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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 944-860-3 | CAS number: -
- 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
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
A theorical AOP (adverse outcome pathway) approach was considered on the test substance but shows its limits when it comes to complexe substances:
-the key event n°1 being the DPRA (OECD 442C) was not possible taking into account the UVCB composition of the substance.
-the key event n°2 (Keratinosens test (OECD guideline 442D) was performed and was negative.
-the key event n°3 was considered a non-necessary due to the fact that raw materials are not known to be skin sensitizers (see corresponding endpoint study records); the process is a soft extraction at room temperature. It extracts the ethanol soluble constituents which are mainly saccharides, flavonoids bound to saccharides, acids and doesn’t create new potential sensitizer substances. The Keratinosens result confirms this pragmatic approach.
Those combined information allow us to expect that the substance is not a skin sensitizer.
Please see report in 13.2 for more information.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2018
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 442D (In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- activation of keratinocytes
- Details on the study design:
- Test item
The test item was tested at 12 concentrations according to a geometric progression of ratio 2 from 0.2 µg/ml to 400 µg/ml.
Reference item
Negative control: 6 wells of solvent control (1% DMSO in treatment medium) with cells and 1 well of solvent control without cell by culture plate.
Positive control: 5 concentrations of cinnamaldehyde on each culture plate. The concentration varies from 4 to 64 µM according to a geometric progression of ratio 2.
The study was composed of two independent repetitions. For each repetition the test item and the reference items were replicated on three independent plates for the measurement of induction and two plates for the measurement of cytotoxicity. Each repetition was performed on a different day with fresh stock solution. - Key result
- Parameter:
- other: IC70 (viability)
- Remarks:
- in µg/ml
- Value:
- 400
- Vehicle controls validity:
- valid
- Negative controls validity:
- not applicable
- Positive controls validity:
- valid
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitization in vitro was performed according to the OECD 442D guideline.
The test substance wasn't considered as a skin sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Remarks:
- in vitro assessment of the potential modulation of the surface marker expression and morphology of pure mature murine Langerhans cells
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1999
- Reliability:
- 3 (not reliable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- activation of dendritic cells
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Literature data, used in a weight of evidence approach
The capacity of sensitizers, irritants and neutral chemicals to modulate the surface marker expression and morphology of pure mature murine Langerhans cells in vitro was examined. - Details on the study design:
- he capacity of sensitizers, irritants and neutral chemicals to modulate the surface marker expression and morphology of pure mature murine Langerhans cells in vitro was examined. Contact with 4 sensitizers (2,4-dinitrobenzenesulfate, 4-ethoxymethylene-2-phenyl-2-oxazolin-5-one, p-phenylenediamine, mercaptobenzo-thiazole) resulted in a rapid, specific, marked fall in 33D1 expression, a murine specific dendritic cell marker. No effect was observed with 2 neutral chemicals (sodium chloride, methyl nicotinate) or 2 irritants (dimethyl sulfoxide, benzalkonium chloride).
- Positive control results:
- Contact with 4 sensitizers (2,4-dinitrobenzenesulfate, 4-ethoxymethylene-2-phenyl-2-oxazolin-5-one, p-phenylenediamine, mercaptobenzo-thiazole) resulted in a rapid, specific, marked fall in 33D1 expression, a murine specific dendritic cell marker.
- Key result
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Langerhans cells play a critical role in allergic contact hypersensitivity. In vivo, these cells capture xenobiotics that penetrate the skin and transport them through the lymphatic vessels into regional lymph nodes for presentation to T cells. During this migration step, Langerhans cells become mature dendritic cells according to their phenotype and their high immunostimulatory capacity. In vitro, when isolated from the skin and cultured for 3 days, Langerhans cells undergo similar phenotypic and functional maturation. In this study, the capacity of sensitizers, irritants and neutral chemicals to modulate the surface marker expression and morphology of pure mature murine Langerhans cells in vitro was examined. Contact with 4 sensitizers (2,4-dinitrobenzenesulfate, 4-ethoxymethylene-2-phenyl-2-oxazolin-5-one, p-phenylenediamine, mercaptobenzo-thiazole) resulted in a rapid, specific, marked fall in 33D1 expression, a murine specific dendritic cell marker. No effect was observed with 2 neutral chemicals (sodium chloride, methyl nicotinate) or 2 irritants (dimethyl sulfoxide, benzalkonium chloride). Nevertheless, sodium lauryl sulfate, a very irritant detergent, altered morphology and down-regulated all membrane markers. These preliminary data suggest that in vitro modulation of 33D1 expression by strong sensitizers may be an approach to the development of an in vitro model for the identification of chemicals that have the potential to cause skin sensitization and to distinguish them as far as possible from irritants.
- Executive summary:
Herouet et al. studied the sensitization potential of several chemicals (Contact sensitizers decrease 33D1 expression on mature Langerhans cells, 1999) on Langerhans cells which play a critical role in allergic contact hypersensitivity.
No effect was observed with sodium chloride.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation, other
- Remarks:
- clinical study
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 1994
- Reliability:
- 3 (not reliable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Type of study:
- patch test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Literature data, used in a weight of evidence approach.
In order to study the prevalence of allergy to onion, skin prick tests were performed. - Species:
- other: human
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- male/female
- Key result
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Executive summary:
In order to study the prevalence of allergy to onion, skin prick tests were performed. Valdivieso et al., (Bronchial asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and contact dermatitis caused by onion; 1994) were able to detect IgE-specific antibodies directed against the onion water extract, with both skin and in vitro tests. None of the four patients experienced a late skin reaction. Furthermore, fresh bulb contains mono and di –saccharides and flavonoids, which are substances not know to be sensitizers.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation, other
- Remarks:
- clinical study
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 2016
- Reliability:
- 3 (not reliable)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- data from litterature, no guideline followed. Data used in a weight of evidence strategy.
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Remarks:
- data provided comes from a CIR report which mentions a study, no information on GLP compliance is available.
- Type of study:
- patch test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Literature data, used in a weight of evidence approach.
An HRIPT test was performed on 102 volunteers with skin cleansing product containing 1% of Citrus limon (lemon) fruit water. - Species:
- other: human
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- male/female
- Key result
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Executive summary:
An HRIPT test was performed on 102 volunteers with skin cleansing product containing 1% of Citrus limon (lemon) fruit water. Test material did not induce sensitization (Cosmetic Ingredient Review, Safety Assessment of Citrus Fruit-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics, 2016).
Fresh pulp of Citrus limon brings citric acid, also not know to be allergenic.
Moreover, it is well known that the lemon sensitizer substances are present in the peel. None of those were found in pulp (Compendium of botanicals reported to contain naturally occuring substances of possible concern for human health when used in food and food supplements, 2012).
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Justification for classification or non-classification
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.