1,3,3-trimethyl-2-[2-(1-methyl-2-phenyl-1H-indol-3-yl)vinyl]-3H-indolium chloride

Endpoint summary

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in chemico

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

2017

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: EU Method B.59 In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA)

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)

Justification for non-LLNA method:

The OECD TG 442 C 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.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: ambient
- Stability under test conditions: The stability under storage conditions over the study period was guaranteed by the sponsor, and the sponsor holds this responsibility.

PREPARATION OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
The test substance was prepared as a 100 mM preparation in methanol (considering a molecular weight of 426.99 g/mol and a purity/contents of 88.1%). After short stirring, the test substance was soluble in the vehicle.

Details on the study design:

TEST SYSTEM
- Cysteine- (C-) containing peptide: Ac-RFAACAA-COOH (MW=751.9 g/mol)
- Lysine- (K-) containing peptide: Ac-RFAAKAA-COOH (MW=776.2 g/mol)
- The peptides are custom material (Supplier: GenScript, Piscataway, NJ, USA and RS Synthesis, Louisville KY, USA) containing phenylalanine to aid in detection and either cysteine or lysine as the reactive center.

SELECTION OF CONCENTRATIONS
- The C-containing peptide was incubated with the test substance in a ratio of 1:10 (0.5 mM peptide, 5 mM test substance).
- The K-containing peptide in a ratio of 1:50 (0.5 mM peptide, 25 mM test substance).

CONTROLS:
- Negative control (NC): vehicle control = methanol
- Positive control (PC): Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA; CAS-no. 97-90-5), prepared as 50 mM solution in methanol.
- Co-elution control: Sample prepared of the respective peptide buffer and the test substance but without peptide.

TEST SUBSTANCE PREPARATION:
- Reason for the vehicle : methanol was used since the test substance was soluble in this vehicle.
- Prior to the assay the solubility of the test substance at a concentration of 100 mM was tested. The preferred solvent was acetonitrile.

PREPARATION OF PEPTIDE STOCK SOLUTIONS AND CALIBRATION SAMPLES:
- Peptide stock solutions in a concentration of 0.667 mM were prepared in pH 7.5 phosphate buffer (C-containing peptide) or pH 10.2 ammonium acetate buffer (K-containing peptide). The peptide stock solution was used for preparing the calibration samples and the test-substance and control samples.
- Calibration samples were prepared from the peptide stock solutions in 20% methanol in the respective buffer (= dilution buffer) using serial dilution

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE:
- Three samples of the test substance were incubated with each peptide. Triplicates of the concurrent vehicle control (= NC) were also incubated with the peptides.
- The remaining non-depleted peptide concentration was determined thereafter by HPLC with gradient elution and UV-detection at 220 nm.
- Calibration samples of known peptide concentration, prepared from the respective peptide stock solution used for test-substance incubation, were measured in parallel with the same analytical method

DATA EVALUATION
- Integrated peak areas were transferred electronically into EXCEL data spreadsheets to carry out the necessary calculations.
- In the cases where proper integration and calculation of peptide depletion was not possible due to co-elution, the result for the respective peptide is reported as interference.
- For evaluation of peptide depletions peak areas at 220 nm are used.

Calculation of peptide concentrations:
- the peptide concentration of the samples is calculated with the respective calibration curve using linear regression (b= axis intercept; m=slope):
Peptide concentration [mM] = (peak area at 220 nm [mAU x s] - b)/ m

Calculation of peptide depletion:
Peptide depletion of sample = [1 - [(peptide concentration of sample (mM))/(mean peptide concentration of NC (mM))] x 100 (%)

- Mean peptide depletion of each of the two peptides is calculated as the mean value of the three samples conducted for each peptide and test substance (C-containing and K-containing peptide depletion; example calculation for C-containing peptide):
C-containing peptide depletion of a test substance [%] = mean [C-containing peptide depletion of samples 1-3] (%)

Limitations of the evaluation by insolubility and gravimetric procedure:
For test substances that are not completely soluble by visual observation in the sample preparations containing the peptides immediately after preparation or after 24 hours, or when a gravimetric procedure is applied (with the exception of application of the undiluted test substance (liquids) or the maximal soluble test-substance concentration (solids)), the result may be under-predictive due to limited availablity of the test substance. In this case mean peptide reactivity ≤ 6.38% (cysteine 1:10 / lysine 1:50 prediction model) or ≤ 13.89% (cysteine 1:10 prediction model) is interpreted as “inconclusive”. However, a mean peptide depletion > 6.38% or > 13.89% is considered as “positive”.

