Nonylbenzoate, branched and linear

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

05. Mar. 2003 - 13. Mar. 2003

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: GLP guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2003

Report date:

2003

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Benzoic acid isononylester

Cas Number:

670241-72-2

IUPAC Name:

Benzoic acid isononylester

Details on test material:

Sponsor's identification : BENZOlC ACID ISONONYLESTER
Description : colourless liquid
Batch number : 1276/00576
Date received : 06 January 2003
Storage conditions : room temperature in the dark

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

At the start of the study the animals were in the weight range of 2.0 to 3.5 kg and were twelve to twenty weeks old. After an acclimatisation period of a least five days each animal was given a number unique within the study which was written with a black indelible marker-pen on the inner surface of the ear and on the cage label. The animals were individually housed in suspended metal cages. Free access to mains drinking water and food (Certified Rabbit Diet (Code 5322) supplied by International Product Supplies Limited, Wellingborough, Northants, UK) was allowed throughout the study. The diet and drinking water were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.
The temperature and relative humidity were set to achieve limits of 17 to 23°C and 30 to 70% respectively. Any occasional deviations from these targets were considered not to have affected the purpose or integrity of the study. The rate of air exchange was at least fifteen changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give twelve hours continuous light (06:00 to 18:00) and twelve hours darkness.
The animals were provided with environmental emichment items which were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

not required

Amount / concentration applied:

A volume of 0.1 ml of the test material was placed into the conjunctival sac of the right eye, formed by gently pulling the lower lid away trom the eyeball. The upper and lower eyelids were held together for about one second immediately after treatment, to prevent loss of the test material, and then released. The left eye remained untreated and was
used for control purposes.

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Assessment of ocular damage/irritation was made approximately 1 hour and 24, 48 and 72 hours following treatment.

Observation period (in vivo):

72 h

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

3

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

overall irritation score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

other: 1 h

Score:

10

Max. score:

12

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 h

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

>= 0

Max. score:

0

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

>= 0

Max. score:

0

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Results 4

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24 h

Score:

> 1

Max. score:

2

Remarks on result:

probability of mild irritation

Results 5

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

48 h

Score:

>= 1

Max. score:

1

Remarks on result:

probability of mild irritation

Results 6

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

72 h

Score:

>= 0

Max. score:

0

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Results 7

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

>= 0

Max. score:

1

Remarks on result:

probability of weak irritation

Irritant / corrosive response data:

No corneal or iridial effects were noted during the study. Moderate conjunctival irritation was noted in all treated eyes one hour after treatment with
minimal conjunctival irritation in two treated eyes at the 24 and 48-hour observations. One treated eye appeared normal at the 24-hour observation and the remaining two treated eyes appeared normal at the 72-hour observation.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

slightly irritating

Remarks:

Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU

Conclusions:

The test material produced a maximum group mean score of 10.0 and was classified as a MILD IRRITANT (CLASS 4 ON A 1 TO 8 SCALE) to the rabbit eye according to a modified Kay and Calandra classification system.
The test material did not meet the criteria for classification as irritant according to EU labelling regulations Commis si on Directive 2001/591EC.

Executive summary:

The study was performed to assess the irritancy potential of the test material to the eye of the New Zealand Wbite rabbit according to OECD 405 "Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion" (adopted 24 April 2002) and Commission Directive 92/69/EEC Method B5 Acute Toxicity (Eye Irritation).

A single application of the test material to the non-irrigated eye of three rabbits produced moderate conjunctival irritation. One treated eye appeared normal at the 24-hour observation and the remaining two treated eyes appeared normal at the 72-hour observation.

The test material produced a maximum group mean score of 10.0 and was classified as a mild irritant (Class 4 on a I to 8 scale) to the rabbit eye according to a modified Kay and Calandra classification system. The test material did not meet the criteria for classification as irritant according to EU labelling regulations Commission Directive 2001/59/EC.