Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 253-781-7 | CAS number: 38103-06-9
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Based on the animal study results, there is no evidence that the test material causes skin sensitisation.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- other: EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, 40 CFR 798.4100 (1985)
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- Study conducted prior to adoption of LLNA guideline by the OECD.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Male and female albino Hartley guinea pigs were received from Hazleton Dutchland, Inc. They were ordered to be between 300 and 350 g (males) and 350 to 400 g (females) approximately 4-6 weeks of age. They were housed individually upon arrival in stainless steel suspended cages. The animals were acclimated for approximately two weeks prior to dosing. Water (municipal) and feed were provided ad libitum. The temperature and humidity were monitored continuously and during the test period, included temperatures of 65-73 °F and a relative humidity range of 42-60%. Room lights were on a 12-hour cycle.
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: aqueous methyl cellulose
- Concentration / amount:
- 25 %
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: aqueous methyl cellulose
- Concentration / amount:
- 25 %
- No. of animals per dose:
- 5/sex BPA-DA Group
5/sex Naïve BPA-DA group
5/sex DNCB group (Positive Control)
5/sex Naïve DNCB group (Positive Control) - Details on study design:
- A preliminary irritancy test was conducted, in which it was determined that 25% BPA-DA in aqueous methyl cellulose was the highest non-irritating dose that could be technically dosed.
For the main study, fur was clipped from the dose site the day before application. For topical induction and challenge, the test material was placed in a Hill Top Chamber®, an adhesive patch was placed over the chamber and the chamber was placed securely on the animal. A rubber dental dam was then tightly wrapped over the animal’s dorsal surface. The animals were restrained for the dosing and subsequent 6-hour contact period. Once the exposure was complete, the animals were removed from the restrainer, all coverings taken off and any residual material was wiped off. Warm tap water was used to wash the dosed area, as necessary.
Two groups were exposed to either BPA-DA (25%) or DNCB (0.3%) for 3 induction doses, spaced one week apart, followed by a two week rest period. A single challenge application of either BPA-DA (25%) or DNCB (0.1%) was then applied. Additionally, at this time, two groups of naïve (previously untreated) animals (5/sex/group) received the single application of either BPA-DA (25%) or DNCB (0.1%).
For BPA-DA, the three induction applications were made to the left scapular area, while a new, previously unexposed site, the right scapular area, was selected for the challenge application. For DNCB, the first induction dose was made to the left scapular area, but subsequent induction applications were applied to other previously unexposed posterior area sites due to staining, scaliness and/or scabs being present at the initial site. The challenge doses and single application doses to naïve animals were applied on the right scapular region.
The animals were examined frequently during the induction phase of the study. At 24 and 48 hours post-induction application, the fur was removed from the dose site, when necessary, and the dose site evaluated for erythema (as per the scale below). At 24 and 48 hours post-challenge application and at least two hours after depilation, each dose site was examined and graded as per the scale below. Any grade of 1 or more was considered positive as there were no reactions on the naïve animals greater than 0.
0 = No reactions
0+ (0.5) = slight patchy erythema
1 = slight, solid erythema or moderate patchy erythema
2 = moderate erythema
3 = severe erythema (with or without edema) - Challenge controls:
- 1 Naïve BPA-DA Group: 5 animals/sex
1 Naïve DNCB Group: 5 animals/sex - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2,4-Dinitro-1-chlorobenzene, CAS No. 97-00-7, Lot No. A11L.
- Positive control results:
- Following the challenge application of 0.1% DNCB to the test animals, 10 of 10 animals developed moderate erythema within 24 hours. All animals continued to exhibit moderate erythema through 48 hours. Red to brown scab-like areas, scratches or foci were evident on four animals at 24 and/or 48 hours following the challenge application of DNCB. The challenge application of 0.1% DNCB to naïve control animals produced no significant irritation on any animal. Two animals exhibited slight, patchy erythema (score of 0.5) at 24 hours which is not considered a positive response.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- None
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- None
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- None
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 25%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- None
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- animals developed moderate erythema within 24 hours
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- No. with + reactions:
- 10
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- All animals continued to exhibit moderate erythema through 48 hours
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Not classified according to EU criteria
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of this study, the test material is not a skin sensitiser.
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitisation potential of the test material was investigated in a Buehler test conducted in accordance with the US EPA Health Effects Test Guideline 40 CFR 798.4100 under GLP conditions (Bushy Run Research Center, 1988).
Male and female Hartley guinea pigs were dosed with 25 % BPA-DA in aqueous methyl cellulose.
No test animals produced skin sensitisation reactions; therefore under the conditions of this study, the test material is not a skin sensitiser.
Based on the animal study results, there is no evidence that the test material causes skin sensitisation and therefore does not represent a concern for workers (believed to represent the group most likely to be exposed to the test material).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Data waiving:
- study scientifically not necessary / other information available
- Justification for data waiving:
- an in vitro skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted because adequate data from an in vivo skin sensitisation study are available
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The skin sensitisation potential of the test material was investigated in a Buehler test conducted in accordance with the US EPA Health Effects Test Guideline 40 CFR 798.4100 under GLP conditions (Bushy Run Research Center, 1988). The study was awarded a reliability score of 1 in accordance with the criteria set forth by Klimisch et al. (1997).
Male and female Hartley guinea pigs were dosed with 25 % BPA-DA in aqueous methyl cellulose.
No test animals produced skin sensitisation reactions; therefore under the conditions of this study, the test material is not a skin sensitiser.
Based on the animal study results, there is no evidence that the test material causes skin sensitisation and therefore does not represent a concern for workers (believed to represent the group most likely to be exposed to the test material).
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
Although no study data specifically evaluating the potential respiratory sensitisation effects are available, based on the lack of human case reports indicating that the test material is a respiratory sensitiser in addition to the negative responses observed in both the skin sensitisation and irritation animal studies, the test material is not likely to be a respiratory sensitiser.
Justification for classification or non-classification
In accordance with the criteria for classification as defined in Annex I, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the substance does not require classification with respect to skin sensitisation.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.