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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Endpoint summary

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Additional information

In vitro:

Several mutagenicity tests in are available that were done with and without S9 metabolic activation. Neither test followed a specific guideline. The mutagenicity test was positive either at low concentration level (up to 500 µg/plate) in the presence of a solubilizing agent (Connor and Pier, 1990) or when elevated concentration of test substance (2 mg/plate) was evaluated (De Flora, 1981). Two sister chromatid exchange assays, the first of which was conducted similar to the OECD guideline 479 protocol (only one dose level tested, limited detail of test protocol provided), were positive in Chinese hamster ovary cells at concentrations of 0.1 (Venier et al., 1985) or 5 -150 µg/mL (Levy and Majone, 1981). The exposure of the same cell line in chromosomal aberration test led to a slight increase in chromosomal aberrations at concentrations of 5 – 150 µg/L (Levy and Majone, 1981).

In vivo:

The only in vivo micronucleus test available conducted at concentrations of 15, 50 and 2x 100 mg/kg bw with intraperitoneal administration of test substance in comparison with soluble chromates was negative (Odagiri et al., 1989). The soluble compounds (zinc potassium chromate, zinc tetroxy chromate and sodium dichromate) were all tested positive at concentrations up to 50 mg/kg bw.


Short description of key information:
Several in vitro studies addressing Ames-mutagenicity (De Flora 1981; Carcinogenesis 2: 283-298, Connor and Pier, 1990; Muta Res 249: 125-133), sister chromatid exchange (Venier et al., 1985; Mut Res 156: 219-228) and chromosomal aberration (Levy and Majone, 1981; Br J Cancer 44: 219-235) are available. Most of them do not follow a guideline but all give a positive result (particularly when the test material was tested in the presence of a solubilizing agent. In contrary, a negative response was observed in an in vivo micronucleus test (Odagiri et al., 1989; Jpn J Ind Health 31: 438-439), where the test substance was administered intraperitoneally (25, 50 and 100 mg/kg bw) to test animals (mice).

Endpoint Conclusion:

Justification for classification or non-classification

Although most in vitro genotoxicty tests were positive, a genotoxic potential could not be verified in vivo. Therefore, a classification is probably not warranted.

However,  the negative results in the micronucleus test of the test substance, which presented a very low water solubility (1%; as opposed to 6-8% for zinc potassium chromate or to 2380 g/l for sodium dichromate), are likely not reliable, because the treatment with the chemical did not show evidence for absorption and transport to the bone marrow, as evidenced by a lack of reduction in PCEs frequency. Thus, although the in vivo genetic toxicity test gave negative, chromium and its compounds, particularly chromium(VI), may cause chromosomal effects, indicating carcinogenic potential because interactions with DNA have been linked with the mechanism of carcinogenicity.