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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: comparable to guideline study with acceptable restrictions

Data source

Referenceopen allclose all

Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1983
Report date:
1983
Reference Type:
secondary source
Title:
ECB(2000) CIBA-GEIGY, Ltd., unpublished data, "Report on Skin Sensitization Effects in Guinea Pigs C 25 702," Basel, Switzerland, 1983.
Author:
European Commission - European Chemicals Bureau
Year:
2000
Bibliographic source:
ECB(2000) CIBA-GEIGY, Ltd., unpublished data, "Report on Skin Sensitization Effects in Guinea Pigs C 25 702," Basel, Switzerland, 1983.

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Version / remarks:
older version
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
earlier version of OECD guideline 406
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
Maurer optimisation test

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
6-ethyl-2-toluidine
EC Number:
246-309-6
EC Name:
6-ethyl-2-toluidine
Cas Number:
24549-06-2
Molecular formula:
C9H13N1
IUPAC Name:
2-ethyl-6-methylaniline
Details on test material:
IUCLID4 Test substance: other TS: 2-methyl-6-ethylaniline, technical, 98% purity, red liquid

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Pirbright white strain (Tif: DHP)
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Acclimation period: 11 days

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
0.1 % intradermal, epicutaneous: 30 %
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
physiological saline
Concentration / amount:
0.1 % intradermal, epicutaneous: 30 %
No. of animals per dose:
10 males, 10 females treatment group, 18 animals control
Details on study design:
No. of exposures: induction consisted of atotal of 10 intracutaneous injections given every second day (except weekends)

Results and discussion

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
other: intradermal challenge
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
18
Clinical observations:
no effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: intradermal challenge. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 18.0. Clinical observations: no effects.
Reading:
other: intradermal challenge
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.1 %
No. with + reactions:
7
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
marginal skin reactions
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: intradermal challenge. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.1 %. No with. + reactions: 7.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: marginal skin reactions.
Reading:
other: occlusive epicutaneous
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
18
Clinical observations:
no effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: occlusive epicutaneous. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 18.0. Clinical observations: no effects.
Reading:
other: occlusive epicutaneous
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
18
Clinical observations:
no effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: occlusive epicutaneous. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 18.0. Clinical observations: no effects.
Reading:
other: occlusive epicutaneous
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
30 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: occlusive epicutaneous. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 30 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no effects.
Reading:
other: occlusive epicutaneous
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
30 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no effects
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: occlusive epicutaneous. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 30 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no effects.
Reading:
other: rechallenge intradermal
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0.1 %
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
no data
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: other: rechallenge intradermal. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.1 %. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: no data.

Any other information on results incl. tables

    
    

RS-Freetext:
--Two animals died during performance of the test: Deaths
were attributed to lung infections.

--At the first intradermal injection challenge, 7/20 test article induced

animals had positive scores. No control animal (out of 18) had a positive score.
--At the epidermal challenge, no treated animal had a
positive score at the 24 or 48 hour readings.

After the end of the standard test, a second intradermal challenge was conducted: Only 1/20 animals had a positive score. This was not statistically significantly
different from the control group.

It was concluded that the first challenge induction
results were nonspecific reactions, and that the test
article had no sensitizing potential.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information
Executive summary:

An early Maurer Optimization test revealed no evidence of a skin sensitization potential (Ciba-Geigy 1983).