Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 240-004-1 | CAS number: 15875-13-5
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- Jan 23 to 29, 2013
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- Balb/c
- Sex:
- female
- Vehicle:
- other: DAE 433 - mixture of 40% dimethylacetamide, 30% acetone and 30% ethanol
- Concentration:
- 5%, 10%,25% in DAE433
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- The test substance was administered in the form of suspension in DAE 433.
The volume of the application form was constant at all groups of animals - 25 l of the appropriate dilution to the dorsum of each ear once a day morning for 3 consecutive days. The application was performed very slowly by micropipette.
Day 1:
Open application of 25μL (in the morning, by pipette) of appropriate suspensions of the test substance, the vehicle alone or the positive control to the dorsum of each ear.
Days 2 and 3:
The application procedure repeated as carried out on day 1.
Days 4 and 5:
No treatment.
Day 6:
The weight of animals was recorded. Injection 250 μL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 7.26 x105 Bq of 3H-methyl thymidine into all test and control mice via the tail vein. - Positive control substance(s):
- other: Dinitrochlorobenzene
- Statistics:
- For statistical calculations the software Statgraphic ® Centurion (version XV, USA) was used. Statistical evaluation of measured parameters was performed at first by applying the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test for the comparison of the measured effect in all treatment groups with the vehicle control group, as global test, and then the non-parametric two-group Mann-Whitney rank test (probability level 0.05) for all two-group comparisons.
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- Negative control
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 9.67
- Test group / Remarks:
- Positive Controls
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.38
- Test group / Remarks:
- 25% group
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.03
- Test group / Remarks:
- 10% group
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.01
- Test group / Remarks:
- 5% group
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: Negative Control Group = 250 Positive control Group = 2418 25% solution group = 345.89 10% solution group = 257.53 5% solution group = 252.88
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- Under the given test conditions, the test substance does not elicit a sensitising response in LLNA assay.
- Executive summary:
The positive control substance DNCB produced positive LLNA response at an exposure level expected to give an increase in the Stimulation Index SI ≥ 3 over the negative control group, which was in congruence with the expected mode of action of a contact allergen. The positive control also elicited a reaction pattern with statistically significant increase in ear weight. The negative control did not reveal any changes.These results demonstrate that the method performed in conditions of our laboratory has sufficient reliability.
The value of SI for the test groups treated by the test substance at all three dose levels is below the threshold, stimulation index
(SI) is < 3. The comparison of the Stimulation Indexes between the treated groups and the control group revealed that the test substance did not cause a statistically significant increase in radioisotope incorporation into the DNA of dividing lymphocytes. So the result of LLNA assay is negative.
The animals exposed to the test substance showed no significant skin reactions and clinical symptoms of intoxication throughout the experiment.
The test substance showed a tendency to increase ear weight with relation to the dose.Statistically significant increase of ear weight was recorded in animals at the highest and the middle dose level (25%, 10% test substance concentrations).
This weight increase is caused by irritation effect of the test substance. The result showed the skin irritation potential considered as positive – it means the test substance is skin irritant.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- Sept 9 - Oct 2, 2012
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- Balb/c
- Sex:
- female
- Vehicle:
- other: DAE 433 - mixture of 40% dimethylacetamide, 30% acetone and 30% ethanol
- Concentration:
- 0.5, 5, and 50% in DAE433
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5
- Details on study design:
- The test substance was administered in the form of suspension in DAE 433.
The volume of the application form was constant at all groups of animals - 25 l of the appropriate dilution to the dorsum of each ear once a day morning for 3 consecutive days. The application was performed very slowly by micropipette.
Day 1:
Open application of 25μL (in the morning, by pipette) of appropriate suspensions of the test substance, the vehicle alone or the positive control to the dorsum of each ear.
Days 2 and 3:
The application procedure repeated as carried out on day 1.
Days 4 and 5:
No treatment.
