Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 204-100-7 | CAS number: 115-69-5
- 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

Developmental toxicity / teratogenicity
Administrative data
- Endpoint:
- developmental toxicity
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- July 2011
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Acceptable, well documented publication/study report which meets basic scientific principles. The method is validated by ECVAM but is not available as a guideline.
Data source
Reference
- Reference Type:
- study report
- Title:
- Unnamed
- Year:
- 2 011
- Report date:
- 2011
Materials and methods
Test guideline
- Qualifier:
- no guideline available
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- The potential embryotoxicity of a test substance is assessed in the Micromass test (limb bud micromass assay) by exposing undifferentiated rat embryo limb bud mesenchymal cells to the test substance and measuring the effect on specific parameters (cell differentiation, cell viability, cell number, neutral red uptake, cell growth) when the cells have differentiated into chondrocytes. The limb bud cells are isolated from rat embryos on gestation day 13 and a single cell suspention is divided into wells on a 96-well plate. Cell medium with or without the test substance is added and the plates are incubated for 5 days. The ID50 (50% inhibition of cell differentiation and number of foci) and IC50 (50% inhibition of cell viability and growth) are determined and used to classify the test substance as non-embryotoxic, weak embryotoxic or strong embryotoxic substance. The method used in the Micromass test (limb bud micromass assay) was based on established techniques (Flint, O. P., and Orton, T. C. (1984). An In Vitro Assay for Teratogens with Cultures of Rat Embryo Midbrain and Limb Bud Cells. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 76, 383-95) and similar to methodology validated by ECVAM (Micromass Test, method of Brown, INVITTOX No. 122) and available on the website (http://ecvam.jrc.it).
- GLP compliance:
- no
- Remarks:
- This non-guidleline ex vivo/in vitro study has been well conducted and reported. All raw data will be stored for 75 years in the archives of The Dow Chemical Company.
- Limit test:
- no
Test material
- Reference substance name:
- 2-amino-2-methylpropane-1,3-diol
- EC Number:
- 204-100-7
- EC Name:
- 2-amino-2-methylpropane-1,3-diol
- Cas Number:
- 115-69-5
- Molecular formula:
- C4H11NO2
- IUPAC Name:
- 2-amino-2-methylpropane-1,3-diol
- Details on test material:
- - Name of test material (as cited in study report): 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, AMPD, aminomethylpropanediol
- Analytical purity: 99.9%
- Lot/batch No.: WF114801I1
Constituent 1
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- - Test material: XU-12398.00
- Chemical name: 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol
- Synonyms: AMPD, aminomethylpropanediol
- Supplier: ANGUS Chemical Company, Buffalo Grove, Illinois
- Lot #: WF114801I1
- Purity: non-GLP certificate of analysis lists the purity of the test material as 99.9% by weight.
- Molecular formula: C4H11NO2
- Molecular weight: 105.1
- CAS number: 115-69-5
Test animals
- Species:
- rat
- Strain:
- other: Crl:CD(SD)
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River Laboratories (CRL) Inc., Portage, Michigan, USA
- Age at study initiation: 10-11 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 200-250 g (females)
- Housing: the animals were housed one per cage in stainless steel cages with wire mesh floors, suspended above absorbent paper. Non-woven gauze were placed in the cages to provide a cushion from the flooring for rodent feet. The cages contained a feed crock and a pressure activated lixit valve-type watering system. Enrichment for the rats included the use of a non-woven gauze pad per animal in caging, a stainless steel object in the cage for manipulation, and periodic rotation of each rack of cages in the animal room to allow animals a variety of visual experiences.
- Diet: LabDiet Certified Rodent Diet #5002 in pelleted form (PMI Nutrition International, St. Louis, Missouri, USA), ad libitum
- Water: tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: at least 1 weeks prior to scheduled Cesarean section
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 ± 1 (maximum permissible excursion was 22 ± 3 °C)
- Humidity (%): 40-70
- Air changes (per hr): 12-15, on average
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
Administration / exposure
- Route of administration:
- other: not applicable
- Type of inhalation exposure (if applicable):
- other: not applicable
- Vehicle:
- other: not applicable
- Analytical verification of doses or concentrations:
- no
- Details on mating procedure:
- The cells used for the in vitro assay were isolated from the embryos of time-mated rats.
