Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 269-924-1 | CAS number: 68391-05-9 This substance is identified by SDA Substance Name: C12-C18 dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride and SDA Reporting Number: 16-047-00.
- 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
Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance is not considered to be sensitising to skin.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- From December 06, 1995 to January 05, 1996
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Not applicable
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The study was conducted before the requirement for LLNA testing came into force.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, Germany
- Age at study initiation: Approx. 5 wk
- Weight at study initiation: 381 - 463 grams
- Strain: Dunkin Hartley strain, albino guinea pig (SPF-quality)
- Number of animals per group: 20 animals tested
- Control animals: Yes: 10 animals - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 2% test substance (10 mg active substance/mL) (causing mild to moderate irritation)
Challenge: 1% test substance (5 mg active substance/mL) (maximum non-irritant concentration) - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 2% test substance (10 mg active substance/mL) (causing mild to moderate irritation)
Challenge: 1% test substance (5 mg active substance/mL) (maximum non-irritant concentration) - No. of animals per dose:
- Test group: 20 animals
Control group: 10 animals - Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: Yes: The test system, procedures and techniques were identical to those used during the main study.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Test groups: Yes
- Control group: Yes
- Frequency of applications: Day 1, 8 and 15
- Duration: 6 h (after 6 h, the dressing was removed and residual test substance removed using a tissue moistened with tap water)
- Concentrations: 0.5 mL of a 2 % test substance concentration
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: Day 29
- Concentrations: 1% test substance
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24h, 48 h after challenge - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 1-Chlor-2,4-dinitrobenzol
- Positive control results:
- All the positive control animals showed positive reaction after 24 h of challenge.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Minimal skin reactions
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Conclusions:
- Under the study conditions, the test substance was considered to be non sensitising in guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the test substance, DDAC (51.3% active in hydroalcoholic solution), according to OECD Guideline 406 and EU Method B6, using Buehler test, in compliance with GLP. Test substance concentrations (in distilled water) selected for the main study were based on the results of a preliminary study. 20 experimental animals were treated on three occasions (6 h epidermal exposures on Day 1, 8 and 15) with a 2% test substance concentration and 10 control animals were treated with the vehicle only. 14 d after the last induction exposure, all animals were challenged with a 1% test substance concentration and the vehicle. The test sites were evaluated 24 and 48 h after challenge. Slight to severe oedema, well defined to severe erythema and necrotic areas were observed in the treated skin areas in the experimental animals after the third induction exposure (Day 15). In the challenge phase, minimal skin reactions were observed in 2 experimental and 2 control animals, 24 h after exposure. Taking into account the intensity of the responses and comparing these with the skin reactions seen in the control animals, it was considered that no experimental animals had induced hypersensitivity to test substance. These results lead to a sensitisation rate of 0%. All the positive control animals showed positive reaction after 24 and 48 h of challenge. Under the study conditions, the test substance was considered to be non sensitising in guinea pigs (Pels Rijken, 1996).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- From December 06, 1995 to January 05, 1996
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Remarks:
- KL2 due to RA
- Justification for type of information:
- Refer to section 13 of IUCLID for details on the read-across justification. The study with the read across substance is considered sufficient to fulfil the information requirements.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The study was conducted before the requirement for LLNA testing came into force.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, Germany
- Age at study initiation: Approx. 5 wk
- Weight at study initiation: 381 - 463 grams
- Strain: Dunkin Hartley strain, albino guinea pig (SPF-quality)
- Number of animals per group: 20 animals tested
- Control animals: Yes: 10 animals - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 2% test substance (10 mg active substance/mL) (causing mild to moderate irritation)
Challenge: 1% test substance (5 mg active substance/mL) (maximum non-irritant concentration) - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 2% test substance (10 mg active substance/mL) (causing mild to moderate irritation)
Challenge: 1% test substance (5 mg active substance/mL) (maximum non-irritant concentration) - No. of animals per dose:
- Test group: 20 animals
Control group: 10 animals - Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: Yes: The test system, procedures and techniques were identical to those used during the main study.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Test groups: Yes
- Control group: Yes
- Frequency of applications: Day 1, 8 and 15
- Duration: 6 h (after 6 h, the dressing was removed and residual test substance removed using a tissue moistened with tap water)
- Concentrations: 0.5 mL of a 2 % test substance concentration
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: Day 29
- Concentrations: 1% test substance
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24h, 48 h after challenge - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 1-Chlor-2,4-dinitrobenzol
- Positive control results:
- All the positive control animals showed positive reaction after 24 h of challenge.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Minimal skin reactions
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 10%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Clinical observations:
- -
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Conclusions:
- Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance was considered to be non sensitising in guinea pigs.