Positive control results:

Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA; CAS-no. 97-90-5), prepared as 50 mM emulsion in de-ionized water was used as the positive control. It caused a mean C-peptide depletion of 55.20% and a mean K-peptide depletion of 12.90%.

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: First test run

Parameter:

other: Mean C-peptide depletion (%)

Value:

12.34

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Minimal or no reactivity (≤ 13.89) according to the cysteine 1:10 prediction model.

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: Second test run

Parameter:

other: Mean C-peptide depletion (%)

Value:

8.33

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Minimal or no reactivity (≤ 13.89) according to the cysteine 1:10 prediction model.

Key result

Parameter:

other: Mean K-peptide depletion (%)

Value:

-15.26

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Limited solubility of test substance with the K-containing peptide, calculation of mean peptide depletion is not appliable and the cysteine 1:1 prediction model is used for evaluation.

Other effects / acceptance of results:

DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY
Acceptance criteria:
- The standard calibration curve should have an r² >0.99.
- The negative control (vehicle control) samples of sets A and C should be 0.50 mM +/- 0.05 mM.
- The CV of the nine vehicle controls B and C should be < 15%.
- Since the mean peptide depletion for each peptide is determined from the mean of three single samples, the variability between these samples should be acceptably low (SD < 14.9% for % cysteine depletion and < 11.6% for % lysine depletion).  
-  In addition the positive control should cause depletion of both peptides comparable to historic data

ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: Yes
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: Yes, but a mean lysine peptide depletion of 6.85 was obtained which is below the historic range. However it should be noted that a very limited number of historical data is available for the vehicle, methanol, and that for other vehicles, this value is not uncommon.
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: Yes
- Range of historical values if different from the ones specified in the test guideline: Please refer to the historical control data tables in the 'Attached background material'

Cysteine-peptide vehicle controls

1st test run

The mean peptide concentration of the three samples of set A was calculated to be 0.504 mM with a SD of 0.002 mM demonstrating good performance. The mean peptide concentration of the three samples of set B, analysed at the beginning of the sample list, was calculated to be 0.487 mM with a SD of 0.001 mM. The other three samples of set B, analysed at the end of the sample list had a mean peptide concentration of 0.468 mM with a SD of 0.018 mM. The CV of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 2.9%. Thus the peptide was considered stable over the time of analysis.

The mean area ratio 220 nm/258 nm of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 30.7. The area ratio 220/258 nm of the test-substance samples correspond to 96.6 -99.8% of the mean of the vehicle controls, demonstrating the absence of any interference.

 

2nd test run

The mean peptide concentration of the three samples of set A was calculated to be 0.504 mM with a SD of 0.002 mM demonstrating good performance. The mean peptide concentration of the three samples of set B, analysed at the beginning of the sample list, was calculated to be 0.487 mM with a SD of 0.001 mM. The other three samples of set B, analysed at the end of the sample list had a mean peptide concentration of 0.468 mM with a SD of 0.018 mM.The CV of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 2.9%. Thus the peptide was considered stable over the time of analysis.

The mean area ratio 220 nm/258 nm of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 30.1. The area ratio 220/258 nm of the test-substance samples correspond to 93.5 -98.7% of the mean of the vehicle controls, demonstrating the absence of any interference.

Lysine-peptide vehicle controls

The mean peptide concentration of the three samples of set A was calculated to be 0.481 mM with a SD of 0.002 mM, demonstrating good performance. The mean peptide concentration of set B, analysed at the beginning of the sample list, was calculated to be 0.549 mM with a SD of 0.060 mM. The other three samples of set B, analysed at the end of the sample list had a mean peptide concentration of 0.527 mM with a SD of 0.009 mM. The CV of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 6.7. Thus the peptide was considered stable over the time of analysis.

The mean area ratio 220/258 nm of the 9 vehicle control samples of sets B and C was calculated to be 32.7. Therefore the area ratio 220 nm/258 nm of the test substance samples correspond to 93.4 -97.0% if the mean of the vehicle controls, demonstrating the absence of interference.

Co-elution

No co-elution of the test substance and peptides occurred as demonstrated by the consistent values of the area ratios 220 nm/258 nm.

