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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Skin sensitisation: read-across from Jasmal: OECD TG 406: not sensitising

Respiratory sensitisation (in absence of human data, and absence of skin sensitisation): not sensitising

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Read-across information.
Justification for type of information:
The read-across justification is presented in the Endpoint summary Skin sensitisation. The accompanying files are also attached there.
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
read-across source
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
10%+25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
10%+25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Interpretation of results:
other: Not sensitising
Remarks:
according to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments)
Conclusions:
Jessemal is not considered a skin sensitiser based on read across from Jasmal, which was tested In a guinea pig maximisation test equivalent with OECD 406 (1981) guideline.
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
01 April, 1980 - 18 February, 1981
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study with acceptable restrictions
Remarks:
study is conducted equivalent to OECD TG 406, but non-GLP with minor defficiencies on documentation which did not influence the outcome of the test.
Justification for type of information:
This information is used for read across to Jessemal.
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
(1981)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
No information on environmental conditions and housing of the animals were provided this did not influence the result of this study.
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
An LLNA is not considered necessary because a valid GPMT test is available.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Environmental Safety Laboratory
- Age at Acclimatization Start: No data
- Weight at Acclimatization Start: males: 304 - 350g; females: 320 - 334 g
- Housing: No data
- Diet: No data
- Water: No data
- Acclimation period: one week

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No data
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
other: 0.01% Dodecylbenzene sulphonate/saline for the intradermal induction, ethanol for the epicutaneous induction and challenge.
Concentration / amount:
- 1% for the intradermal induction
- 50% for the epidermal induction
- 25% for the challenge
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: 0.01% Dodecylbenzene sulphonate/saline for the intradermal induction, ethanol for the epicutaneous induction and challenge.
Concentration / amount:
- 1% for the intradermal induction
- 50% for the epidermal induction
- 25% for the challenge
No. of animals per dose:
Test animals: 10 (6 males, 4 females)
Treated control animals: 4 males
Untreated control animals: 4 females
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS
- Intradermal injections:
Four guinea pigs of the same sex and weighing approximately 320 g are each injected intradermally on the clipped flanks with 0.1 mL aliquots of a range of concentrations of test substance in a suitable solvent. Twenty-four hours later the reactions are examined for size in mm (length and breadth) and for erythema and oedema. A concentration which produces a definite irritation reaction is selected as the intradermal induction concentration.
- Epidermal application: No data.

MAIN STUDY
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
Animals were treated by intradermal injections in the shoulder region to induce sensitization and 7 days later the sensitization is boosted by an occluded patch placed over the injection site. 14 days later the animals were challenged on one flank by occluded patch. Seven days after this a further confirmatory challenge was given on the opposite flank using the same method. Further challenges may be required at weekly intervals to resolve uncertainties in the first two challenges.

CHALLENGE:
Thirteen to 14 days after application of the induction patch the animals were challenged on the clipped and shaved flank by occluded patch. For each animal, an 8 mm diameter filter paper patch in an 11 mm aluminium patch test cup was saturated with test substance at the selected challenge concentration and the patch applied to the shaved flank. The patch was held in place for 24 hours by adhesive plaster wound around the trunk. The treatment sites were examined for evidence of sensitization 24 and 48 hours after removal of the patches.
One week after the first challenge a second challenge was made on the opposite flank exaectly as for the first challenge. Further challenges and cross challenges may be made on alternate flanks at weekly or greater intervals as required.

Controls:
Treated control group:
At the same time as the test guinea pigs are selected, 4 guinea pigs of the same sex are selected as treated controls for the first challenge. They are given a mock induction tretament at the same time and in the same way as for the test animals except that test substance is omitted from the injection and application preparations. At first challenge they are treated in exactly the same way as the test animals.

Untreated control group:
At every challenge in the test 4 previously untreated guinea pigs, weighing approximately the same as the test guinea pigs at the challenge, are treated in exactly the same way as the test animals.


