Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
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: 807-789-8 | CAS number: 111062-42-1
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Skin sensitisation
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 04-May-2018 to 11-May-2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
Cross-referenceopen allclose all
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
Reference
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in chemico
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 19-April-2018 to 27-April-2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442C (In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA))
- Version / remarks:
- 2015
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- In vitro study
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Purity test date: 40% Active in water, ~90% purity of active material
- Details on the study design:
- Test items were incubated for 24hrs (±2hrs) at 25 ±2.5°C in solution at 100 mM in combination with either Cysteine or Lysine containing peptides and then run on an HPLC system (20-minute run-time) using gradient elution and UV detection at 220 nm to measure peptide concentration. Test items were compared to reference controls (i.e., cinnamic aldehyde in HPLC Grade Acetonitrile) containing the test item solvent in combination with either Cysteine or Lysine peptide in order to determine the relative percent peptide depletion. Relative percent peptide depletion values were used in a prediction model that assigns test items to one of four reactivity classes.
Prior to the main test, the test item was assessed for solubility and was found to be soluble in HPLC grade water at 100mM. - Positive control results:
- The positive control in the Cysteine run (orange highlight) marginally missed the acceptance criterion (54.211 % depletion, range = 60.8 to 100). However, this was accepted as valid for use as the peptide had been depleted significantly by the PC (> 50%) and also the test item was highly reactive and depleted both peptides substantially (51.813% overall). Therefore, the data was considered valid for use and there was no impact upon the outcome of the study. All other acceptance criteria for all controls and the test item were met in both runs.
- Key result
- Run / experiment:
- other: Run 1 (cysteine) and Run 2 (Lysine)
- Parameter:
- other: Mean % Cysteine and Lysine peptide depletion
- Value:
- 51.813
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not examined
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- other: Accept/Pass
- Remarks:
- According to Study Director
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Remarks:
- Sensitiser with High Reactivity
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- The test item produced 51.813% mean Cysteine and Lysine peptide depletion, therefore, using the Cysteine 1: 10 / Lysine 1 :50 prediction model, the test item was classified as a Sensitiser with High Reactivity. A single HPLC analysis for both the Cysteine and the Lysine peptide was considered sufficient for the test item as the result was unequivocal. A minimal level of coelution was observed for this test item for the Cysteine peptide (in the absence of peptide the test item produced a peak at 220 nm wavelength with a similar retention time to that of the peptide). Although the co-eluted peak had a small area, it was nevertheless subtracted from the peak areas observed for each of the test item replicates.
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- OECD 442C covers the first key event for skin sensitisation of protein binding; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442C (direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)) reports the registered substance is a sensitiser with high reactivity. OECD 442D (Key event #2) and OECD 442E (Key event #3), summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier, are negative for skin sensitization. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitisation of the registered substance was assessed using OECD 442C (in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay). After a 24-hour incubation with both cysteine and lysine containing peptides, the percent peptide depletion was measured by high performance liquid chromatography. The Cysteine peptide 1:10 / lysine peptide 1:50 prediction model was used. The final mean % peptide depletion observed suing this model was 51.813%. Therefore, the registered substance was classified as a sensitiser with high reactivity.