Calibration curves

Cysteine-containing peptide:

- 1st valid test run: slope = 962.0, axis intercept = -6.583, correlation = 0.99994

- 2nd valid test run: slope = 894.7, axis intercept = 0.966, correlation = 0.99994

Lysine-containing peptide:

- slope = 645.1, axis intercept = -0.722, correlation = 0.99997

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Remarks:

negative prediction of skin sensitisation in DPRA assay

Conclusions:

Based on the observed results and applying the cysteine 1:10 prediction model, it was concluded that the test substance, Basic Orange 22 shows minimal or no chemical reactivity in the DPRA under the test conditions in accordance with the OECD Guideline 442C. Basic Orange 22 has been observed not to be peptide reactive and is predicted not be a skin sensitiser.

Executive summary:

The skin sensitising potential of the test substance, Basic Orange 22, was determined via the in chemico skin sensitisation method - Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA). The study was conducted following the OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals TG. 442C, adopted 04 February 2015  (“In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA)”) and the B.59 In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA); Official Journal of the European Union, No. L 112/1.

 

Main Assay

The test substance, Basic Orange 22 was dissolved in methanol at a 100 mM concentration considering a purity/contents of 88.1% and molecular weight of 426.99 g/mol. The C-containing peptide was incubated with the test substance in a ratio of 1:10 (0.5 mM peptide, 5 mM test substance) and the K-containing peptide in a ratio of 1:50 (0.5 mM peptide, 25 mM test substance). In total, three samples of the test substance were incubated with each peptide. Triplicates of the concurrent vehicle control were incubated with the peptides. The remaining non-depleted peptide concentration was determined thereafter by HPLC with gradient elution and UV-detection at 220 nm. The calibration samples of known peptide concentration, prepared from the respective peptide stock solution were used for test-substance incubation and measured in parallel with the same analytical method.

 

The mean peptide concentration of the cysteine-peptide and lysine-peptide vehicle controls in methanol demonstrated good performance and the coefficient of variation for the 9 vehicle control samples of the cysteine-peptide (2.9% in the first valid test run and 4.0% in the second valid test run) and lysine-peptide vehicle controls (6.7%), showed that the peptides remained stable over the time of analysis. There was no co-elution of the test substance and peptides occurred as demonstrated by the consistent values of the area ratios 220 nm/258 nm.

Due to insolubility of the test substance in the K-peptide samples, the calculation of mean cysteine- and mean lysine-peptide depletion is not applicable and instead the cysteine 1:10 prediction model is used for evaluation. The mean C-peptide depletion in the first test run was 12.34% and in the second test run 8.33%. Based on the cysteine 1:10 prediction model, since the depletion values were ≤ 13.89%, this indicates minimal or no reactivity.

The distinct negative value of K-peptide depletion indicates an artifical effect, such as interference, however this is not supported by the co-elution control or the area ration 220/258 nm.

The acceptance criteria required for acceptance of results in the test were satisfied according to OECD Test Guideline 422C. The positive control caused depletion of both peptides, comparable to historic data. However, a mean lysine peptide depletion of 6.85 was obtained for the positive control, which is below the historic range. Nonetheless, it should be noted that there is a very limited number of historic data available for the vehicle methanol and that this value is not uncommon for other vehicles.

 

Conclusion

Based on the observed results and applying the cysteine 1:10 prediction model, it was concluded that the test substance, Basic Orange 22 shows minimal or no chemical reactivity in the DPRA under the test conditions chosen. Basic Orange 22 has not been observed to be peptide-reactive and is not predicted to be a skin sensitiser.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vitro

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

2017

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

other: OECD Guideline 442E (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT))

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

activation of dendritic cells

Justification for non-LLNA method:

The OECD TG 442 E may be used as part of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) to support the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers for the purpose of hazard classification and labelling.

Details on the study design:

Cell line: THP-1 cells
The human monocytic leukemia cell line was obtained from “American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, USA” (ATCC, TIB-202).

Positive control results:

The positive control used was 1- chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (DNCB, CAS no.: 97-00-7), 4.0 µg/mL in 0.2% DMSO in culture medium. The positive and negative and vehicle control data is comparable to the historical data (Table 3). The results are shown in Table 2.

