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: 201-174-2
CAS number: 79-07-2
Two key case studies were described in which
Chloroacetamide was determined to be a skin sensitiser: 1) a pensioner
using skin cleanser developed inflammatory reddening and swelling of the
skin of the face, neck, nape and neck-line, on the back of hands and
forearms ascending to the middle of the upper arms: a patch test
containing facial cleanser was positive; 2)a worker in contact with wet
cork developed an eczematous reaction on the fingers of the right hand,
which improved during periods of time off and deteriorated after
returning to work (Klaschka, 1975).
In a key clinical study, 296 patients with presumed
contact allergy were treated with 0.1 mL of a 0.2 % aqueous
Chloroacetamide solution on the back skin under occlusion for 24h
(Schulz, 1984). Examination of the test areas at 24 h, 2 & 3 days after
application showed positive skin reactions in 7/296 patients due to
previous contact with Chloroacetamide. This complies with a frequency of
0.3 -2.8% individuals with acquired contact allergies to Chloroacetamide
in the patients groups treated at dermatology departments (BG Chemie,
Germany, Toxicological Evaluations no. 8 Chloroacetamide, 2000-06).
Supporting information on sensitisation potential
was available from various clinical studies in which previous
Chloroacetamide exposure was expected:
-Among 3254 patients tested with Chloroacetamide (0.1% in pet.), 10
(0.3%) showed a positive test reaction (Ägren et al., 1980).
-Among 104 patients with static dermatitis of the lower limbs, 3 (3%)
developed a positive patch test to treatment of 1% Chloroacetamide in
vaseline (Angelini et al., 1975).
-Epidermal tests with 2% Chloroacetamide m/m solution in patients
allergic to woolwax showed that 18/51 (35.3%) patients reacted positive
on Chloroacetamide solution (Auth et al., 1984).
-A 46-year-old healthy woman with itchy, burning swelling on eyelids
showed positive reactions in a human patch test with 0.2 % pet.
Chloroacetamide and non-human placental protein 10% and 30% in a human
patch test (De Groot & Weyland, 1986).
-Human patch testing in patients suspected of dermatitis showed 3/501
cases (0.6%) positive to Chloroacetamide (De Groot et al., 1986).
-In an epicutaneous test on the back of patients with eczema and
suspected of allergic contact dermatitis, Chloroacetamide was tested
positive in 1 /ca. 200 (0.5 %) patients (Hannuksela et al., 1976).
-Chloroacetamide tested at a concentration of 0.1 % in petrolatum on 180
house painters who had a skin disease at the time of testing, showed 5
(2.8%) that had a positive reaction to the Chloroacetamide (Högberg &
Wahlberg, 1980; Wahlberg et al., 1978).
-A modified Draize test with Chloroacetamide in 147 volunteers showed
positive reactions in 19/33 of the females (58%) and 28/114 of the males
(5 %) (Jordan & King, 1977).
-A Draize test with 1.25% Chloroacetamide in a creambase on 205 male
revealed 35 with positive reactions, a sensitisation rate of 17%.
Marzulli & Maibach, 1973)
-Six subjects 6 months earlier reported positive to 1% Chloroacetamide
patch test, were retested in a modified Draize test at 0.05, 0.1, 0.05,
and 2% applied to the upper back: 4/6 were positive at 2% and 1/6 was
positive at 0.5% (Marzulli & Maibach, 1976).
- Of 81 women who had become sensitive to formaldehyde, 5% also
developed an allergy to Chloroacetamide; in males this was 9% of 34
formaldehyde allergics investigated. Data for individuals who were not
sensitive to formaldehyde gave markedly lower frequencies (1% and 1%
among 11630 women and 6389 men), therefore findings were considered as
"exposure- induced combined allergies" (Schnuch & Geier, 1997).
-Chloroacetamide was patch-tested positive for 189/16,191 dermatological
patients (=1.2%); from these findings, 106 (0.7%) were very slight
irritations '+' , 46 (0.3%) were doubtful (Schnuch, 1996).