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- The embryo cells used in the in vitro assay were exposed constantly for 96 h. The rats, from which the embryos were derived, were not exposed to the test substance.
- Control animals:
- other: not applicable
- Details on study design:
- Range-finding study:
The first experiment was performed with concentrations up to 1000 µM, as this was approximately ten times higher than the upper estimate of the achieved steady state serum concentration following in vivo limit dosing (1000 mg/kg bw/day). As 50% cytotoxicity was achieved the same dose range was selected for the second experiment.
Procedure for initiating the cell culture:
The cells were isolated by euthanising the rats by carbon dioxide inhalation on GD 13 and isolating the embyos aseptically from the uterus in sterile Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS). Hind limb buds were then removed by microdissection, pooled and dissociated using 1.0% trypsin + 0.1% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in calcium/magnesium free phosphate buffered saline (CMF). The resulting cell suspension was rinsed with culture medium (10% v/v FCS in Ham’s F12), passed through a 100 µm pore size nylon mesh cell strainer to remove clumps of cells, and assessed for cell viability and number of cells using 0.1% trypan blue and a hemocytometer. The cells were then re-suspended in culture medium to achieve a final concentration of approximately 2 x 10E7 viable cells/mL.
Procedure for exposure of the cells:
Aliquots of final cell suspensions were seeded onto 24-well surface-modified polystyrene cell culture plates (PrimeraTM, BD, New Jersey, USA) at 10 µL per spot (200,000 viable cells) and incubated at 37 ºC in an atmosphere of 5% CO2/95% humidified air for two hours to allow for cell attachment. Following attachment, each well was gently flooded with 1 mL culture medium with or without test material. AMPD was added directly to the culture media (10% v/v fetal calf serum (FCS) in Ham’s F12) following solubilization in a separate vehicle when necessary (≤ 0.05% v/v DMSO for the positive control atRA). Test and positive control solutions were prepared in the appropriate vehicle with the highest concentration pH adjusted to 7.2-7.4 prior to serial dilution. The plates were then returned to the incubator for the duration of the 5-day (approximately 96 h) static culture.
Number of replications:
3 replicates were used per concentration level in two independent experiments.
Controls:
All-trans-retinoic acid (atRA) was used as the positive control at concentrations of 0.000033, 0.00033, 0.0033, 0.01, 0.033, 0.33, 1 and 33 µM, previously found to induce approximately 10-100% inhibition in chondrocyte differentiation. Negative controls with culture medium and DMSO were included in both assays.
Cytotoxicity (total number of viable cells):
The cell viability was determined after approximately 96 h of culture. The treated culture media was carefully removed and the cells rinsed two times with saline. Following fixation of the cells with 2.5% glutaraldehyde for 20 minutes, cell viability was assessed via cellular uptake of neutral red. The cells were cultured in the presence of 0.005% neutral red in fresh culture media for 2-3 hours followed by removal of the media, three rinses with saline and acid alcohol elution of the neutral red from the viable cells. The absorbance of the eluted neutral red were then read at 540 nm using a multi-well plate spectrophotometer.
Measurement of differentiated chondrocytes:
Following removal of the acid alcohol eluate, each well was gently rinsed with saline and incubated overnight at room temperature with 1% alcian blue in 0.1N hydrochloric acid, a dye which stains cells rich in anionic glycoconjugates such as chondrocytes. The alcian blue solution was then removed and each well was gently rinsed with saline. Assessment of chondrocyte differentiation was determined by (1) manual quantitation of the stained chondrocyte foci and (2) eluate absorbance measurement at 620 nm using a multi-well plate spectrophotometer following elution of the alcian blue stain using freshly prepared 6M guanidine hydrochloride.
Data analysis to determine cell viability and growth:
Dose response curves were plotted as a percent of the vehicle control from the measured results (neutral red absorbance or number of alcian blue positive foci or alcian blue absorbance). Using non-linear regression analysis (curve fitting), the IC50diff and IC50cyt were calculated. The ratio of the IC50cyt to IC50diff values was compared. Interpretation of a positive response was evaluated in the context of the data using the two-fold rule and a linear discrimination analysis prediction model as follows:
A) 2-fold rule: Embryotoxicity potential would be suggested if the IC50diff value was less than half the IC50cyt value (Uphill et al., 1990)
B) Prediction model: Linear discrimination algorithm analysis was used to predict one of three embryotoxicity potentials: non-, weak, or strongly embryotoxic.