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: Experiment 3

Parameter:

other: Relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) %

Remarks:

RFI CD86

Value:

150

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Negative activation of dendritic cells positive according to OECD 442E

Remarks:

viability ≥50%

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: Experiment 3

Parameter:

other: Relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) %

Remarks:

RFI CD54

Value:

150

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Negative activation of dendritic cells positive according to OECD 442E

Remarks:

viability ≥50%

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: Experiment 4

Parameter:

other: Relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) %

Remarks:

RDI CD86

Value:

150

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Negative activation of dendritic cells positive according to OECD 442E

Remarks:

viability ≥50%

Key result

Run / experiment:

other: Experiment 4

Parameter:

other: Relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) %

Remarks:

RFI CD54

Value:

150

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

other: Negative activation of dendritic cells positive according to OECD 442E

Remarks:

viability ≥50%

Other effects / acceptance of results:

DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY:
Acceptance criteria
- A tested concentration is not to be further evaluated when relative viability is less than 50%.
- Cell viability of vehicle control cells must yield at least 90%.
- In the positive control (DNCB), RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 should be over the positive criteria (CD86≥ 150% and CD54 ≥ 200%) and cell viability should be ≥ 50%.
- In the negative control (LA), RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 should not exceed the positive criteria (RFI CD86< 150% and RFI CD54 < 200%) and cell viability should be ≥ 50%.
- For all vehicle controls, the MFI ratio of both CD86 and CD54 to isotype controls should be ≥ 105%.  
- The reactivity check of new thawed cells should produce the following result: - Positive response in CD86 and CD54 for NiSO4 and DNCB - Negative response in CD86 and CD54 for LA.
- In addition, positive, negative and vehicle control data should lie within the range of the historic data

Evaluation of results
- A test substance is predicted to activate monocytic THP-1 cells when CD86 expression is increased ≥ 150% and/or CD54 expression increased ≥ 200% at any concentration in relation to vehicle control that do not reduce viability below 50% and reproduced in the same cell surface marker in at least two independent experiments.
- A test substance is considered to be negative when the criteria mentioned above are not met up to the maximum concentration (= 5000 µg/mL for the vehicle culture medium or 1000 µg/mL for 0.2% DMSO in culture medium) or up to the cytotoxicity limit (viability less than 90% at the highest concentration tested).  
- To be relevant for evaluation, the cell viability must be more than 50% in at least four tested concentrations of an experiment.


ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
- Acceptance criteria met for negative control: Yes
- Acceptance criteria met for positive control: Yes
- Acceptance criteria met for variability between replicate measurements: Yes
- Range of historical values if different from the ones specified in the test guideline: Please refer to the historical control data in the 'Attached background material' section

Preliminary cytotoxicity assessment

- 1st preliminary cytotoxicity assessment was performed with concentrations of 1.1 - 568 µg/mL, relative viabilities well below 50% were obtained in all concentrations.

- 2nd preliminary cytoxicity assessment: the CV75 value was determined linear regression from the concentration-response curve to be 0.067 µg/mL.

- 3rd preliminary cytotoxic assessment: the CV75 value was determined to be 0.041 µg/mL.

Table 2: Summary of h-CLAT Main Experiments: mean values of RFI CD86, RFI CD54 and relative viability. 2 valid and evaluable experiments (1st and 3rd) were performed. The 2nd experiment was invalid due to high standard deviations and is not included in this report.
1st experiment				3rd experiment
Concentration (test substance)   [µg/mL)	RFI CD86   Mean [%]	RFI CD54   Mean [%]	Viability   Relative viability [%]	Concentration (test substance)   [µg/mL)	RFI CD86   Mean  [%]	RFI CD54   Mean [%]	Viability   Relative viability [%]
0.014	116	163	99	0.014	104	105	100
0.016	106	88	99	0.016	101	88	99
0.020	102	143	97	0.020	100	121	98
0.024	96	133	95	0.024	91	31	96
0.028	86	164	91	0.028	81	52	93
0.034	84	133	84	0.034	78	49	90
0.041	84	133	73	0.041	66	75	85
0.049	77	132	57	0.049	71	64	74
VC	100	100	100	VC	100	100	100
LA 1000 µg/mL	71	121	100	LA 1000 µg/mL	69	108	100
DNCB 4 µG/mL	224	656	83	DNCB 4 µG/mL	276	746	80
RFI above 150% (CD86) or 200% (CD54) with relative viability ≥50% are indicated in bold. VC: vehicle (culture medium); LA : lactic acid, negative control; DNCB : 1 -chloro-2, 4 -dinitrobenzene, positive control

- Experiment 1 - a high standard deviation was obtained for RFI CD54 of 0.034 µg/mL.