Day 6:
The weight of animals was recorded. Injection 250 μL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 7.26 x105 Bq of 3H-methyl thymidine into all test and control mice via the tail vein. - Positive control substance(s):
- other: Dinitrochlorobenzene
- Statistics:
- For statistical calculations the software Statgraphic ® Centurion (version XV, USA) was used. Statistical evaluation of measured parameters was performed at first by applying the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test for the comparison of the measured effect in all treatment groups with the vehicle control group, as global test, and then the non-parametric two-group Mann-Whitney rank test (probability level 0.05) for all two-group comparisons.
- Positive control results:
- The positive control substance DNCB elicited a reaction pattern with statistically significant increase in ear weight and Stimulation Index of cell proliferation 10.41, which was in congruence with his expected mode of action as a contact allergen.
- Parameter:
- SI
- Remarks on result:
- other: Negative Control Group = 1.00 Positive control Group = 10.41 50% solution group = 3.00 5% solution group = 1.29 0.5% solution group = 1.22
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: Negative Control Group = 219.37 Positive control Group = 2283.84 50% solution group = 658.57 5% solution group = 283.55 0.5% solution group = 268.06
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- Negative Controls
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 10.41
- Test group / Remarks:
- Positive Controls
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 3
- Test group / Remarks:
- 50% Group
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.29
- Test group / Remarks:
- 5% Group
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.22
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0.5% Group
- Interpretation of results:
- ambiguous
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- Under the given test conditions, the test substance, elicited a borderline sensitising response in the LLNA assay at a 50% concentration. Positive results in cell proliferation revealed that the test substance could be a contact allergen in mice but due to the irritation that was also observed at this concentration, the possibility that it could be false positive result could not be ruled out .
- Executive summary:
The positive control substance DNCB produced a positive LLNA response (SI = 10.41) at an exposure level expected to give an increase in the Stimulation Index SI ≥ 3 over the negative control group, which was in congruence with the expected mode of action of a contact allergen. The positive control also elicited a reaction pattern with statistically significant increase in ear weight. The negative control did not reveal any changes. These results demonstrate that the method performed in conditions of the laboratory has sufficient reliability.
The animals exposed to the test substance at 5% and 0.5% showed no skin reactions or clinical symptoms of intoxication. The value of stimulation index for these groups was below the positive response threshold, (SI < 3).
The animals exposed by the highest dose level (50%) of the test substance showed skin reactions with well defined erythema but without any clinical symptoms of intoxication throughout the experiment. The test substance also showed a tendency to increase ear weight in dose dependent. Statistically significant increase of ear weight was recorded only in animals at the highest dose level (50%).
The value of stimulation index for this group was right at the positive response threshold, (SI = 3).
The increased ear weight together with well defined erythema means the test substance caused irritation of skin.
The borderline positive result in cell proliferation reveals that the test substance could be a contact allergen. However, when positive irritation effects are demonstrated simultaneously, the possibility can not be ruled out, that the evaluation based on cell proliferation could be a false positive.
- 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
Referenceopen allclose all
The animals exposed to the tested concentrations of the test substance (5%, 0.5%) showed no skin reactions and clinical symptoms of intoxication. The animals exposed by the highest dose level (50%) of the test substance showed skin reactions with well defined erythema but without any clinical symptoms of intoxication throughout the experiment.
The test substance showed a tendency to increase ear weight in dose dependent manner. Statistically significant increase of ear weight was recorded only in animals at the highest dose level (50% test substance) together with skin irritation with well defined erythema.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The test substance showed a tendency to increase ear weight at concentrations of 10% or greater. No visible skin irritation was observed at the 25% concentration. At 50% visible skin irritation was observed. Skin irritation can interfere with obtaining an accurate sensitization response and can produce false positive responses. At the 25% concentration the SI=1.38 and was clearly negative. At 50% the SI=3, which is right at the threshold for a positive result, however due to the visible skin irritation at this concentration the cell proliferation response was considered to be a false positive.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
The test substance does not elicit sensitising response in LLNA assay.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
No visible skin irritation was observed at the 25% concentration. At 50% visible skin irritation was observed.
Justification for classification or non-classification
According to the CLP rules, this material does not require classification for sensitization.
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.
