Renewable hydrocarbons (naphtha type fraction)

Skin sensitisation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

05 February 2013 - 01 March 2013

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: The study was conducted according to the OECD 406 guideline and in compliance with GLP.

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2013

Report date:

2013

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 3

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Type of study:

guinea pig maximisation test

Justification for non-LLNA method:

LLNA proved to be unreliable in predicting skin sensitization potential of diesel that is known to be a non-sensitizer. A valid GPMT inevitably showed that CTO diesel is not a skin sensitizer. More comprehensive justification is provided in the separate RSS "Skin sensitisation. supporting expert report"

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Renewable hydrocarbons of wood origin (naphtha type fraction)

IUPAC Name:

Renewable hydrocarbons of wood origin (naphtha type fraction)

Constituent 2

Reference substance name:

Renewable hydrocarbons of wood origin (gasoline type fraction)

EC Number:

700-918-8

Molecular formula:

Not applicable for UVCB substance

IUPAC Name:

Renewable hydrocarbons of wood origin (gasoline type fraction)

Details on test material:

- Name of test material (as cited in study report): CTO Naphtha
- Substance type: UVCB substance
- Physical state: liquid
- Analytical purity: 100%; UVCB substance
- Lot/batch No.: 12-06946-017
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: 15 December 2013
- Storage condition of test material: room temparature (15-25 deg. C, below 70 RH%)

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:

guinea pig

Strain:

other: LAL/HA/BR

Sex:

male/female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Source: LAB-ÁLL Bt. Budapest, 1174 Hunyadi u. 7.
- Age at study initiation: 6 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 283-371 g
- Housing: in Macrolon cages size IV, with 5 animals / cage
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): CuniFort Diet for Rabbits (Lot 121217U203 and 130204U111; Bonafarm-Bábolna Takarmány Ltd, Hungary) ad libitum
- Tap water containing 50 mg/100 ml ascorbic acid ad libitum

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20.1 - 24.0 °C
- Humidity (%): 24 - 57 %
- Air changes (per hr): 15 - 20 air changes / hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Induction

Induction 1

Route:

intradermal and epicutaneous

Vehicle:

other: sunflower oil

Induction 2

Concentration / amount:

Main study I: Intra-dermal induction exposure

Test groups:
A series of three injections was administered on each side of the scapular region of treatment group animals, as follows, resulting in six injections per animal:
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Freund's Complete Adjuvant mixed with physiological saline (1:1) (v/v),
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of the test item in Sunflower oil at 5% (w/v) concentration,
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of the test item in 5 % (w/v), formulated in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

Control group:
The control animals were treated similarly as the test group; however, the vehicle without the test item was used for injections as follows:
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml mix of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline (NaCl 0.9 %) (1:1) (v/v),
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Sunflower oil,
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of 50 % formulation of Sunflower oil in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

Main study II: Dermal Induction Exposure

The test group:
- Animals were treated with approximately 0.5 ml of the 100% (undiluted) test item.

The control group:
- Control animals were treated with Sunflower oil.

Main study III: Challenge Exposure
Test and the control groups.
A 2.5x2.5 cm² patch of sterile gauze was saturated with the test item at 25% (w/v) in Sunflower oil concentration and applied to the left flank of all animals.
The right shaved flank area of all animals was treated with a 50% dilution of the maximum dermal challenge dose (i.e. 12.5 (w/v) % in Sunflower oil).

Challenge

Challenge 1

Route:

epicutaneous, occlusive

Vehicle:

other: sunflower oil

Challenge 2

Concentration / amount:

Main study I: Intra-dermal induction exposure

Test groups:
A series of three injections was administered on each side of the scapular region of treatment group animals, as follows, resulting in six injections per animal:
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Freund's Complete Adjuvant mixed with physiological saline (1:1) (v/v),
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of the test item in Sunflower oil at 5% (w/v) concentration,
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of the test item in 5 % (w/v), formulated in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

Control group:
The control animals were treated similarly as the test group; however, the vehicle without the test item was used for injections as follows:
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml mix of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline (NaCl 0.9 %) (1:1) (v/v),
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Sunflower oil,
- 2 injections with 0.1 ml of 50 % formulation of Sunflower oil in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

Main study II: Dermal Induction Exposure

The test group:
- Animals were treated with approximately 0.5 ml of the 100% (undiluted) test item.