Function I 6.65 * log (IC50diff) – 9.49
Function II 6.16 * log (IC50diff) – 8.29
Function III -1.31 * log (IC50diff) – 1.42
If the result of function I exceeded the results of function II and III, then the chemical would be predicted to be non-embryotoxic; if the result of function II exceeded the results of function I and III, the chemical would be predicted to be weakly embryotoxic; if the result of function III exceeded the results of functions I and II, the chemical would be predicted to be strongly embryotoxic (Genschow et al., 2000 and 2002).
Examinations
- Maternal examinations:
- General clinical observations. Open field examination.
Results and discussion
Results: maternal animals
Maternal developmental toxicity
- Details on maternal toxic effects:
- Maternal toxic effects:not examined
Effect levels (maternal animals)
- Key result
- Dose descriptor:
- other: not applicable
- Basis for effect level:
- other:
- Remarks on result:
- other: AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic in the rat embryo limb bud micromass assay.
Maternal abnormalities
- Key result
- Abnormalities:
- not specified
Results (fetuses)
- Details on embryotoxic / teratogenic effects:
- Embryotoxic / teratogenic effects:not examined
Effect levels (fetuses)
- Key result
- Dose descriptor:
- other:
- Remarks on result:
- other: AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic in the rat embryo limb bud micromass assay.
Fetal abnormalities
- Key result
- Abnormalities:
- not specified
Overall developmental toxicity
- Key result
- Developmental effects observed:
- not specified
Any other information on results incl. tables
Cytotoxicity/ Cell viability:
Table 1: Results of cytotoxicity and chodrocyte differentiation, average of 2 trials
Concentration (µM) |
Cytotoxicity (% of control) |
Chondrocyte differentiation, Foci Quantification method (% of control) |
Chondrocyte differentiation, Alcian Blue Elution method (% of control) |
|||
AMPD |
Mean ± SD |
N |
Mean ± SD |
N |
Mean ± SD |
N |
0.01 |
93.7 ± 13.6 |
6 |
92.5 ± 8.6 |
6 |
87.8 ± 15.7 |
6 |
0.1 |
84.1 ± 7.3 |
6 |
92.9 ± 8.6 |
6 |
92.5 ± 42.3 |
6 |
1.0 |
73.9 ± 20.9 |
6 |
84.4 ± 18.0 |
6 |
81.4 ± 22.4 |
6 |
10 |
77.0 ± 21.7 |
6 |
71.8 ± 19.4 |
5 |
81.8 ± 19.2 |
6 |
100 |
76.8 ± 17.4 |
6 |
69.4 ± 14.9 |
6 |
88.0 ± 25.9 |
6 |
1000 |
90.2 ± 42.5 |
6 |
81.3 ± 15.4 |
6 |
95.3 ± 10.2 |
6 |
|
IC50cyt= 1000µM / NQ |
|
IC50diff= NQ |
|
|
|
atRA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.000033 |
100.5 ± 20.3 |
6 |
92.3 ± 14.0 |
6 |
67.5 ± 17.5 |
6 |
0.00033 |
94.0 ± 13.1 |
6 |
92.8 ± 17.3 |
6 |
68.8 ± 31.9 |
6 |
0.0033 |
92.9 ± 9.0 |
6 |
79.0 ± 14.4 |
6 |
42.3 ± 14.2 |
6 |
0.01 |
101.4 ± 25.5 |
6 |
65.6 ± 25.6 |
6 |
31.5 ± 11.5 |
6 |
0.033 |
73.5 ± 34.3 |
6 |
33.1 ± 14.5 |
6 |
13.6 ± 15.6 |
6 |
0.33 |
66.9 ± 62.9 |
5 |
1.5 ± 3.6 |
6 |
14.6 ± 6.5 |
6 |
1.0 |
119.9 ± 6.7 |
3 |
0.0 ± 0.0 |
3 |
0.0 ± 9.2 |
3 |
33 |
18.7 ± 43.3 |
3 |
0.0 ± 0.0 |
3 |
0.0 ± 11.6 |
3 |
|
IC50cyt= 500µM |
|
IC50diff= 0.024µM |
|
|
|
NQ = non-quantifiable due to lack of inhibition of cell viability or differentiation
In experiment 1, 50% cytotoxicity was observed at the highest concentration, 1000µM (individual well results not reported), while less than 30% cytotoxicity was evident in all concentrations in experiment 2 (Table 2, average of 2 experiments). Therefore, it was not possible to calculate the average IC50cyt(50% inhibition of cell viability and growth).
