Registration Dossier

Toxicological information

Eye irritation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
eye irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
10 August 1981 - 24 August 1981
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: see 'Remark'
Remarks:
Read across to a study result from an investigation using a similar material is justified for members of the Epoxidised Oils and Derivatives group.This study meets the criteria laid out in OECD Guideline 405. Read across to a study result from an investigation using a similar material is justified for members of the Epoxidised Oils and Derivatives group. Four epoxidised oils and esters (linseed, soybean,9-octadecanoate propylene glycol ester and 2-ethylhexyl tallate ester ETP). The C14-C22, 2-ethylhexylesters are listed as similar products on the market to ETP based on fatty acids from other naturally occurring fatty acids This group of epoxies are identified as sharing common structural and functional similarities, recognised in an OECD SIDS review as a single category, and therefore justifying read-across between data for different members of the group. Consequently data sharing between ESBO epoxidised soybean oil, ELO epoxidised Linseed oil and ETP epoxidised 2ethylhexyl tallate and fatty acids, C14-C22, 2-ethylhexylesters, epoxidised is commonly utilised in the preparation of this dossier. Read-across bridges are used for members of the EOD group where appropriate, is justified based on similar toxicity profiles and structural and functional similarities.
Justification for type of information:
Read across to a study result from an investigation using a similar material is justified for members of the Epoxidised Oils and Derivatives group. Four epoxidised oils and esters (linseed, soybean,9-octadecanoate propylene glycol ester and 2-ethylhexyl tallate ester ETP). The C14-C22, 2-ethylhexylesters are listed as similar products on the market to ETP based on fatty acids from other naturally occurring fatty acids. This group of epoxies are identified as sharing common structural and functional similarities, recognised in an OECD SIDS review as a single category, and therefore justifying read-across between data for different members of the group. Consequently data sharing between ESBO epoxidised soybean oil, ELO epoxidised Linseed oil and ETP epoxidised 2ethylhexyl tallate and fatty acids, C14-C22, 2-ethylhexylesters, epoxidised is commonly utilised in the preparation of this dossier. Read-across bridges are used for members of the EOD group where appropriate, is justified based on similar toxicity profiles and structural and functional similarities.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1981
Report Date:
1981

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Procedure used was that described in the Proposed Guideline of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) S 163.81 - 4 "Primary eye irritation study", Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 163, August 2, 1978 that were in draft at time of study conduct and subsequently adopted.
GLP compliance:
no

Test material

Reference
Name:
Unnamed
Type:
Constituent
Type:
Constituent
Type:
Constituent
Type:
Constituent
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): TK 11'278
- Physical state: Liquid
- Lot/batch No.: prod. Oct. 80

Test animals / tissue source

Species:
rabbit
Strain:
New Zealand White
Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
The test was performed on 3 male and 6 female New Zealand White rabbits bred and raised on the premises weighing 2 to 3 kgs. The animals were housed individually in metal cages, numbered by ear tags, were kept at constant room temperature of 22 ± 2°C, at a relative humidity of 55 ± 10% and on a 12 hour light cycle day. The animals had ad libitum access to standard rabbit food and water.

Prior to treatment they were adapted to the laboratory for a minimum of 4 days. Only rabbits with normal opthalmic findings were used for these tests

Test system

Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Controls:
other: the untreated eye of each rabbit served as the inherent control
Amount / concentration applied:
0.1 mL
Duration of treatment / exposure:
In three of the nine rabbits approximately 30 seconds after treatment the treated eye was flushed with 10 mL of physiological saline.
Observation period (in vivo):
14 days
Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
9 - three rinsed and six not rinsed after installation
Details on study design:
0.1 mL of undiluted test material was instilled into the conjunctival sac of the left eye of the rabbits and the lids were gently closed for a few seconds. The right eye was not treated and served as an untreated control. In three of the nine rabbits approximately 30 seconds after treatment the treated eye was flushed with 10 ml of physiological saline. The eye irritation was appraised with a slit-lamp on day 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 14 and was scored for each individual rabbit.

As the test compound is not soluble in water, an assessment of pH was not performed prior to dosing.

