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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 907-672-2 | 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
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Animal and human data are available to evaluate skin irritation. DBPP is considered not irritant for the skin.
Two K4-ranked in vivo studies are available for eye irritation. A weight-of-evidence approach was applied. DBPP is considered to be not an eye irritant.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vivo
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1979
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: The study protocol is poorly documented.
- Justification for type of information:
- Acryloid HF-422 (70.8% dibutylphenylphosphate and 29.2% n-butylmethacrylate polymer) is considered a suitable RA test substance based on the present % of DBPP.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Remarks:
- RA RSS and original RSS are identical
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Primary skin irritation test. Erythema and edema were scored on intact and abraded skin of New Zealand rabbits after 24 and 72 h.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Species:
- rabbit
- Strain:
- other: New Zealand
- Type of coverage:
- not specified
- Preparation of test site:
- not specified
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- not specified
- Amount / concentration applied:
- 0.5 mL applied
- Number of animals:
- 6 animals: 3 males and 3 females
- Details on study design:
- SCORING SYSTEM: max. score = 8, erythema + edema
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 1
- Irritation parameter:
- edema score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- animal #6
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 1
- Irritation parameter:
- edema score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Interpretation of results:
- not irritating
- Remarks:
- Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- Acryloid HF-422 can be classified as "non-irritant" to the skin.
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vivo
- Remarks:
- In vivo study available from 1956, there is no use to perform an in vitro test
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1956
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: The study protocol is poorly documented.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- As described by Draize, Moodard and Calvary, J. of Pharm. & Exp. Therapeutics (1944), 82:4.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Remarks:
- Study performed in 1956
- Species:
- rabbit
- Strain:
- not specified
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- no information available
- Type of coverage:
- not specified
- Preparation of test site:
- shaved
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- not specified
- Observation period:
- 72 hours
- Number of animals:
- 3
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- animal #1
- Time point:
- 24/48/72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- animal #2
- Time point:
- 24/48/72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Irritation parameter:
- erythema score
- Basis:
- animal #3
- Time point:
- 24/48/72 h
- Score:
- ca. 1
- Reversibility:
- fully reversible within: 2 hours
- Interpretation of results:
- not irritating
- Remarks:
- Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The compound was found to be practically non-irritating when applied to intact rabbit skin.
- Executive summary:
After 2 hours one animal showed barely perceptible erythema. The other 2 animals received a score of zero. Overnight the trace of erythema on the affected animal disappeared.
The compound was found to be practically non-irritating when applied to intact rabbit skin.
Referenceopen allclose all
h |
24 |
72 |
||||||
|
ERYTHEMA |
EDEMA |
ERYTHEMA |
EDEMA |
||||
|
intact |
abraded |
intact |
abraded |
intact |
abraded |
intact |
abraded |
1 male |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 male |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 male |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 female |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 female |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 female |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Animal No. - Sex | 2 hours | 24 hours | 48 hours | 72 hours |
1 - Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2 - Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3 - Female | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Average | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vivo
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1979
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: The study protocol is very poorly documented.
- Justification for type of information:
- Acryloid HF-422 (70.8% dibutylphenylphosphate and 29.2% n-butylmethacrylate polymer) is considered a suitable RA test substance based on the present % of DBPP.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Remarks:
- RA RSS and original RSS are identical
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Acute eye irritation test. Cornea, iris and conjunctivae of New Zealand rabbits were scored after 24, 48 and 72 h.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Species:
- rabbit
- Strain:
- other: New Zealand
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- not specified
- Amount / concentration applied:
- dose: 0.1 mL
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- 6 animals: 3 males and 3 females
- Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 1.67
- Max. score:
- 10
- Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 48 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.83
- Max. score:
- 5
- Irritation parameter:
- cornea opacity score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.83
- Max. score:
- 5
- Irritation parameter:
- iris score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.83
- Max. score:
- 5
- Irritation parameter:
- iris score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 48 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.83
- Max. score:
- 5
- Irritation parameter:
- iris score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.83
- Max. score:
- 5
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 1
- Max. score:
- 2
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 48 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.67
- Max. score:
- 2
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.33
- Max. score:
- 2
- Conclusions:
- Acryloid HF-422 can be classified as a slight irritant to the eye.