The control group:
- Control animals were treated with Sunflower oil.

Main study III: Challenge Exposure
Test and the control groups.
A 2.5x2.5 cm² patch of sterile gauze was saturated with the test item at 25% (w/v) in Sunflower oil concentration and applied to the left flank of all animals.
The right shaved flank area of all animals was treated with a 50% dilution of the maximum dermal challenge dose (i.e. 12.5 (w/v) % in Sunflower oil).

No. of animals per dose:

MAIN study I MAIN study II MAIN study III
Dose group Control group Test group Control group Test group Control group Test group
Number of animals 5 10 5 10 5 10

Details on study design:

RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A series of test item concentrations was tested to identify the primary irritation following intra-dermal injection and dermal application: 0.5, 1, 2.5 and 5% (w/v) concentrations were used for intra-dermal injection and 10, 25, 50% (w/v) and 100% (undiluted) for dermal application. Local effects were examined and scored 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after patch removal. Skin effects were scored for erythema and oedema, any other observations of changes to the skin was recorded.

Two concentrations were injected on the right side and another two concentrations on left side of the animals. Each concentration was injected in duplicate, so each animal received eight injections. Two animals were used per concentration.

It was found that the test item at concentrations of 0.5, 1, 2.5 and 5% (w/v) produced no reaction (scores 0-0) in the skin of guinea pigs after the intra-dermal application.

It was found that 0.5 ml of the test item formulations at concentrations of 100% (undiluted), and 50% (w/v) caused very slight erythema and concentrations of 25 and 10% (w/v) produced no reaction (scores 0-0) on the skin of guinea pigs after the dermal application.

On the basis of results of the Preliminary Dose Range Finding Study, the 5% (w/v) concentration was used for intra-dermal treatment and 100% (undiluted) formulation was used for dermal induction treatment.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
Intra-dermal induction (MAIN study I)

- No. of exposures: 1

- Test groups: 1
A series of three injections was administered on each side of the scapular region of treatment group animals, as follows, resulting in six injections per animal:
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Freund's Complete Adjuvant mixed with physiological saline (1:1) (v/v),
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml of the test item in Sunflower oil at 5% (w/v) concentration,
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml of test item in 5 % (w/v), formulated in a 1:1 (v/v) mixture of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

- Control groups: 1
The control animals were treated similarly as the test group; however, the vehicle without the test item was used for injections as follows:
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml mix of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline (NaCl 0.9 %) (1:1) (v/v),
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml of Sunflower oil,
* 2 injections with 0.1 ml of 50 % formulation of Sunflower oil in a 1:1 mixture (v/v) of Freund's Complete Adjuvant and physiological saline.

- Site: shoulder

- Duration of exposure: 24 h

- Concentrations: 5 % (w/v)

Dermal induction (MAIN study II)

- No. of exposures: 1

- Test groups: 1
* Animals were treated with approximately 0.5 ml of the 100% (undiluted) test item.

- Control groups: 1
* Control animals were treated with Sunflower oil.

- Site: shoulder

- Duration of exposure: 48 h

- Concentrations: 100 %

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
Two weeks after the topical induction application, the animals were exposed to a dermal challenge dose.
- No. of exposures: 1
- Exposure period: 24 h
- Test groups: 2
- Control group: 2
- Site: Right and left flank
- Concentrations: 25 % and 12.5 % (w/v) in Sunflower oil
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 h and 48 h after the patch removal

OTHER:

Challenge controls:

In the control animals no visible skin reactions were observed following challenge with test item at a concentration of 25 % (w/v) in Sunflower oil at the 24 and 48 hours examination

Positive control substance(s):

yes

Remarks:

2-mercaptobenzothiazole

Results and discussion

Positive control results:

Challenge with reference item 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole resulted positive response in test animals sensitised previously. The net response values at the 24 and 48 hours observations represented an incidence rate of 80% and 70% and the net score values of 1.00 and 0.70 respectively. The dermal scores represented discrete or moderate erythema (score 1 or 2) developed on the skin of sensitised guinea pigs.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Results

Results 1

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

25 % (w/v)

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study.

