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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Description of key information

There were no instances of contact-sensitisation from hydratropic alcohol in a maximisation test (Kligman et al., 1974) with 24 human volunteers. An older study (HRIPT) from 1964 with 37 volunteers and application of 6.25% hydratropic alcohol did confirm this finding.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
September 1974
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
Qualifier:
no guideline followed
Principles of method if other than guideline:
A human patch test with 25 healthy adult volunteers was performed as described in J.I.D., Vol 47; No. 5; 393-409; 1966 by A.M. Kligman et al.
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
pre-dates GLP
Type of study:
patch test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
study was available
Specific details on test material used for the study:
Hydratropic alcohol as supplied was used, purity >95%, technical grade.
Species:
other: human volunteers
Strain:
not specified
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Twenty five (25) healthy adult human volunteers completed the experiment.
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Concentration / amount:
100%
Day(s)/duration:
five alternate days 48 hours period
Adequacy of induction:
other: non-irritat substance, but skin pre-treated with 5% aqueous sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) under occlusion.
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Concentration / amount:
100%
Day(s)/duration:
on removal of patch and 24 hours thereafter
Adequacy of challenge:
highest non-irritant concentration
No. of animals per dose:
24 adult healthy volunteers completed the study (13 males and 11 females)
Details on study design:
The material was pre-tested on five subjects in order to determine whether sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) pre-treatment was required. A patch of this material was applied to normal sites on the backs for 48 hours under occlusion. No subject had any irritation from this material and it was decided to use SLS pre-treatment in the test.
The material was applied under occlusion to the same site on the volar forearms of all subjects for five alternate-day 48 hour periods. The patch site was pre-treated for 24 hours with 5% aqueous sodium lauryl sulftae under occlusion.
The challenge sites were read on removal of the patch and 24 hours thereafter.
Positive control substance(s):
no
Positive control results:
not applicable
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
24
Clinical observations:
none
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
100%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
24
Clinical observations:
none
Reading:
1st reading
Group:
negative control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested
Reading:
1st reading
Group:
positive control
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
There were no instances of contact-sensitisation from hydratropic alcohol in this maximisation test with 24 human volunteers.
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

In lack of positive reactions when tested for skin sensitisation on 24 human volunteers, the substance does not require classification as a skin sensitiser according to CLP (Regulation EC No 1272/2008).