Registration Dossier

Administrative data

Description of key information

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP and OECD 429 compliant study with well characterized test material
according to
OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. certificate)
Type of study:
mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Source: Charles River UK
- Age at study initiation: pre-test: 9-10 weeks (beginning of treatment), main study: 8-9 weeks (beginning of treatment)
- Weight at study initiation: 14.3 - 20.4 g
- Housing: group
- Diet: Pelleted standard diet, ad libitum
- Water: ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least five days

- Temperature (°C): 22 + 2°C
- Humidity (%): 45-108%
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12

IN-LIFE DATES: From: 2011-08-24 To: 2011-09-14
dimethyl sulphoxide
2.5, 5%, and 10% (w/w).
No. of animals per dose:
Details on study design:
- Compound solubility: A solubility experiment was performed according to the recommendations given by OECD 429. The highest test item concentration, which can be technically used was a 10% (w/w) suspension in dimethylsulfoxide. At higher concentrations, an applicable formulation of the test item was not achieved, neither by the use of other vehicles nor by using additional methods to formulate the test item (e.g. grinding of the test item in a mortar, vortexing, sonicating, warming to 37°C).

- Name of test method: LLNA
- Criteria used to consider a positive response: A test item is regarded as a sensitiser in the LLNA if the following criteria are fulfilled:
•First, that exposure to at least one concentration of the test item resulted in an incorporation of 3HTdR at least 3-fold or greater than that recorded in control mice, as indicated by the Stimulation Index.
•Second, that the data are compatible with a conventional dose response, although allowance must be made (especially at high topical concentrations) for either local toxicity or immunological suppression.

TREATMENT PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION: Each test group of mice was treated by topical (epidermal) application to the dorsal surface of each ear with test item concentrations of 2.5, 5 and 10% (w/w) in dimethylsulfoxide. The application volume, 25 µL/ear/day, was spread over the entire dorsal surface (diameter ca 8 mm) of each ear once daily for three consecutive days. A further group of mice (control animals) was treated with an equivalent volume of the relevant vehicle alone.
Positive control substance(s):
hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
The mean values and standard deviations were calculated in the body weight tables and for the DPM values (group mean DPM ± standard deviation) as well as for the ear weights, lymph node weights and lymph node cell counts.
A statistical analysis was conducted on the DPM values, the ear weights, the lymph node weights and the lymph node cell count to assess whether the difference was statistically significant between test item groups and negative control group.
For all statistical calculations SigmaStat for Windows (Version 2.0) was used. A One-Way-Analysis-of-Variance was used as statistical method. In case of significant results of the One-Way-ANOVA, multiple comparisons were performed with the Dunnett test. Statistical significance was set at the five per cent level (p < 0.05). The Dean-Dixon-Test and Grubb’s test were used for identification of possible outliers (performed with Microsoft Excel 2003).
However, both biological and statistical significance were considered together.
Remarks on result:
other: The EC3 value could not be calculated, since all S.I.s are below the threshold value of 3. For details see table below.
other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
Remarks on result:
other: see table

Test item concentration
% (w/w)

Group Calculation

Mean DPM
  per animala)







2.5 %
test substance




5 %
test substance




10 %
test substance




a) Mean DPM/animal was determined by dividing the sum of the measured values from lymph nodes of all animals within a group by the number of animals in that group (5 animals per group)

b) SD = Standard Deviation

No deaths occurred during the study period.

No symptoms of local toxicity at the ears of the animals and no systemic findings were observed during the study period. An erythema of the ear skin could not be determined due to intense coloration of the ear skin caused by the test item. The body weight of the animals, recorded prior to the first application and prior to treatment with 3HTdR, was within the range commonly recorded for animals of this strain and age.

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Migrated information
Executive summary:

The substance did not cause sensitization in the LLNA at doses of 2.5, 5%, and 10% (w/w).

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


In the key study the skin sensitising property of the test substance was determined using the LLNA (BASF, 58V0060/1X057, 2012). The study was conducted under GLP according to the OECD-Guideline 429 based on the use of in vivo radioactive labelling (3HTdR) to measure an increased number of proliferating cells in the draining auricular lymph nodes. The test substance was dissolved in DMSO at concentrations of 2.5, 5, and 10%, and 25 µL/ear/day were topically administered to 5 female CBA mice each dose group once daily on 3 consecutive days. Additionally, a control group was treated with the vehicle alone. The sensitivity of the strain was assured in August 2011 by testing α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde as positive control. Stimulation Indices (SI) were calculated and revealed values of 1.12, 1.05, and 1.13 for the test item concentrations of 2.5, 5, and 10% (w/w).

A statistically significant or biologically relevant increase in 3HTdR incorporation, lymph node weight, or lymph node cell count was not observed in any dose group in comparison to the vehicle control group. As a test item is regarded as a sensitiser in the LLNA, if exposure to one or more test item concentration results in a 3-fold or greater increase in the SI, the test substance is not a skin sensitiser under the test conditions of this study.

Migrated from Short description of key information:
LLNA: not sensitising, (BASF, 58V0060/1X057, 2012), OECD 429, mouse

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available
Additional information:
Migrated from Short description of key information:
No data available.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC)

The available studies are considered reliable and suitable for classification purposes under 67/548/EEC. As a result the substance is not considered to be classified for skin sensitization under Directive 67/548/EEC, as amended for the 31st time in Directive2009/2/EG.


Classification, Labelling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008

The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for classification purposes under Regulation 1272/2008. As a result the substance is not considered to be classified for skin sensitization under Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, as amended for the second time in Directive (EC 286/2011).