- Experiment 3 - high standard deviations were obtained for RFI CD54 of 0.041 µg/mL and 0.049 µg/mL.

- The second experiment was invalid due to high standard deviations and is not included in the report.

- Both experiments of the h-CLAT showed unambiguous results. If the borderline criteria, defined as stated above, would be applied, these results would be considered ambiguous. A differently defined borderline range may yield different outcomes – no borderline range has yet been defined and assigned to the respective OECD test guideline.

- The calculation of an EC150% (the concentration resulting in a RFI of 150%) for CD86 and an EC200% (the concentration resulting in a RF1 of 200%) for CD54 was not applicable.

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Remarks:

negative prediction of skin sensitisation in h-CLAT assay

Conclusions:

Based on the observed results and applying the evaluation criteria in accordance with OECD Guideline 422 E, Basic Orange 22 does not induce dendritic cell activation and is not predicted to be a skin sensitiser.

Executive summary:

The skin sensitising potential of the test substance, Basic Orange 22, was determined via the in vitro Human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) that evaluates that ability of Basic Orange 22 to induce the expression of cell membrane markers (CD86 and CD54) and thus activate dendritic cells. The study was conducted following the OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals TG. 442E, adopted July 2016 (‘In vitro Skin Sensitisation: human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT)’)

 

Main Assay

The test substance, Basic Orange 22 was weighed and topped up with DMSO to achieve the required 500x concentration of the high concentration, Further concentrations were prepared as 500x concentrations by serial 1:1.2 dilution and then further diluted (1:250) in culture medium to obtain x2 concentrations (final DMSO concentration in the test medium = 0.2%). The test substance was incubated with human monocytic leukemia cell line THP-1 for ca. 24 hours at 37°C and membrane marker expression (CD86 / CD54) was measured by flow cytometry. 

In order to determine the concentrations suitable for the main experiment, pre-tests (non-GLP) were performed. Cells were exposed to several concentrations of the test substance and cytotoxicity was determined thereafter by propidium iodide (PI) intercalation into the DNA. The CV75 for the 3^rdpre-test was 0.041 µg/mL³, determined by linear regression from the concentration response curve.

 

In the main test after 24-hour exposure THP-1 cells were stained with FITC labeled anti-humanCD86/ anti-human-CD54 antibody and propidium iodide and the fluorescence intensity was analyzed using flow cytometry. A total of 2 valid and evaluable experiments (1st and 3rd experiment) were performed. The second experiment was considered invalid due to high standard deviations and is not included in the report.

At concentrations used in the main experiment the test substance was soluble in DMSO ( 500 x stock preparations) and in 0.2% DMSO in culture medium (final concentrations). No precipitates were observed at any concentration after 24 hours. The highest tested concentration in the first main experiment was 1.2 -fold of the CV75 value and additional concentrations were obtained via a 1:1.2 serial dilution series of the maximum concentration. The concentration selection for the main experiments was from 0.014 µg/mL to 0.049 µg/mL.

In the first preliminary cytotoxicity assessment, concentrations in the range 1.1 - 568 µg/mL were employed and gave relative viabilities well below 50%. The CV75 values were determined by linear regression from the concentration-response curves to be 0.067 µg/mL in the second preliminary assessment and 0.041 µg/mL in the third preliminary assessment.

In both Experiment 1 and 3, there were no concentrations of the test substance that resulted in RFI values greater than 150% and the relative viability was always maintained above 50%. The calculation of an EC150% (the concentration resulting in a RFI of 150%) for CD86 and an EC200% (the concentration resulting in a RFI of 200% for CD54 was not applicable.

 

The acceptance criteria were met and the results for the positive, negative and vehicle controls are comparable with historic data.

 

Conclusion

Based on the observed results and taking into account the evaluation criteria, it can be concluded that after 24 hours of exposure to the test substance, Basic Orange 22, CD86 and CD54 expression was not induced in THP-1 cells. Therefore, it can be concluded that Basic Orange 22 does not induces dendritic cell activation and is not predicted to be a skin sensitiser.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Additional information:

Based on the negative outcome in both DPRA assay (OECD 442C) and h-CLAT assay (OECD 442E), the substance is not predicted to be a skin sensitiser. The substance does not meet the criteria for classification.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available