Remarks on result:

other: see Remark

Remarks:

Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25 % (w/v). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study..

Results 2

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

25 % (W/v)

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study.

Remarks on result:

other: see Remark

Remarks:

Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25 % (W/v). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study..

Results 3

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

12.5 % (w/v)

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study.

Remarks on result:

other: see Remark

Remarks:

Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 12.5 % (w/v). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study..

Results 4

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

12.5 % (w/v)

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study.

Remarks on result:

other: see Remark

Remarks:

Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 12.5 % (w/v). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: There were no overt signs of an adverse clinical response to treatment with the test item during the course of the study..

Results 5

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

positive control

Dose level:

50 %

No. with + reactions:

8

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

no data

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 8.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no data.

Results 6

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

positive control

Dose level:

50 %

No. with + reactions:

7

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

no data

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 50 %. No with. + reactions: 7.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no data.

Results 7

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

negative control

Remarks on result:

no indication of skin sensitisation

Results 8

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

negative control

Remarks on result:

no indication of skin sensitisation

Any other information on results incl. tables

There were no deaths. No signs of systemic toxicity were noted in the animals during the test. There were no notable differences in bodyweight changes between the test animal group and the control group.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Remarks:

Criteria used for interpretation of results: expert judgment

Conclusions:

Sensitisation potential of of test item was studied in the guinea pig using the Magnusson and Kligman Method. Challenge with test item CTO Naphtha evoked no positive responses in the test animals sensitised previously with the test item or with control item. Under the conditions of the present assay the test item was shown to have no sensitisation potential.

Executive summary:

This study was regarded reliable without restrictions since the the study was conducted according to the OECD 406 guideline and in compliance with GLP.

Ten test animals were subjected to sensitisation procedures in a two-stage process, i.e. an intra-dermal treatment and a topical application. The test item was used at a concentration of 5% (w/v) in Sunflower oil for intra-dermal injections and at a concentration of 100% (undiluted) for dermal sensitisation treatment. Two weeks after the last induction exposure, a challenge dose (at a concentration of 25% (w/v) in Sunflower oil) was administered on the left flank of animals. The right flank area of animals was treated with 50% dilution with Sunflower oil of the maximum dermal challenge dose as a safeguard dose (12.5% (w/v) Sunflower oil). Challenge was performed by dermal application of the test item.

Five control guinea pigs were simultaneously exposed to Sunflower oil during the sensitisation phase I (intra-dermal treatment). During the sensitisation phase II (dermal treatment) the control animals were treated with Sunflower oil and they were treated with the test item at a concentration of 25 and 12.5% (w/v) in Sunflower oil only during the challenge.

Test group.

After the challenge with the test item at a concentration of 25% (w/v) in Sunflower oil, no positive response was observed in the treated animals. The mean of the scores was 0.00 according to the 24 and 48-hours results. The right shaved flank area of all animals was treated with a test item concentration of 12.5% (w/v) in Sunflower oil as a safeguard dose and no reaction was noted.

Control group.

After the challenge with the test item at a concentration of 25% (w/v) in Sunflower oil no visible changes were found at the 24 and 48 hours examinations. The right shaved flank area of control animals was treated with a test item concentration of 12.5% (w/v) in Sunflower oil as a safeguard dose and no reaction was noted.

In conclusion, challenge with the test item evoked no positive responses in the test animals sensitised previously with the test item or in the control group. The net response value represented an incidence rate of 0 % and the net score value of 0.00.