Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
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: 222-960-1 | CAS number: 3681-71-8
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Three skin sensitisation studies have also been conducted in humans, as follows:
- Clinical Research Laboratories, Inc (2012) Repeated insult patch test with re-challenge test
One hundred fourteen subjects participated in evaluating the potential of the test item to elicit dermal irritation and/or induce sensitization. The test material was applied under an occlusive patch to the upper back of each subject and was allowed to remain in direct skin contact for a period of 24 h. Patches were applied to the same site on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for a total of 9 applications during the Induction Period. The sites were graded for dermal irritation 24 h after removal of the patches by the subjects on Tuesday and Thursday and 48 h after removal of the patches on Saturday. Following approximately a 2-week rest period, challenge patches were applied to previously untreated test sites on the back. After 24 h, the patches were removed and the test sites were evaluated for dermal reactions. The test sites were re-evaluated at 48 and 72 h. Subjects exhibiting reactions during the Challenge Phase of the study may have been asked to return for a 96-hour reading. One hundred four subjects completed the study. One subject (#30) participated in a Re-Challenge Test approximately 4 weeks after the conclusion of the RIPT, due to observed reactions during the Challenge Phase. However the reactions were not confirmed during the Re-Challenge Test for subject #30. In conclusion, the test material did not demonstrate a potential for eliciting dermal irritation or inducing sensitization under the following test conditions: 0.2mL of the test material applied to a 3.63 cm2occlusive patch.
- Epstein (1974) To determine the contact sensitizing potential of: Group VII- 1974, 74-10-59 Cis-3-hexenyl acetate
Twenty two subjects participated in a study to determine the sensitising potential of the test item. The test material was applied under occlusion to the same sites on the volar aspect of the forearms of all subjects for 5 alternate day 48 h periods. Following a 10-14 d rest period, challenge patches were applied to fresh sites for 48 h. The challenge sites were read on removal of the patch 24 h later and in some instances 96 h later. The test item produced no reactions that were considered allergic in the 22 subjects tested.
- Rubenkoenig and Ede (1965) Repeated insult patch test of SC-1167V
Forty three subjects participated in a study to determine the sensitising potential of the test item using an adaptation of the repeated insult patch test. The study comprised a series of nine 24-h exposures on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday sequence for 3 successive weeks, the reaction to each exposure being scored at the session following and the reaction to the ninth application on Monday of the fourth week. The test patch was applied to the same site each time, unless reaction to sample or tape adhesive rendered this inadvisable, in which case the test patch was either omitted or applied to a fresh site. On Monday of the sixth week a challenge patch was applied to a site not previously exposed, and removed after 24 h. Reactions to challenge were scored on Wednesday and Friday of the sixth week. Thirty eight subjects completed the program. Under the conditions of this study the test substance caused no primary irritation. None of the 38 subjects tested were sensitised by the sample of the test substance.
The Clinical Research Laboratories, Inc (2012) study has been conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice using a modified Shelanski - Shelanski human patch test method and is well documented. As such, the study has been assigned a reliability 1. The Rubenkoenig & Ede (1965) and Epstein (1974) studies have been conducted using a method which is comparable to a repeated insult patch method, meets generally accepted scientific standards and are adequately reported and have been assigned a reliability 2. Therefore, when the results of these studies are reviewed collectively they are considered acceptable for classification.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Clinical Research Laboratories, Inc (2012) Repeated insult patch test with re-challenge test: Based on a test population of 104 subjects, the test material did not demonstrate a potential for eliciting dermal irritation or inducing sensitization under the test conditions the test material did not demonstrate a potential for eliciting dermal irritation or inducing sensitization.
Epstein (1974) To determine the contact sensitizing potential of: Group VII- 1974, 74-10-59 Cis-3-hexenyl acetate: The test item produced no reactions that were considered allergic in the 22 subjects tested
Rubenkoenig and Ede (1965) Repeated insult patch test of SC-1167V: None of the 38 subjects tested were sensitised by the sample of the test substance
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
The Clinical Research Laboratories, Inc (2012) study has been conducted to Good Clinical Practice and a recognised guideline study and is well documented and has been assigned a reliability 1. The Epstein (1974) and Rubenkoenig & Ede (1965) studies have been conducted to a method comparable to a guideline, are well documented and have been assigned a reliability 2.
Justification for classification or non-classification
One of the available human studies has been assigned a reliability 1 and two of the available human studies have been assigned a reliability 2. When the results of these studies are reviewed collectively they are considered acceptable for classification. The test material was found to be a non-sensitiser in human volunteers and therefore can be considered to be non-classified.
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.