OECD 442C covers the first key event for skin sensitisation of protein binding; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442C (direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)) reports the registered substance is a sensitiser with high reactivity. OECD 442D (Key event #2) and OECD 442E (Key event #3), summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier, are negative for skin sensitization. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
Summary of Acceptance Criteria |
|||
Criterion |
Run 1 (Cys) |
Run 2 (Lys) |
Outcome |
Std Curve r2>0.99 |
0.990 |
0.995 |
Pass |
PC 60.8% to 100% depletion Cys |
54.211 |
N/A |
Accept/Pass |
PC 40.2% to 69.0% depletion Lys |
N/A |
51.871 |
Pass |
SD Cys Depletion PC <14.9% |
12.427 |
N/A |
Pass |
SD Lys Depletion PC <11.6% |
N/A |
1.324 |
Pass |
RefA Mean Cone 0.50 ± 0.05mM |
0.535 |
0.488 |
Pass |
Peak Area CV RefB <15.0% |
0.581 |
4.374 |
Pass |
Peak Area CV RefC <15.0% |
0.415 |
0.919 |
Pass |
SD Cys Depletion Test Item <14.9% |
1.271 |
N/A |
Pass |
SD Lys Depletion Test Item <11.6% |
N/A |
0.054 |
Pass |
RefC Mean Cone 0.50 ± 0.05mM |
0.531 |
0.511 |
Pass |
Cys = Cysteine, Lys = Lysine, SD = Standard Deviation, CV= Coefficient of Variation, PC = Positive Control, RefA= control samples that are peptide plus acetonitrile, prepared to ensure peptide concentration is within specific limits, RefB= control samples that are peptide plus acetonitrile, prepared to ensure peptide stability throughout the run is within specific limits, RefC= control samples that are peptide plus acetonitrile and test item solvent, prepared as a control to assess percent peptide depletion. |
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
Reference
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2018-04-20 to 2018-05-29
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: OECD Test Guideline 442E: Human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT)
- Version / remarks:
- 2017
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Skin sensitisers have been reported to induce the expression of cell membrane markers associated with Dendritic Cell (DC) activation. The h-CLAT method is an in vitro assay that quantifies these changes in cell surface marker expression (i.e., CD86 and CD54) on a human monocytic leukaemia cell line, THP-1 cells (a cell line that mimics DCs), following 24-hour exposure to the test item. The changes of surface marker expression are measured by flow cytometry following cell staining with fluorochrome-tagged antibodies. Cytotoxicity measurement is also conducted concurrently to assess whether upregulation of surface maker expression occurs at sub-cytotoxic concentrations. The relative fluorescence intensity of surface markers compared to the solvent/vehicle control are calculated and used in the prediction model, to support the discrimination between sensitisers and non-sensitisers.
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- OECD Test Guideline 442E: 'in vitro skin sensitisation assays addressing the key event on activation of dendritic cells on the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation' was adopted 25-June-2018.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Purity test date: 40% Active in Water, ~90% purity of active material
- Details on the study design:
- Prior to the CV75 determination, the test item was assessed for solubility and was found to be soluble in complete RPMI culture medium at 500 mg/mL.
THP-1 cells (human monocytic leukaemia cell line) were pre-cultured for 72hrs. Following this, the cells were dosed with the test item over an 8 dose range and incubated for 24 ±0.5hrs. The cells were then washed and stained with propidium iodide which allows for discrimination of live/dead cells by flow cytometry using the Merck Guava easyCyte 6HT-2L flow cytometer. The dose of test item that yields 75% cell viability (CV75) was calculated and taken forward for the next stage of testing. This dose finding assay was carried out over two independent runs.
THP-1 cells were pre-cultured for either 48 or 72hrs. Once the CV75 was determined, a narrower dilution series based around the CV75 value was produced for the test item. This dilution range was used to dose the cells again for 24 ±0.5hrs. The cells were then washed and stained with propidium iodide and also with antibodies that detect CD54 and CD86 expression as well as a negative control antibody. This allowed for discrimination of live/dead cells and also changes in CD54 and CD86 marker expression by flow cytometry using the Merck Guava easyCyte 6HT-2L flow cytometer.
Positive control for CV75: 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB)
Positive control for CD54 and CD86 Expression: nickel sulphate - Run / experiment:
- other: Run 1 - max dose 481.08 µg/ml
- Parameter:
- other: RFI of CD54
- Value:
- 102
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Average cell viability 87.44%
- Run / experiment:
- other: Run 1 - max dose 481.08 µg/ml
- Parameter:
- other: RFI of CD86
- Value:
- 84
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Average cell viability 87.44%
- Run / experiment:
- other: Run 3 - max dose 481.08 µg/ml
- Parameter:
- other: RFI of CD54
- Value:
- 91
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Average cell viability 93.58%
- Run / experiment:
- other: Run 3 - max dose 481.08 µg/ml
- Parameter:
- other: RFI of CD86
- Value:
- 78
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not applicable
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Average cell viability 93.58%
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- The CV75 value derived from two independent experiments was as follows:
Rep 1: 401.1 µg/mL
Rep 2: 400.7 µg/mL
Average C75: 400.9 µg/mL
Acceptance criteria for all controls and the test item were met in both runs for the CV75 determination. The CV75 dose informs the dosing range selected for the CD54/86 expression assay. The top dose for the CD54/86 expression assay (main test) is 1.2 x CV75 which was equal to 481.08 µg/mL.
