,2'-bipyridine in DMF, only the 10 % concentration produced erythema, whereas the 1.0 % and the 0.1 % solutions did not. As erythema were also observed in the 10 % group of unsensitized controls, it can be concluded that the observed reaction is due to potential skin irritating properties of 2,2'-bipyridine and that the test item is not a strong skin sensitizer.

 

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

Skin sensitizing properties of the test item 2,2’-bipyridine was assessed according to the method of Stevens (Br J Ind Med. 1967, 24(3):189-202): the test item (dissolved in DMF) was applied over three days to the ears of four guinea pigs. Four days after the last induction, the flanks of the animals have been challenged with different concentrations of the test item. The skin reaction produced 24 h later was rated and compared to unsensitized controls.

After challenge of the shaved guinea pig flank with different concentrations of 2,2'-bipyridine in DMF, only the 10 % concentration produced erythema, whereas the 1.0 % and the 0.1 % solutions did not. As erythema were also observed in the 10 % group of unsensitized controls, it can be concluded that the observed reaction is due to potential skin irritating properties of 2,2'-bipyridine and that the test item is not a strong skin sensitizer.

Justification for classification or non-classification

After challenge of the shaved guinea pig flank with different concentrations of 2,2'-bipyridine in DMF, only the 10 % concentration produced erythema, whereas the 1.0 % and the 0.1 % solutions did not. As erythema were also observed in the 10 % group of unsensitized controls, it can be concluded that the observed reaction is due to potential skin irritating properties of 2,2'-bipyridine and that the test item is not a strong skin sensitizer.

Categories Display