Registration Dossier

Diss Factsheets

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
1973
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Data appear solid, but report lacks details consistent with a guideline study.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Triethanolamine, Diethanolamine and Monoethanolamine.
Author:
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR)
Year:
1983
Bibliographic source:
J. Am. Coll. Toxicol. 2 (7): 173-235.

Materials and methods

Principles of method if other than guideline:
Not specified.
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
not specified
Justification for non-LLNA method:
An existing in vivo study already existed. Therefore, it was considered un-ethical to re-run the study according to the LLNA method

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
2,2',2''-nitrilotriethanol
EC Number:
203-049-8
EC Name:
2,2',2''-nitrilotriethanol
Cas Number:
102-71-6
Molecular formula:
C6H15NO3
IUPAC Name:
2,2',2''-nitrilotriethanol
Test material form:
not specified
Specific details on test material used for the study:
Identity: Triethanolamine
CAS Number: 102-71-6
Purity: 5-100% triethanolamine

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
not specified
Sex:
not specified
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Number of animals/sex/dose: Not specified.

Results and discussion

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Group:
positive control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested
Group:
negative control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested

Any other information on results incl. tables

1) One erythemic reaction occured in each of three animals during the induction procedure, in two other animals during the first challenge, and in one other animal during the second challenge. All the guinea pigs remained healthy and made normal weight gains during the test. There was no evidence of any skin sensitizing activity of undiluted TEA for guinea pigs(a).

2) None of the animals showed clinical symptoms during or after the treatment period and no guinea pigs showed signs of primary irritation of the skin. Challenge reactions were measured with a reflectometer and average readings between control and experimental animals were compared. TEA was not a guinea pig skin sensitizer in these studies (b,d,e).

3) No irritation was observed. No positive primary irritation or sensitization responses were observed under the test conditions with the 25 percent active TEA solution(f).

(a)LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH. (Jan. 3, 1975). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-50). Dermal sensitization test in guinea-pigs (TEA).

(b)INTERNATIONAL BIO-RESEARCH (IBR). (1975). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-51). Triethanolamine ex Naphtachimie, delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs.

(c)INTERNATIONAL BIO-RESEARCH (IBR). (1975). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-52). Triethanolamine ex Hula, delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs.

(d)IBR. (1975). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-53). Triethanolamine ex Shell, delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs.

(e)IBR. (1975). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-54). Triethanolamine ex B.A.S.F., delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs.

(f)HILL TOP RESEARCH (HTR). (June 20, 1973). Submission of data by CTFA. (2-5-49). Delayed hypersensitivity studies in guinea pigs of (TEA) (25 percent active).

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
TEA was not a guinea pig skin sensitizer in these studies.
Executive summary:

1: Pairs of guinea pigs were treated dermally with 5%-100% TEA in water for 6 h with occlusion, treated sites were scored for erythema at 24 and 48 h. Since use of undiluted TEA resulted in only one erythemic reaction at 24 h, 100% TEA was used in both induction and challenge procedures in the subsequent sensitization test. Twenty guinea pigs received dermal applications of undiluted TEA once per week for three weeks. A challenge patch was applied after 14 days and again seven days later. There was no evidence of any skin sensitizing activity of undiluted TEA for guinea pigs.

2: TEA from four different suppliers was evaluated in guinea pig skin sensitization tests. The tests were conducted with 10 control and 20 treated guinea pigs. The induction patches were applied once a week for up to six hours for three weeks. Two weeks later challenge patches were applied to both control and treated guinea pigs. One test was conducted with undiluted TEA at induction and 90% TEA at challenge and all the other tests were conducted with 50% TEA at induction and 90% TEA at challenge. TEA was not a guinea pig skin sensitizer in these studies.

3: Patches containing a 25% active TEA solution and 10% and 5% TEA in aqueous solution were applied to the backs of four clipped guinea pigs. No irritation was observed in this preliminary study. Induction patches containing the 25% TEA solution were applied to the backs of 20 clipped guinea pigs for 6 h once per week for three weeks. One week later, a challenge patch containing 25% TEA was applied for 6 h to the clipped backs of the 20 treated and 10 control guinea pigs. Challenge reactions were read at 24 h and at 48 h. No positive primary irritation or sensitization responses were observed under the test conditions with the 25% active TEA.

Triethanolamine (TEA) was not a Guinea-Pig Sensitiser