Positive control substance(s):
no
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 1
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 2
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
10%+25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 3
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
10%+25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
4
Reading:
other: challenge 4
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
10

- In the pre-liminary test, erythema (faint pink and pale pink) and oedema was observed at intradermal induction with 1% test substance in 0.01% dodecylbenzene sulphonate/saline in all 4 animals. Therefore 1% for the intradermal induction was used.

At 24 hours after the topical induction of 50% test substance in ethanol 2 of the 4 animals showed barely perceptible erythema erythema, the other 2 animals showed no effects. The 50% concentration was considered suitable for application induction.

For the challenge 25% was determined to be the highest non-irritant concentration.

- The body weight gain of the animals was normal.

- In the challenge readings of the main test, the skin reaction barely perceptible erythema (also observed in the treated and untreated controls) were not considered as skin sensitising effects.

Interpretation of results:
other: Not sensitising
Remarks:
EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments)
Conclusions:
In a guinea pig maximisation test performed equivalent with OECD 406 (1981) guideline, the substance is not considered a skin sensitiser.
Executive summary:

The skin sentisation potential of the substance was investigated by performing a guinea pig maximisation test equivalent with OECD 406 (1981) guideline. A concentration of 1% was used for the intradermal induction, 50% for the epidermal induction and 25% for the four challenges. As only one of the ten test group animals showed sensitisation effects 48 hours after challenge (total of four challenges), the substance was not considered to be a skin sensitiser.

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vitro
Data waiving:
study scientifically not necessary / other information available
Justification for data waiving:
an in vitro skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted because adequate data from an in vivo skin sensitisation study are available
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

Skin sensitisation is assessed based on read-across from Jasmal to Jessemal. The executive summary of the source information on the substance is presented below, followed by the read-across rationale.

Jasmal and its skin sensitisation

The skin sentisation potential of the substance was investigated by performing a guinea pig maximisation test equivalent with OECD 406 (1981) guideline. A concentration of 1% was used for the intradermal induction, 50% for the epidermal induction and 25% for the four challenges. As only one of the ten test group animals showed sensitisation effects 48 hours after challenge (total of four challenges), the substance was not considered to be a skin sensitiser.

Skin sensitizing potential of Jessemal based on read across from data available for Jasmal (CAS No. 18871-14-2).

 

Introduction and hypothesis for the read across

For the multi-constituent substance Jessemal all constituents > 1% are identified. The substance consists mainly of two sub-groups of constituents, Tetrahydropyran acetate -like constituents, and Branched alkyl diacetates-type.For Jessemal no experimental sensitisationdata are available.In accordance with Article 13 of REACH, lacking information can be generated by means other than experimental testing, i.e. applying alternative methods such as in vitro tests, QSARs, grouping and read-across.For assessment of skin sensitisation of Jessemal, the analogue approach is selected because for one of the constituents, Jasmal, skin sensitisation data is available which can be used for read-across.

Hypothesis: Jessemal has the same skin sensitisation potential as Jasmal.

Available information: Jasmal was tested in a studyequivalent to OECD TG 406, non-GLP, Rel. 2.A concentration of 1% was used for the intradermal induction, 50% for the epidermal induction and 25% for the four challenges. As only one of ten test group animals showed sensitisation effects 48 hours after challenge (total of four challenges), the substance was concluded to be not sensitizing to skin.

Target and Source chemical(s):

Chemical structures of the target chemical and the source chemical(s) are shown in the data matrix, including physico-chemical properties and available toxicological information.

Purity / Impurities:

The major and minor constituents of Jessemal are presented in the Data matrix. The impurities < 10% are grouped based on their resemblance with Tetrahydropyran acetate -like constituents, and Branched alkyl diacetates-type.

Analogue justification

According to Annex XI 1.5 read-across can be used to replace testing when the similarity can be based on a common backbone and a common functional group. When using read-across the result derived should be applicable for C&L and/or risk assessment and it should be presented with adequate and reliable documentation, which is presented below.