-5/64 patients (7.8%) with occupational hand dermatitis (metal workers)
were patch-tested positive for Chloroacetamide (Shah et al., 1996).
-Patch testing in 36 hairdressers with hand eczemas were most frequently
sensibilised by glyceryl monothioglycolate (61%), p-phenylendiamine
(38%), nickel sulfate (33%). 1/36 (2.7%) hairdressers tested positive
for Chloroacetamide (0.2%). Any occupational related sensibilisation
could not be clearly established Özkaya-Bayazit et al., 1997).
-A 27 -year old woodcutter with acute dermatitis of the dorsa and the
soles of the feet reacted positive by patch testing with Chloroacetamide
0.2% pet; the impregnation shoeleather was considered to be the reason
(Jelen et al., 1989).
-The frequency of Chloroacetamide-induced contact allergy tested in
individuals with pre-existing lesions and suspected of allergic contact
dermatitis, showed 17/5202 (0.3%) positive reactions by means of patch
testing (Broeckx et al., 1987).
-In another study, the frequency of Chloroacetamide-induced contact
allergy tested in individuals with pre-existing lesions and suspected of
allergic contact dermatitis, showed 30/1832 (1.6%)positive reactions by
means of patch testing (COLPIPA, 1987).
-Finally, a study for Chloroacetamide-induced contact allergy tested in
individuals with pre-existing lesions and suspected of allergic contact
dermatitis showed 20/ 8521(0.25%) positive reactions by means of patch
testing (Goossens et al., 1997).
Supporting information was also available from
commercial products containing Chloroacetamide or similar products (read
-In a 1.5 year period, 15 patients were seen with
an allergic reaction to an ointment used in the treatment of chronic
venous insufficiency of the legs. Subsequently, 100 patients with this
disturbance were tested for their sensitivity to the ointment. The
ointment contained preservative CA 24, a mixture of 70% Chloroacetamide
and 30 % sodium benzoate. The preservative concentration was 0.2%,
corresponding to a Chloroacetamide concentration of 0.14 %. In the
study, 12 of the 100 patients tested had an allergic reaction to the
ointment.As a control, patch tests were performed on 125 patients who
were not known to be under treatment with the ointment. One of the 125
had a positive reaction, and this patient had been treated previously
with the ointment for an ulcer of the leg. The 27 patients with known
ointment allergy were tested with several of the components of the
ointment. In the 22 patients tested with preservative CA 24 in a 0.2%
aqueous solution, 17 had a positive reaction. Chloroacetamide, 0.2% in
aqueous solution, was tested in 19 patients, and 17 had positive
reactions.The authors speculated that sensitisation to Chloroacetamide
might occur more easily when it is applied to broken skin and concluded
that Chloroacetamide shouId be omitted from products destined for the
treatment of skin diseases. (Smeenk & Prins, 1972)
-A study with 215 patients and 10 healthy persons dermally treated with
a 0.1% solution of Konservierungsmittel CA 24, containing 70%
Chloroacetamide and 30% sodium benozate, was free of side-effects
-From 736 patients suspected of having occupational contact dermatitis,
occupational allergic contact dermatitis was observed in 2 patients
after treatment with Euxyl K 400 0.5% pet (Aalto-Korte et al., 1996).
-Acquired contact dermatitis was documented in various cases due to
products containing Chloroacetamide (n-hydroxymehylchloacetamide in
Grotan HD2, Parmetal K50, Preventol D3) (Andersen & Rycroft, 1991).
-Two case studies with history of dermatitis were described with
occupational exposure to glue containing Chloroacetamide 0.1 % and
formaldehyde 2%. Both patients showed a positive reaction to dermal
exposure (Bang et al., 1976).
-A 25-year-old woman with itching erythema and vesicles in the perioral
area and on both ears was subjected to a patch test with herpes
medications R Lomaherpan and R Viru Merz-Serol, showing a positive
reaction to the constituent Chloroacetamide 0.07% (Detmar & Agathos,
-A 27-year-old female secretary with a history of contact allergic
reactions to iodine dervatives and eczema at the fingertips showed a
positive patch test to glue containing Chloroacetamide as a preservative
-A 50-year-old worker, employed in a factory producing modelling
plasticine (Didò) for small children reacted positively in a patch test
to Preventol D5, a preservative in the plasticine containing
N-methylochloracetamide (Farli et al., 1987).
