2-{[4-chloro-6-({8-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-7-[(1-sulfo-2-naphthyl)diazenyl]-1-naphthyl}amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino}-5-sulfobenzoic acid, lithium sodium salts

Skin irritation / corrosion

Administrative data

Endpoint:

skin irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

2016

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Reliable review of similar substances. Further animal testing cannot be justified

Justification for type of information:

Assessment based on structural activity and grouping with similar substances

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

other company data

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2016

Report date:

2016

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 404 (Acute Dermal Irritation / Corrosion)

GLP compliance:

not specified

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Sulphonated azo dyes

IUPAC Name:

Sulphonated azo dyes

Test animals

Species:

rabbit

Test system

Type of coverage:

not specified

Preparation of test site:

not specified

Vehicle:

not specified

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results

Irritation parameter:

other: Assessment

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

0

Remarks on result:

other: Not considered to be irritating to skin

Any other information on results incl. tables

Considered non-irritating based on review of animal testing on this group of substances.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

not irritating

Remarks:

Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU

Conclusions:

Under the study conditions of similar structures, for the test substance the skin irritation is considered non-irritating.
No further animal testing can be justified.

Executive summary:

As with all dyes, the intense colour can mask effects on the skin and good studies will have included local histology assessment of skin to see if microscopic damage at cellular level. This was not apparent in the data reviewed, but there is no indication of adverse effects from in-vivo skin irritation studies.

 

Most studies reviewed appeared to follow the principles of OECD 404, with some 3-rabbit EU studies and 6-rabbit US studies. Scoring methods reported were typically based on Draize, but some reported individual scores, some reported mean scores and some reported totals; this made interpretation difficult as methods were not always clear. However, conclusions are consistently negative.

 

No references have been found with regard to in-vitro assessments.

 

Historical use has not indicated any local irritation to skin to workers or users and there is a high level of confidence that there is no local skin irritation. However, in view of potential sensitising effects, care is needed to avoid repeated skin exposure to concentrated material. 

 

Data reviewed has been predominantly based on rabbit testing, but data on rat (acute dermal toxicity) and guinea pigs (non-maximised methods as well as challenge phases of maximised studies) shows a good level of local tolerance

 

No further animal testing can be justified.