Acceptance criteria for all controls and the test item were considered acceptable in 2 out of 3 runs for the measurement of CD54 and CD86 expression. In Run 1 the positive control CD86 RFI value was borderline (RFI = 147, range 150 or above) and was just below the threshold but this was accepted as valid due to the low RFI values in the test item. All other criteria for the positive control were met in this run. The positive control in Run 2 failed for CD86 expression (RFI = 110). In Run 3 the viability at the top concentration was > 90% but was borderline. Therefore, as Runs 1 and 2 yielded < 90% viability at this concentration and all three runs gave a negative response for the test item this was accepted. RFI values for the test item in Run 3 were all <100, therefore a drop in viability of 3.59% is very unlikely to lead to a significant change in RFI based upon the available data.
The expression of CD54 as measured by the RFI did not cross the threshold (RFI ≥200) at any of the doses tested in Runs 1 and 3. Likewise, the expression of CD86 as measured by the RFI did not cross the threshold (RFI ≥150) at any of the doses tested. - Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- OECD 442E covers the third key event for skin sensitisation of dendritic cell activation; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442E (dendritic cell activation) reports the registered substance is negative for sensitisation. OECD 442C (Key event #1) was positive for skin sensitisation and OECD 422D (Key event #2) was negative for skin sensitisation; summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitisation of the registered substance was assessed using OECD 442E (in vitro dendritic cell activation assay). After a 24-hour incubation with the test item the expression of cell surface markers CD54 and CD86 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry. For registered substance the dose that gave 75% cell viability was found to be 400.9 µg/ml. The threshold for sensitisation for CD54 or CD86 was not crossed at any of the test item concentrations and therefore, the registered substance was classified as negative for skin sensitisation.
OECD 442E covers the third key event for skin sensitisation of dendritic cell activation; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442E (dendritic cell activation) reports the registered substance is negative for sensitisation. OECD 442C (Key event #1) was positive for skin sensitisation and OECD 442D (Key event #2) was negative for skin sensitisation; summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
Acceptance Criteria: CV75 Determination |
|||
Criterion |
Run 1 |
Run 2 |
Outcome |
Cell viability must be≥75% at the lowest dose |
96.64 |
96.67 |
Pass |
The highest test item concentration should produce cytotoxicity (< 90% cell viability) unless 5 mg/mL in medium, 1 mg/mL in DMSO or the highest soluble concentration is used as the maximal test concentration of a test item. |
95.77 (5 mg/mL medium used) |
97.12 (5 mg/mL medium used) |
Pass |
CV75= dose of test item that yields 75% cell viability |
Acceptance Criteria: Measurement of CD54 and CD86 Expression |
||||
Criterion |
Run 1 (Pass) |
Run 2 (Fail) |
Run 3 (Pass) |
Outcome |
Cell viabilities of medium and solvent controls should be higher than 90% |
97.29 |
97.42 |
97.01 |
Pass |
In the solvent control, RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 should not exceed the positive criteria (CD86 RFI≥150% and CD54 RFI≥200%) compared to the medium control |
N/A (No solvent control) |
N/A (No solvent control) |
N/A (No solvent control) |
N/A |
For both medium and solvent controls, the MFI ratio of both CD86 and CD54 to isotype control should be >105% |
CD54: 183.76% CD86: 160.89% |
CD54: 169.21% CD86: 147.76% |
CD54: 127.42% CD86: 120.37% |
Pass |
In the positive control (Nickel Sulphate), RFI values of both CD86 and CD54 should meet the positive criteria (CD86 RFI≥150 and CD54 RFI≥200) and cell viability should be greater than 50% |
CD54 RFI: 240 CD86 RFI: 147 CD54 Via: 88.72% CD86 Via: 89.19% |
CD54 RFI: 351 CD86 RFI: 110 CD54 Via: 86.55% CD86 Via: 86.73% |
CD54 RFI: 448 CD86 RFI: 153 CD54 Via: 90.33% CD86 Via: 90.77% |
Run: 1. Accept 2. Fail 3. Pass |
