4,4'-[(6-chloro-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl)diimino]bis[5-hydroxy-6-[[4-[[2-(sulphooxy)ethyl]sulphonyl]phenyl]azo]naphthalene-2,7-disulphonic] acid, sodium salt

Endpoint summary

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:

12. October to 27 November 1992

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Study conducted to EU test guidance in compliance with GLP.

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)

Version / remarks:

84/449/EWG, B.6 (Magnusson-Kligman-Test)

Deviations:

no

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Type of study:

guinea pig maximisation test

Justification for non-LLNA method:

Test was not valid at time of test conduct

Species:

guinea pig

Strain:

other: Pirbright-White

Sex:

female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Hoechst AG
- Weight at study initiation: 240 to 288 g; mean: 257 g
- Housing: 5/cage
- Diet: Altromin 3112 guinea pig maintenance diet ad libitum
- Water: tap water ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least 5 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 19 to 25
- Humidity (%): 30 to 70
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12

IN-LIFE DATES: From: 12. October to 27 November 1992

Route:

intradermal and epicutaneous

Vehicle:

physiological saline

Concentration / amount:

Concentration of test material and vehicle used at induction:
a) Intradermal: 5 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution
b) Dermal: 25 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution
Concentration of test material and vehicle used for each challenge: a) 25 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution

Route:

epicutaneous, occlusive

Vehicle:

physiological saline

Concentration / amount:

Concentration of test material and vehicle used at induction:
a) Intradermal: 5 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution
b) Dermal: 25 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution
Concentration of test material and vehicle used for each challenge: a) 25 % in 0.9 % NaCl-solution

No. of animals per dose:

Determination of primary non-irritating concentration: 6
Determination of the intradermal tolerance: 3
Number of animals in attending group: 5
Number of animals in test group: 10 Number of animals in negative control group: 5

Details on study design:

RANGE FINDING TESTS:
- Determination of primary non-irritating concentration: dermal-occlusive exposure for 24 hours - 3 concentrations (25%, 5%, 1%)
- Determination of the intradermal tolerance: intradermal injection: 2 x 3 concentrations (5 %, 1 %, 0.2 %)

MAIN STUDY
A. INTRADERMAL INDUCTION
- No of Injections: 2 x 3 preparations: 50% FCA, 5% TS in 0.9% NaCl, 5% TS in 50% FCA - treatment group
50% FCA, 0.9% NaCl, 50% FCA - control and attending group
- Exposure period: Injection on Day 1, observation Day 1 to Day 8
- Site: shoulder

B. DERMAL INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: one
- Exposure period: 48 hours
- Test groups: TS in 0.9% NaCl
- Control group: 0.9% NaCl
- Site: shoulder
- Frequency of applications: single
- Duration: Day 8 to Day 22
- Concentrations: 25%

C. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 22 (15 for attending group)
- Exposure period: 24 hours
- Test groups: TS + water
- Control group: TS + 0.9% NaCl
- Site: right flank: TS; left flank: 0.9% NaCl
- Concentrations: 25%
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 hours

Challenge controls:

In addition to the control group, 5 further guinea pigs (attending group) were used to confirm that challenge exposure with 25% TS would not lead to dermal irritation in animals pre-treated with 50 % FCA.

Positive control substance(s):

yes

Remarks:

bi-annual validation of assay

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

25%

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

skin slightly reddish stained by TS

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: skin slightly reddish stained by TS.

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

25%

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

10

Clinical observations:

skin slightly reddish stained by TS

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: skin slightly reddish stained by TS.

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

negative control

Dose level:

25%

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

5

Clinical observations:

skin slightly reddish stained by TS

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: skin slightly reddish stained by TS.

Reading:

2nd reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

negative control

Dose level:

25%

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

5

Clinical observations:

skin slightly reddish stained by TS

Remarks on result:

other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: skin slightly reddish stained by TS.

Body weight gains and clinical signs

The treated animals showed no clinical signs of intoxication throughout the study. The intradermal injections with Freund's Adjuvant (with and without test substance) caused moderate oedema. Well defined up to moderate erythema was observed at the application sites without test substance, whereas evaluation of erythema formation was not possible at the sites treated with the test compound

in Freund's Adjuvant due to red discolouration of the skin. Additionally, the application sites treated with the test substance in Freund's Adjuvant were indurated and encrusted. The application sites treated with the test substance in the vehicle exhibited very slight oedema as well as encrusted skin. Intradermal applications of the vehicle caused no signs of irritation. The application sites treated with the test substance were discoloured red.

Due to these strong irritation reactions of the skin, 10% sodium dodecylsulfate was not applied at day 7.

After the removal of the patch at day 10, erythema and oedema, indurated and encrusted skin as well as necrosis were observed at the sites previously treated with Freund's Adjuvant. The injection sites treated with the test substance in the vehicle and with the vehicle alone showed no signs of irritation. Additionally, red discoloured skin was noted in the animals of the treatment group.

The body weight gains of the treated animals were not impaired.

Challenge treatment

No signs of irritation were observed in the control and treatment group 24 and 48 hours after removal of the occlusive bandage. The treated area was discoloured slightly red.

Assessment

Under the conditions of the present study, none of ten animals of the treatment group showed a positive skin response after the challenge procedure.

Based on the results of this study Reaktiv-Rot F-67 787 FW showed no evidence for sensitizing properties

Interpretation of results:

not sensitising

Remarks:

Migrated information not classified Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU

Conclusions:

There was no evidence of a positive reaction in animals after challenge treatment with Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW in the present study.
According to the classification criteria of Directive 83/467/EEC, Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW is not sensitizing in the guinea pig maximization test and therefore not subject to labelling requirements.

Executive summary:

The skin sensitizing potential of Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW was examined in female guinea pigs with the maximization test.

Intradermal induction was performed using 5% Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW in 0.9 % NaCl.solution.

Dermal induction and challenge treatment were carried out with 25 % Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW in 0.9 % NaCl.solution.

Based on the results of the present study, Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW showed no evidence for sensitizing properties and is not subject to labelling requirement.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Additional information:

The skin sensitizing potential of Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW was examined in female guinea pigs with the maximization test.

Intradermal induction was performed using 5% Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW in 0.9 % NaCl.solution.

Dermal induction and challenge treatment were carried out with 25 % Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW in 0.9 % NaCl.solution.

Based on the results of the present study, Reaktiv-Rot F-67787 FW showed no evidence for sensitizing properties and is not subject to labelling requirement.

Migrated from Short description of key information:
Reactive Red 230 has no skin sensitising properties

Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Only guideline study available

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information:

The registered chemical is a reactive dye. For this class of dyes it was generally agreed between the members of the Ecological and Toxicological Association of Dyes and Organic Pigments Manufacturers (ETAD) that a possible risk for respiratory sensitisation for workers exists at high exposure. However the following should be noted:

 

1) For the substance no history of respiratory problems, such as occupational asthma, is associated with the manufacture and use of the specific substance.

 

2) Due to the granular (spay dried in closed system from aqueous solution directly after synthesis) or dedusted (wet press cake mixed with dedusting agent) form of the substance no risk for inhalative exposure arises.

 

The potential to cause respiratory sensitisation is therefore not considered to be applicable for this substance.

No evidence of respiratory sensitisation was noted in any of the studies conducted, and it is proposed that the substance is not a respiratory sensitiser.

Justification for classification or non-classification

The above results triggered no classification under the Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC) and the CLP Regulation (EC No 1272/2008). No classification for sensitisation effects is therefore required.