It was not possible to apply the Foci Quantification method to determine the chondrocyte differentiation (IC50diff), as the number of foci was > 50% at all tested concentrations. Determining the chondrocyte differentiation using the Alcian Blue Elution method was shown to be inaccurate when comparing the data to the results of manual count of foci in the culture. Therefore these results were disregarded. For all the cytotoxicity measurements the positive control reduced cell viability/differentiation by > 80%, and was therefore valid.
Embryotoxic potential:
Table 2: Analysis of embryotoxic potential, 2-fold rule method
|
IC50diff(nM) |
IC50cyt(nM) |
IC50 ratio |
Prediction |
Run average |
||||
AMPD |
1000000/NQ |
1000000/NQ |
1.0/na |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
24.25 |
500014 |
0.25 |
Embryotoxic |
Run No. 1 |
||||
AMPD |
1000000 |
1000000 |
1.00 |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
13.6 |
27.6 |
0.49 |
Embryotoxic |
Run No. 2 |
||||
AMPD |
NQ |
NQ |
NQ |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
34.90 |
1000000 |
0.00003 |
Embryotoxic |
NQ = non-quantifiable, an IC50 could not be calculated
In the 2 -fold rule method AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic (see Table 2). The positive control was correctly predicted to be embryotoxic and therefore considered to be valid.
Table 3: analysis of embryotoxic potential, prediction model method
|
IC50diff(µg/mL) |
Function I |
Function II |
Function III |
Prediction |
Run average |
|||||
AMPD |
105.1/NQ |
3.95/NQ |
4.16/NQ |
-4.07/NQ |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
0.0073 |
-24.01 |
-21.74 |
1.44 |
Strongly embryotoxic |
Run No. 1 |
|||||
AMPD |
105.1 |
3.9537 |
4.1631 |
-4.0683 |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
0.0041 |
-25.37 |
-23.0 |
1.71 |
Strongly embryotoxic |
Run No. 2 |
|||||
AMPD |
NQ |
NQ |
NQ |
NQ |
Non-embryotoxic |
atRA |
0.0105 |
-22.65 |
-20.48 |
1.17 |
Strongly embryotoxic |
NQ = non-quantifiable, an IC50 could not be calculated
In the prediction model method AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic (see Table 3). The positive control was correctly predicted to be strongly embryotoxic and therefore considered to be valid.
Applicant's summary and conclusion
- Conclusions:
- AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic in the rat embryo limb bud micromass assay.
- Executive summary:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the embryotoxicity potential of 2-amino-2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (AMPD) in rats using the limb bud micromass assay. This preliminary screen involves high density culture of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells isolated from gestation day (GD) 13 rat embryo limb buds whereby during the 96 hour culture the cells proliferate, condense and differentiate into chondrocytes. Limb bud micromass cultures were exposed to six different concentrations of each test material. At the end of the culture period, the cells were assessed to determine the concentration at which 50% of the vehicle control group cell viability (IC50cyt) or chondrocyte differentiation (IC50diff) was inhibited. A neutral red updake assay was used for the cell viability/cytotoxicity evaluation. Inhibition of chondrocyte differentiation was assessed by staining the chondrocytes with alcian blue followed by 1) manually counting the stained foci, and 2) measurement of the alcian blue absorbance following elution from the foci. The embrotoxicity potential of AMPD was analyzed using two established methods (2-fold rule, prediction model) which assess the relative sensitivity for effects on differentiation versus cytotoxicity. Two independent trials were conducted for the test materials and a positive control inhibitor of chondrocyte differentiation, all-trans retinoic acid (atRA). Cell viability was marginally reduced following AMPD treatment (IC50cyt = 1000 μM). Inhibition of chondrocyte differentiation was marginally reduced following AMPD treatment. Due to limited or no inhibition of chondrocyte differentiation an IC50diff value could not be quantified for AMPD. Using the 2-fold rule and prediction model methods, AMPD was predicted to be non-embryotoxic. The known human and rat teratogen, atRA, was correctly predicted to be embryotoxic or strongly embryotoxic using the 2-fold rule or prediction model method, respectively.
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.