-A 19 year old worker with hand eczema of 1-year duration was tested
positive in a patch test with N-methylol-Chloroacetamide + O-formal of
benzyl alcohol ( R Parmetol K 50) (Hjorth, 1979)
-A 48-year-old male fork lift driver working with paints with history of
hand eczema showed positive reaction to a patch test with
Chloroacetamide (0.2% pet.) (Jones & Kennedy, 1988).
-A 40 -year-old woman with 6-month history of a recurrent pruritic
facial dermatitis showed a positive reaction in a patch test with
aerosol spray astringent, Atomiseur tillel, containing Chloroacetamide
and to Chloroacetamide (0.2% in pet.) (Koch, 1985)
-Chloroacetamide (2% in Trolab) was used in a patch test in 51 patients,
of which 1 occupational 34 +-year old worker who had been working with
cutting oils was positive (Lama et al, 1986).
-Chloroacetamide 0.1% in pet. patch tested on
dermatological patients showed 7/465 of subjects positive (1.5%), of
which 5 were younger women who had mainly facial lesions, most probably
due to cosmetics (Meynadier et al., 1982)
-Of 18 subjects patch test tested with components of cosmetic cream, 2
showed positive for the Konservierungsmittel C, containing 70% active
ingredient (Nater, 1971).
-A patient with lip inflammation after toothpaste use was found positive
in a patch test with Chloroacetamide 0.2% aq (Ophaswongse & Maibach,
-A patch test performed on 3 persons 3 years after having caught a
nitrile-allergy was negative for Chloroacetamide 0.5% in acetone
(Richter & Scholz, 1971).
-A 30-year-old man with acute dermatitis of the back of his hands after
use of a cosmetic hand lotion showed a strong positive result with patch
testing to the lotion and to Chloroacetamide 0.20% in water and in pet;
negative results were obtained with sodium benzoate solutions (Suhonen,
-A 55-year-old woman with severe bilateral axillary dermatitis reacted
positive to patch testing with 0.2% Chloroacetamide in petrolatum; her
dermatitis was attributed to her roll-on deodorant, which contained
Chloroacetamide in combination with sodium-benzoate at a concentration
of 0.05% (Taran & Delaney, 1997).
-A 51-year-old man with suspected contact dermatitis on forearm reacted
positive to patch testing with R Euceta-Gel ointment and Chloroacetamide
0.001 %; the reaction was considered to be due to the ointment (Wantke
et al., 1993).
-A 33-year-old woman with acute dermatitis of the face, occurring 1 day
after painting, reacted positive to patch testing with Chloroacetamide
0.1% pet. and methylolChloroacetamide, substances present in
Umwelt-Raumfarbe (Finkbeiner & Kleinhans, 1994).
-A 71 -year old man with redness, swelling and scaling of the border of
the lips,reacted positive by patch testing to Chloroacetamide 0.2% aq;
this reaction was considered to be due to Chloroacetamide in toothpaste
(Saino & Kanerva, 1995; Machackova & Smid, 1991).
-A 55 -year old women with dermatitis in the neck region after use of
hair dyes, reacted positive to Patch testing with Chloroacetamide; the
reaction was considered to be due to the hair dye (Assier-Bonnet &
-A 36 -year old male carpenter with dermatitis of the palm and
fingertips, reacted positive in a patch test with Chloroacetamide 0.2%
pet.; the reaction was considered to be due to Chloroacetamide in
wallpaper glue (Pereira et al., 1999).
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.
Deze website maakt gebruik van cookies om het surfen zo aangenaam mogelijk te maken.
Welcome to the ECHA website. This site is not fully supported in Internet Explorer 7 (and earlier versions). Please upgrade your Internet Explorer to a newer version.
Do not show this message again