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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

SDDC is not irritating to skin or eyes.
skin irritation (OECD 404): not irritating
eye irritation (OECD 405): not irritating

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP guideline study
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 404 (Acute Dermal Irritation / Corrosion)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
Individual bodyweights were not reported.
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Species:
rabbit
Strain:
New Zealand White
Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: David Percival Ltd, Cheshire, UK
- Age at study initiation: 12 - 16 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 2000-3500 g
Type of coverage:
semiocclusive
Preparation of test site:
shaved
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Controls:
not required
Amount / concentration applied:
TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 0.5 mL
- Concentration (if solution): undiluted
Duration of treatment / exposure:
4 h
Observation period:
72 h
Number of animals:
3
Details on study design:
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing (if done): With distilled water
- Time after start of exposure: 4 h


SCORING SYSTEM:
According to Draize scoring system.
Erythema 0-4:
0: No erythema, 1: very slight erythema (barely perceptible), 2: well-defined erythema, 3 moderate to severe erythema, 4: severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth)
Oedema 0-4:
0: No oedema, 1: very slight oedema (barely perceptible), 2: well-defined oedema (edges of area well-defined by definite raising), 3: moderate to severe oedema (raised approximately 1mm), 4: severe oedema (raised more than 1 mm extending beyond the area of exposure)
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Max. score:
2
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 72 h
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0.33
Max. score:
1
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 48 h
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Max. score:
2
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 72 h
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Max. score:
2
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 72 h
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Max. score:
2
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 72 h
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0.33
Max. score:
1
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 48 h

Observation time

Rabbit number and sex

#29 male

#31 male

#45 male

Erythema

Oedema

Erythema

Oedema

Erythema

Oedema

1 h

2

2

2

3

2

3

24 h

2

1

2

2

2

1

48 h

1

0

1

1

1

0

72 h

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mean value
24 + 48 + 72 h

1.00

0.33

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.33

Reversibility

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Interpretation of results:
not irritating
Remarks:
Migrated information
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
eye irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2001
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP guideline study
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
Individual bodyweights were not reported.
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Species:
rabbit
Strain:
New Zealand White
Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: David Percival Ltd, Cheshire, UK.
- Age at study initiation: 12 - 16 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 2000-3500 g
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Controls:
not required
Amount / concentration applied:
TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 0.1 mL
- Concentration (if solution): undiluted
Duration of treatment / exposure:
substance was not removed
Observation period (in vivo):
7 days
Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
3
Details on study design:
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing (if done): no

SCORING SYSTEM:
Cornea
Degree of Opacity 0 – 4 (0 = no finding, 1 = slight, disperse, diffuse opacity, 2 = extensive, diffuse opacity, iris blurred, 3 = mother-of-pearl-like opacity, iris and pupil hardly recognisable, 4 = complete opacity, ulceration)
Iris 0 – 2 (0 = no finding, 1 = swelling, reddening, positive light reaction, 2 = severe reddening and swelling, no light reaction)
Conjunctivae
Redness 0 – 3 (0 = blood vessels normal, 1 = vessels abnormally filled, 2 = diffuse reddening, 3 = diffuse deep reddening)
Chemosis 0 – 4 (0 = no swelling, 1 = slight swelling, 2 =severe swelling, lids everted, 3 = lids cover one half of eye, 4 = lids cover more than half eye, necroses and ulcers on the conjunctivas)


TOOL USED TO ASSESS SCORE: hand-slit lamp / fluorescein
Irritation parameter:
cornea opacity score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
iris score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
conjunctivae score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1.67
Reversibility:
fully reversible
Irritation parameter:
chemosis score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Reversibility:
fully reversible
Irritation parameter:
cornea opacity score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
iris score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
conjunctivae score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Irritation parameter:
chemosis score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0.33
Reversibility:
fully reversible
Irritation parameter:
cornea opacity score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
iris score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Irritation parameter:
conjunctivae score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1
Reversibility:
fully reversible
Irritation parameter:
chemosis score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0

 

Cornea

Iris

Conjunctiva

Redness

Chemosis

Score (average of animals investigated)

0 to 4

0 to 2

0 to 3

0 to 4

1 h

0.00

0.00

2.00

1.67

24 h

0.00

0.00

2.00

0.67

48 h

0.00

0.00

1.33

0.33

72 h

0.00

0.00

0.33

0.33

Average 24 h, 48 h, 72 h

0.00

0.00

1.22

0.44

Reversibility*

-

-

c

c

Average time for reversion

-

-

7 d

7 d

*             c :           completely reversible
                n c :        not completely reversible
                n :           not reversible

 

 

 

 

Interpretation of results:
not irritating
Remarks:
Migrated information
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Additional information

SDDC was tested on the skin and in the eye of rabbits. Only mild irritation was observed in both tests.


Justification for selection of skin irritation / corrosion endpoint:
The reliable GLP compliant OECD Guideline study was chosen.

Justification for selection of eye irritation endpoint:
The reliable GLP compliant OECD Guideline study was chosen.

Justification for classification or non-classification

SDDC was tested on the skin and in the eye of rabbits. Mild irritation was observed in both tests but the criteria of DSD or CLP for a respective classification are not fulfilled.