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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Endpoint:
in vivo mammalian germ cell study: cytogenicity / chromosome aberration
Type of information:
read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
data from handbook or collection of data
Remarks:
peer rewied

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Mutagenicity tests of diethylene glycol
Author:
Yoshida S, Fujita H, Sasaki M
Year:
1986
Bibliographic source:
Ann Rep Tokyo Metrop Res Lab Publ Health 37 : 442 – 446

Materials and methods

GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of assay:
other: cromosomal aberration

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethan-1-ol
Cas Number:
111-46-6
Molecular formula:
C4H10O3
IUPAC Name:
2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethan-1-ol

Test animals

Species:
hamster
Strain:
not specified

Administration / exposure

Route of administration:
other: intraperitoneal or oral gavage
Vehicle:
water if gavaged
Duration of treatment / exposure:
3 weeks
Frequency of treatment:
daily
Doses / concentrationsopen allclose all
Remarks:
intraperitoneal
Dose / conc.:
2 other: % w/w drinking water
Remarks:
oral gavage
Control animals:
not specified

Results and discussion

Test results
Sex:
not specified
Genotoxicity:
negative
Toxicity:
not specified
Vehicle controls validity:
not specified
Negative controls validity:
not specified
Positive controls validity:
not specified
Additional information on results:
a slight increase in chromosomal aberrations in the form of gaps was described but an increase in the incidence of gaps, however, is not evidence of chromosomal damage.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
Negative for chromosomal damage