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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

The substance was not irritating to skin as tested in rabbits upon 24h exposure (Ciba-Geigy Ltd 1979a). Weight-of-evidence from the BfR eye irritation inclusion and exclusion rules and from a study in rabbits (Ciba-Geigy Ltd 1979b) as well as an in-vitro study with a
reconstructed three dimensional human cornea model (EpiOcular™) (BASF 2012b) indicate that the substance is not irritating to eyes.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Guideline study (Draize test) with acceptable restrictions (occlusive dressing, intact and abraded skin test sites, TS substance preparation: 50%, 24 hours exposure duration, only 7-day observation period; TS purity not specified; non GLP)
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
other: The procedure used is described in the Proposed Guidelines of the United States Environmental Agency (EPA) § 163.81-5 "Primary dermal irritation study", Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 163, August 22, 1978
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Draize test
GLP compliance:
no
Species:
rabbit
Strain:
New Zealand White
Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: IVANOVAS, 7964 Kisslegg/Allgaeu, Germany and MADOERIN AG, 4414 Fuellinsdorf, Switzerland
- Weight at study initiation: 2-3 kg
- Housing: individually in metal cages
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): standard rabbit food - NAFAG, No. 814, Gossau SG; ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): drinking water; ad libitum
- Acclimation period: a minimum of 4 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22±2
- Humidity (%): 55±10
Type of coverage:
occlusive
Preparation of test site:
other: shaved or abraded (only data from the shaved skin sites are presented here, since they are suitable for assessment)
Vehicle:
other: The test material was prepared for application in polyethylene glycol + saline (70 : 30 parts).
Controls:
other: untreated skin sites of the same animals
Amount / concentration applied:
TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 0.5 g
- Concentration (if solution): as 50% in polyethylene glycol
Duration of treatment / exposure:
24 hours
Observation period:
7 days
Number of animals:
6 (3 males and 3 females)
Details on study design:
TEST SITE
- Area of exposure: 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm of the right flank (the whole back and flanks was shaved with an electric clipper). The shaven skin on the left side was slightly scarified immediately before treatment.
- % coverage: the patch the patches were covered with an impermeable material
- Type of wrap if used: the covered patches were fastened to the body of the rabbit with adhesive tape.

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Time after start of exposure: the patches were removed 24 hours after the application

SCORING SYSTEM: comparable to the OECD scoring system
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #4
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #5
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Basis:
animal #6
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #4
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #5
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritation parameter:
edema score
Basis:
animal #6
Time point:
24/48/72 h
Score:
0
Max. score:
4
Irritant / corrosive response data:
No irritation was observed on intact skin sites. It could therefore be assumed that the test substance is not irritating according to EU-CLP.
Other effects:
A slight irritation (edema score 1 and erythema score 1 in one female animal) was observed on abraded skin sites 24 hours after treatment, but was completely reversible within 48 hours.
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
In a rabbit study according to an EPA guideline, the substance did not induce any skin irritation.
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Additional information

Skin irritation was tested by 24h application onto shaved rabbit skin (Ciba-Geigy Ltd 1979). The substance was suspended in a mixture of 70% polyethylene glycol and 30% saline and both intact and abraded skin were used. Three males and three females were treated. Draize scores for 24h, 48h and 72h were both 0 for intact and abraded skin. Therefore, the substance is considered to be non irritating to skin.


 


For eye irritation, a weight-of-evidence approach was used because none of the existing data on its own is sufficient for classification and labelling. A poorly documented company data indicating absence of irritating properties in rabbits was retrieved (Synthesia 1989), but could only be considered as supportive. In addition, a detailed report showing absence of eye irritation was available; however the study was performed in 1972 at a contract research laboratory that was known to have falsified study reports in previous years. Therefore, the study is not taken as a key study, although otherwise it is suited in regard to procedure and reporting details.


The test item is a poorly soluble organic pigment for which in general irritating properties have not been observed so far. Organic pigments from different classes consistently show absence of irritating properties as they are insoluble in water or organic solvents.


Pigment Red 177 was subjected to the eye irritation rules of the German Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) and found to fulfill no inclusion criteria, but several exclusion criteria.


In order to verify absence of irritating effects, an in-vitro study was performed (BASF 2012b).


As the only OECD guideline for eye irritation available can only distinguish highly irritating substances from irritating substances, another in-vitro study had to be applied. The chosen assay uses a reconstructed three dimensional human cornea model (EpiOcular™). It has been validated at the performing laboratory to distinguish a non irritant from an irritant. Viability of the tissue is determined after a 90 min exposure plus an 18h recovery period. Any substance causing a reduction in viability of more than 50% is considered to be an irritant. As Pigment Red 177 did not reduce the viability compared to water, it was found to be non irritating in this assay.


 


Therefore, the overall conclusion in a weight-of-evidence approach is that Pigment Red 177 is not irritating to eyes.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC)

The available studies are considered reliable and suitable for classification purposes under 67/548/EEC. As a result the substance is not considered to be classified for skin or eye irritation under Directive 67/548/EEC, as amended for the 31st time in Directive2009/2/EG.

 

Classification, Labelling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008

The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for classification purposes under Regulation 1272/2008. As a result the substance is not considered to be classified for skin or eye irritation under Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008, as amended for the third time in Directive EC 618/2012.