- Executive summary:
A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, DDAC (51.3% active in hydroalcoholic solution), according to OECD Guideline 406 and EU Method B6, using Buehler test, in compliance with GLP. Test substance concentrations (in distilled water) selected for the main study were based on the results of a preliminary study. 20 experimental animals were treated on three occasions (6 h epidermal exposures on Day 1, 8 and 15) with a 2% read across substance concentration and 10 control animals were treated with the vehicle only. 14 d after the last induction exposure, all animals were challenged with a 1% read across substance concentration and the vehicle. The test sites were evaluated 24 and 48 h after challenge. Slight to severe oedema, well defined to severe erythema and necrotic areas were observed in the treated skin areas in the experimental animals after the third induction exposure (Day 15). In the challenge phase, minimal skin reactions were observed in 2 experimental and 2 control animals, 24 h after exposure. Taking into account the intensity of the responses and comparing these with the skin reactions seen in the control animals, it was considered that no experimental animals had induced hypersensitivity to read across substance. These results lead to a sensitisation rate of 0%. All the positive control animals showed positive reaction after 24 and 48 h of challenge (Pels Rijken, 1996). Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance was considered to be non sensitising in guinea pigs.
- 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
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- data waiving: supporting information
Referenceopen allclose all
- Slight to severe oedema, well defined to severe erythema and necrotic areas were observed in the treated skin areas in the experimental animals after the third 6 h epidermal induction exposure (Day 15).
- In the challenge phase minimal skin reactions were noted in two test and two control animals, 24 h after exposure only.
- Taking into account the intensity of the response and comparing the test and the control animals it is concluded that the test material does not cause hypersensitisation in the guinea pig when tested according to Buehler (0% response).
- Slight to severe oedema, well defined to severe erythema and necrotic areas were observed in the treated skin areas in the experimental animals after the third 6 h epidermal induction exposure (Day 15).
- In the challenge phase minimal skin reactions were noted in two test and two control animals, 24 h after exposure only.
- Taking into account the intensity of the response and comparing the test and the control animals it is concluded that the test material does not cause hypersensitisation in the guinea pig when tested according to Buehler (0% response).
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The test substance is corrosive to the skin. As indicated in REACH Annex VII, an in vivo skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted if the substance is classified as corrosive to the skin. Nevertheless, read across studies available with structurally similar substance DDAC is presented. Both the test and read across substances are di-alkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride compounds. DDAC is structurally the same but only differs in a slightly lower average alkyl chain length. Slightly shorter alkyl chains do not change possible chemical reactivity or the sensitization potential.
A study was conducted to determine the skin sensitisation potential of the read across substance, DDAC (51.3% active in hydroalcoholic solution), according to OECD Guideline 406 and EU Method B6, using Buehler test, in compliance with GLP. Test substance concentrations (in distilled water) selected for the main study were based on the results of a preliminary study. 20 experimental animals were treated on three occasions (6 h epidermal exposures on Day 1, 8 and 15) with a 2% read across substance concentration and 10 control animals were treated with the vehicle only. 14 d after the last induction exposure, all animals were challenged with a 1% read across substance concentration and the vehicle. The test sites were evaluated 24 and 48 h after challenge. Slight to severe oedema, well defined to severe erythema and necrotic areas were observed in the treated skin areas in the experimental animals after the third induction exposure (Day 15). In the challenge phase, minimal skin reactions were observed in 2 experimental and 2 control animals, 24 h after exposure. Taking into account the intensity of the responses and comparing these with the skin reactions seen in the control animals, it was considered that no experimental animals had induced hypersensitivity to read across substance. These results lead to a sensitisation rate of 0%. All the positive control animals showed positive reaction after 24 and 48 h of challenge (Pels Rijken, 1996). Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance is also considered to be non-sensitising to skin.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the results of the read across study, the test substance does not warrant a classification for skin sensitisation according to EU CLP criteria (Regulation EC 1272/2008).
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.