For each test item, the cell viability should be greater than 50% in at least four tested concentrations in each run |
8/8 |
8/8 |
8/8 |
Pass |
Negative results are acceptable only for test items exhibiting a cell viability of less than 90% at the highest concentration tested, unless 5 mg/mL in medium, 1 mg/mL in DMSO or the highest soluble concentration is used as the maximal test concentration of a test item. |
87.44 |
89.92 |
93.58 |
Run: 1. Pass 2. Pass 3. Accept |
RFI= Relative Fluorescence Intensity, MFI= Mean Fluorescence Intensity, DMSO= Dimethyl Sulphoxide |
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 018
- Report date:
- 2018
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- Version / remarks:
- 2015
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Skin sensitisers have been reported to induce genes that are regulated by the antioxidant response element (ARE). The KeratinoSens™ test is a method for which validation studies have been completed followed by an independent peer review conducted by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM). The KeratinoSens™ test method was considered scientifically valid to be used as part of an IATA (Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment), to support the discrimination between skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers for the purpose of hazard classification and labelling. The method cannot be used on its own, neither to sub-categorise skin sensitisers into subcategories 1A and 1B as defined by the UN GHS, for authorities implementing these two optional subcategories, nor to predict potency for safety assessment decisions. However, depending on the regulatory framework a positive result may be used on its own to classify a chemical into UN GHS category 1.
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- Octan-1-ol, reaction products with diphosphorus pentaoxide, potassium salts
- EC Number:
- 807-789-8
- Cas Number:
- 111062-42-1
- Molecular formula:
- C8-H18-O.K.O5-P2
- IUPAC Name:
- Octan-1-ol, reaction products with diphosphorus pentaoxide, potassium salts
1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Purity: 40% active in water, ~90% purity of active material
In vitro test system
- Details on the study design:
- Method of administration of test item:
- Per plate, a single application of 12 concentrations of the test item was applied in cell culture medium (dilution factor of 2) with a final concentration of DMSO of 1 %. The top concentration was previously determined by solubility testing.
Method of administration of reference items:
- Per plate, a single application of 5 concentrations of the positive control was applied in cell culture medium (dilution factor of 2) with a final concentration of DMSO of 1% and a single application of culture medium with 1% DMSO was applied as the negative control (6 wells per plate). One well per plate was left empty (no cells).
Exposure times of test items and reference items:
- Cells were incubated with the test or reference item for 48 ± 2h prior to endpoint measurements.
- After 48h exposure of cells with 12 concentrations of Agent 447C (chemical name: 1-octanol, reaction products with phosphorus oxide (P2O5), potassium salts), Luciferase measurements and MTT viability testing were performed.
Number of repetitions:
- Three repetitions (runs) were performed. Each repetition consisted of 3 x 96-well plates for luminescence (n=9 overall) and 2 x 96-well plates for MTT (n=6 overall). The validity of each repetition was assessed according to the following acceptance criteria:
(1) The positive control (cinnamic aldehyde) produces positive results, i.e. the luciferase gene induction produced by this control is above the threshold of 1.5 in at least one of the tested concentrations and this induction is statistically significant compared to the solvent (negative) control (p<0.05).
(2) The I(MAX) and the EC(1.5) for cinnamic aldehyde is calculated and meet either or both of the following targets:
(a) Average induction in the three replicates for cinnamic aldehyde at 32 μM is within the XCellR8 historical range (currently 1.6 and 3)
(b) EC(1.5) value for cinnamic aldehyde is within the XCellR8 historical range (currently 6 μM and 39 μM).