Analogue selection:For Jessemal the substance Jasmal was selected as source chemical for read-across because Jessemal‘s constituents are the same and/or very similar to Jasmal’s and for Jasmal experimental sensitisation information is available.

Structural similarities and differences: Jessemal andJasmal are both reaction masses containing similar Tetrahydropyran acetate-like constituents with molecular weight of 214. Jessemal also contains constituent of Branched alkyl diacetates with molecular weights of 244. These diacetates have one additional acetic ester and have an open ring structure not present in Jasmal. Jessemal has two minor impurities just exceeding the 1% level, one being the alcohol derivative of the Tetrahydropyran acetates and the other one of the Branched alkyl diacetates, which will not be addressed further being only very minor constituents.

Dermal bioavailability:Jessemal and Jasmal have similar dermal bioavailability because these have similar constituents and impurities and comparable log Kow values (≤0.5 difference).

Skin sensitisation reactivity: Jessemal and Jasmal are similarly reactive based similar functional acetic ester type of groups. The OASIS protein binder considers the acetic group in Jasmal (Tetrahydropyran acetate) as a potential leaving group with some reactivity. However, in view of the absence of experimental skin sensitisation in Jasmal this is not resulting in skin sensitisation. The Branched alkyl diacetates do not show a skin sensitisation alert.

Remaining uncertainties:There are no uncertainties other than those already addressed in the previous sections.

Data matrixThe relevant information on physico-chemical properties and toxicological characteristics are presented in the data matrix below.

Conclusions on skin sensitisation for hazard and risk assessment

For Jessemal no data on skin sensitisation is available. For the analogue Jasmal such information is available, which can be used for read across to fill this data gap. When using read-across the result derived should be applicable for C&L and/or risk assessment and be presented with adequate and reliable documentation. This documentation is presented in the current text. Jasmal showed absence of skin sensitisation in a GPMT test (OECD TG 406) and based on this Jessemal is also considered negative for skin sensitisation.

Final conclusion: Jessemal is not a skin sensitiser.

Data matrix to support the read across to Jessemal from Jessemal for skin sensitisation

Name

Jessemal

Tetrahydropyran acetates

Jasmal + 3 other similar impurities

Branched alkyl diacetates

Other branched alkyl diacetates (4 impurities)

Read-across

Target

Target

Major constituent

Source

(and impurity)

Target

Minor constituent

Target

impurities

Chemical structures

Not applicable

Typical conc. (%)

Not applicable

20-40

<23

10-20

<22

CAS #

Not applicable

38285-49-3

18871-14-2

67634-09-7

--

Einecs

945-946-3

 

242-640-5

 

 

REACH registration

2018

 

Registered

 

 

MW

Not applicable

214

214

244

244

Phys-chem*

 

 

 

 

 

Log Kow

3.5 #(exp.)

3.2 (est.)

3.2 - 3.7 (exp.)

3.7 (est.)

3.7 (est.)

Ws (mg/L)

714.1 (exp.)

67.8 (est.)

214.9 (exp.)

17.8 (est.)

17.8 (est.)

Human health

 

 

 

 

 

Skin sensitisation

Negative

(Read across)

Negative

(Read across)

Negative

(OECD TG 406)

Negative

(Read across)

Negative

(Read across_

* Episuite v4.11 unless stated otherwise (i.e. ‘exp.’); #Log Kow relates to the major constituent, the log Kow range is 3.5 to 4.2.

Respiratory sensitisation

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

Respiratory sensitisation can be assessed using human data such as indicated in R7.3.5.2 of the ECHA guidance (2015) that indicate respiratory reactions e. g. from consumer experience or occupational exposure. In case no such data are available the respiratory sensitisation can be assessed using the integrated evaluation strategy for respiratory sensitisation data in the ECHA guidance (R7A, Fig. 7.3-2, 2015), which says that if the substance is not a skin sensitiser, it is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitiser.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the presented information the substance is not a skin sensitiser and not a respiratory sensitiser. Therefore classification of this substance for skin and respiratory sensitisation is not warranted according to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008, and its amendments).