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vivo
- Remarks:
- In vivo study available from 1956, there is no used to perform an in vitro test
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1956
- Reliability:
- 4 (not assignable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Secondary source: only compilation document available.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- 0,1 mL of undiluted sample was placed in the conjunctival sac of the right eye of each of 3 albino rabbits and the resulting irritation scored according to the method of Draize, Woodard and Calvery: J. of Pharm. & Exp. Therapeutics (1944), 82:4.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Species:
- rabbit
- Strain:
- not specified
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- not specified
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- not clear from secondary source compilation document
- Observation period (in vivo):
- 72 hours
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- 3
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- other: 1 hour
- Score:
- ca. 5.3
- Max. score:
- 6
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 24 h
- Score:
- ca. 2.6
- Max. score:
- 4
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 48 h
- Score:
- ca. 0.6
- Max. score:
- 2
- Irritation parameter:
- conjunctivae score
- Basis:
- mean
- Time point:
- 72 h
- Score:
- ca. 0
- Max. score:
- 0
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- The animals blinked but showed no discomfort when the compound was applied. After 1 hour the average score was 5,3 out of a possible 110. There was slight redness of the conjunctivae with some discharge and a trace of swelling. Iris and cornea appeared to be unaffected. Overnite the average score dropped to 2,6 and within 48 hours two fo the 3 animals were free of inflammation. The liquid proved to be a rather mild ocular irritant.
- Interpretation of results:
- slightly irritating
- Remarks:
- Criteria used for interpretation of results: not specified
- Conclusions:
- The liquid proved to be a rather mild ocular irritant.
Referenceopen allclose all
|
24 |
48 |
72 |
||||||
|
cornea |
iris |
conj. |
cornea |
iris |
conj. |
cornea |
iris |
conj. |
1 male |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 male |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 male |
10 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
4 female |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 female |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 female |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Animal No. - Sex | 1 hour | 24 hour | 48 hour | 72 hour |
1 - Female | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
2 - Male | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
3 - Female | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Average | 5.3 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Skin irritation/corrosion
Animal data from two study reports were available. However, both were assigned a Klimisch score of 4. In the oldest study (Younger, 1956), DBPP was found to be practically non-irritating when applied to the intact skin of rabbits. In the other study (Branch, 1979), Acryloid HF-422, a formulation of 70.8% DBPP and 29.2% n-butylmethacrylate polymer, was applied on the skin of New Zealand rabbits. And also this formulation was not a skin irritant.
Apart from the animal data there is a repeated insult patch test with human volunteers available.
In the repeated insult patch test with DBPP (Shelanski, 1974), the test material was applied on the human skin of 50 human volunteers. After an exposure period of 24 h the patch was removed and the skin sites were examined. Gross changes, if present, were graded on a scale of 1 to 4. Absence of any visible changes were assigned a 0 value.
After the first exposure, no visible skin changes signifying reaction to injury were recorded.
Eye irritation
There are two in vivo eye irritation studies available (Younger, 1956; Branch, 1979). Since both were ranked with a K4 Klimisch score, a weight of evidence approach was applied.
In the oldest study (Younger, 1956), 0.1 mL of undiluted sample was placed in the conjunctival sac of the right eye of each of three albino rabbits and the resulting irritation was scored according to the method of Draize et al. (1944). Eye irritation in rabbits consisted of slight redness of the conjuctivae with some discharge and a trace of swelling for an average score after one hour of 5.3 out of a possible 110. After 48 h two of the animals were free of inflammation and after 72 h all three animals were scored 0. The author of the study report concluded that DBPP is a rather mild ocular irritant.
In the other study (Branch, 1979), 0.1 mL of Acryloid HF-422 was applied to the eyes of six New Zealand rabbits. The test substance Acryloid HF-422 is a formulation of 70.8% DBPP and 29.2% n-butylmethacrylate polymer. The average score was respectively 3.5, 2.3 and 2.0 out of a maximum score of 110 after 24, 48 and 72h.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Skin irritation/corrosion
Information from the animal studies indicated that the substance is not a skin irritant. Additionally, DBPP did not score positive after a 24h exposure period on the human skin of 50 volunteers. Based on this information, DBPP is not classified as a skin irritant according to the CLP Regulation.
Eye irritation
In both evaluated study reports, in less than 2 of 3 tested animals, a positive response of corneal opacity ≥1 and/or iritis ≥ 1 and/or conjunctival redness ≥ 2 and/or conjunctival oedema (chemosis) ≥ 2, was calculated as the mean scores following grading at 24, 48 and 72 hours. Based on these results and the criteria described in the CLP Regulation, DBPP is not classified as an eye irritant.
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.