At least one of these criteria must be met, otherwise the run is discarded unless there is sufficient reason not to do this as determined by the Study Director. If only one criterion is met, it is recommended to check the dose-response curve of cinnamic aldehyde in order to decide on acceptability.
(3) CV% of blank values < 20%
Results and discussion
- Positive control results:
- Criteria 1: Positive Control (Cinnamic aldehyde) induction ≥ 1.5-fold in at least one concentration.
Result: PASS; Positive 16-128 μM
Criteria 2: Average induction of Positive Control at 32μM is [1.6-3.0]
Result: FAIL, 3.994 μM
Note: All other acceptance criteria were met, and there was a dose-dependent increase of induction with the Positive Control therefore, the results are considered as valid.
In vitro / in chemico
Resultsopen allclose all
- Run / experiment:
- other: Repetition 1
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5
- Remarks:
- The EC(1.5) value is the Effective Concentration (EC) of test item that yielded an induction of luciferase activity greater than 1.5-fold over untreated controls.
- Value:
- 1.5
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not specified
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Did not induce statistically significant luciferase induction >= 1 .5
- Run / experiment:
- other: Repetition 2
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5
- Remarks:
- The EC(1.5) value is the Effective Concentration (EC) of test item that yielded an induction of luciferase activity greater than 1.5-fold over untreated controls.
- Value:
- 1.5
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not specified
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Remarks:
- The test item did induce statistically significant luciferase induction >= 1.5 in repetition 2. The respective EC(1.5) value in rep 2 was calculated as 883.462 μM however the viability was less than 70% at the inducing concentration and therefore rep 2 was also considered negative.
- Run / experiment:
- other: Repetition 3
- Parameter:
- other: EC1.5
- Remarks:
- The EC(1.5) value is the Effective Concentration (EC) of test item that yielded an induction of luciferase activity greater than 1.5-fold over untreated controls.
- Value:
- 1.5
- Vehicle controls validity:
- not specified
- Negative controls validity:
- valid
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Remarks on result:
- other: Did not induce statistically significant luciferase induction >= 1.5
- Other effects / acceptance of results:
- Criteria 1: Positive Control (Cinnamic aldehyde) induction ≥ 1.5-fold in at least one concentration.
Result: PASS; Positive 16-128 μM
Criteria 2: Average induction of Positive Control at 32μM is [1.6-3.0]
Result: FAIL, 3.994 μM
Criteria: EC(1.5) value is [6-39μM]
Result: PASS, 9.178 μM
Criteria: CV% of blank values < 20%
Result: PASS, 19.9287 %
Note: All other acceptance criteria were met, and there was a dose-dependent increase of induction with the Positive Control therefore, the results are considered as valid.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Interpretation of results:
- study cannot be used for classification
- Conclusions:
- OECD 442D covers the second key event for skin sensitisation of keratinocyte activation; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442D (keratinocyte activation) reports the registered substance is negative for sensitisation. OECD 442C (Key event #1) was positive for skin sensitisation and OECD 442E (Key event #3) was negative for skin sensitisation; summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitisation of the registered substance was assessed using OECD 442D (in vitro keratinocyte activation assay). After 48-hour exposure of cells with 12 concentrations of the registered substance, Luciferase measurements and MTT viability testing were performed. The registered substance was classified as negative for sensitisation.
OECD 442D covers the second key event for skin sensitisation of keratinocyte activation; these results alone cannot be used to conclude if skin sensitisation has occurred. The OECD Series on Testing & Assessment No. 256 prediction model entails that two concordant results obtained from methods addressing different steps of the first three key events of the adverse outcome pathway determine the final classification. The study summarized above for OECD 442D (keratinocyte activation) reports the registered substance is negative for sensitisation. OECD 442C (Key event #1) was positive for skin sensitisation and OECD 442E (Key event #3) was negative for skin sensitisation; summarized elsewhere within this IUCLID dossier. As the “2 out of 3 – Sens ITS” prediction model generally achieved accuracies slightly exceeding those of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) when compared to human data, the overall prediction for the registered substance is non-sensitizing.
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.