Results and discussion

In vivo

Resultsopen allclose all
Irritation parameter:
cornea opacity score
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Reversibility:
other:
Remarks:
not relevant
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Irritation parameter:
iris score
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
2
Reversibility:
other:
Remarks:
not relevant
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Irritation parameter:
conjunctivae score
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
1.06
Max. score:
4
Reversibility:
fully reversible within:
Remarks:
Day 10
Irritation parameter:
chemosis score
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0.56
Max. score:
3
Reversibility:
fully reversible
Remarks:
Day 4
Irritant / corrosive response data:
The ocular reactions were assessed by the Kay and Callendra system, from which a PII was derived. For classification purposes the results were re-calculated using a standard Draize score deriving a mean for the reactions over 24-72 hours.
On this basis the mean results for the rinsed eyes (scores for six rabbits) were -
corneal opacity = 0.0
Iris response = 0.0
Conjunctival redness = 1.06
Conjunctival swelling/chemosis = 0.61
and for the rinsed eyes the mean values for 24-72 hours were:
corneal opacity = 0.0
Iris response = 0.0
Conjunctival redness = 0.89
Conjunctival swelling/chemosis = 0.56.
No corneal or iridial changes were evident for any of the nine rabbits. Conjunctival irritation did not exceed diffuse crimson coloration and had resolved in all unrinsed rabbits by Day 10. reactions persisted for one of the rinsed eyes to Day 14. Conjunctival chemosis had largely resolved by Day 4 for all nine rabbits although slight reactions persisted for one, unrinsed, eye to Day 7.
Other effects:
No symptoms of systemic intoxication were observed throughout the whole test period.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Table: 1 Calculation of the primary eye irritation index

Time after exposure days

Mean reaction score

Unrinsed eyes (A)

Rinsed eyes (B)

Cornea

iris

conjunctiva

cornea

iris

conjunctiva

1

0

0

4.7

0

0

3.3

2

0

0

3.3

0

0

2.7

3

0

0

2

0

0

2.7

4

0

0

1.3

0

0

1.3

7

0

0

1

0

0

0.7

10

0

0

0

0

0

0.7

14

0

0

0

0

0

0.7

The ocular reactions were assessed by the Kay and Callendra system, from which a PII was derived. For classification purposes the results were re-calculated using a standard Draize score deriving a mean for the reactions over 24-72 hours. On this basis the mean results for the rinsed eyes (scores for six rabbits) were - corneal opacity = 0.0 Iris response = 0.0 Conjunctival redness = 1.06 Conjunctival swelling/chemosis = 0.61 and for the rinsed eyes the mean values for 24-72 hours were: corneal opacity = 0.0 Iris response = 0.0 Conjunctival redness = 0.89 Conjunctival swelling/chemosis = 0.56. No corneal or iridial changes were evident for any of the nine rabbits. Conjunctival irritation did not exceed diffuse crimson coloration and had resolved in all unrinsed rabbits by Day 10. reactions persisted for one of the rinsed eyes to Day 14. Conjunctival chemosis had largely resolved by Day 4 for all nine rabbits although slight reactions persisted for one, unrinsed, eye to Day 7.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
Under the conditions of this experiement, the test material was found to cause slight conjunctival irritiation when applied to the rabbit eye mucosa:
Unrinsed eyes:
No irritation of cornea and iris was observed at any reading. Irritation was seen only in the conjunctiva with a maximum mean acore of 4.7 after 24 hours. After 10 days all irritation had disappeared.

Rinsed eyes:
No irritation of cornea and iris was observed at any reading. Irritation was seen only in the conjunctiva with a maximum mean score of 3.3 after 24 hours. After 7 days onwards only one of the three animals had a slight conjunctival redness. No symptoms of systemic intoxication were observed throughout the whole test period. According to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, no classification is warranted.
Executive summary:

The test was performed on three male and six female New Zealand White rabbits. The test material was found to cause the following irritiation when applied to the rabbit eye mucosa: In the unrinsed eyes no irritation of cornea and iris was observed at any reading. Irritation was seen only in the conjunctiva with a maximum mean acore of 4.7 after 24 hours. After 10 days all irritation had disappeared. In the rinsed eyes, no irritation of cornea and iris was observed at any reading. Irritation was seen only in the conjunctiva with a maximum mean score of 3.3 after 24 hours. After 7 days onwards only one of the three animals had a slight conjunctival redness. No symptoms of systemic intoxication were observed throughout the whole test period.

Reactions were re-assessed using EU classification criteria and responses were confirmed as not exceeding the EU thresholds for triggering classification of an ocular irritant.