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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

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:
1979
Report date:
1979
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
1979
Report date:
1979

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
Induction phase comprised 1st and 2nd induction, each subdivided into intradermal and epidermal treatment with 1-week-intervals between each treatment.
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Study was performed as modification of the Magnusson-Kligman test before the actual guideline was adopted.
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The study was conducted prior to the development and adoption of the LLNA Test guideline

Test material

Constituent 1
Reference substance name:
Methanol
EC Number:
200-659-6
EC Name:
Methanol
Cas Number:
67-56-1
Molecular formula:
CH4O
IUPAC Name:
methanol
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): methanol, substance no. 78/333
- Analytical purity: no data

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
other: Pirbright White
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Firma Hagemann, Lippische Versuchstierzucht, 4923 Extertal
- Weight at study initiation: 449 - 824 g
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): Ssniff K, ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Induction
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
50%
Challenge
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
50%
No. of animals per dose:
1st study: 10 test, 5 control
2nd study: 12 test, 5 control
Details on study design:
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 4
- Exposure period: d 0 (1st intradermal), 7 (1st epicutaneous), 14 (2nd intradermal), 21 ( 2nd epicutaneous)
- Test groups: 1st intradermal: 6 parallel injections with Freund's adjuvant, 50% methanol and Freund's adjuvant + 50% methanol, respectively; 2nd intradermal: 4 parallel injections with 50% methanol and Freund's adjuvant + 50% methanol, respectively; both epidermal: conc. methanol
- Control group: no induction treatment
- Site: shoulder region
- Frequency of applications: weekly
- Duration: epicutaneous: 48 h occlusive
- Concentrations: 50% intradermal, 100% epicutaneous


B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 34 days after 1st intradermal induction
- Exposure period: 24 h occlusive
- Test groups: 1st study: right 50% methanol, left 25% formaldehyde epicutaneous; 2nd study: concentrated methanol epicutaneous
- Control group: 1st study: right 50% methanol, left 25% formaldehyde epicutaneous; 2nd study: concentrated methanol epicutaneous
- Site: flank
- Concentrations: 50% methanol and 25% formaldehyde, respectively (study 1), 100% methanol (study 2)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24, 48 and 72 hours
Challenge controls:
Control groups (no induction treatment)
Positive control substance(s):
no

Results and discussion

Positive control results:
Positive controls not performed.

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Reading:
other: 1st reading; 1st group
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
3
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
slight erythema (score 1)
Reading:
other: 2nd reading ; 1st group
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
none
Reading:
other: 3rd reading; 1st group
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
other: 1st reading; 2nd group
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
12
Clinical observations:
slight erythema (score 1)
Reading:
other: 2nd reading; 2nd group
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
12
Clinical observations:
slight erythemy (score 1)
Reading:
other: 3rd reading; 2nd group
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
12
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
other: negative control
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
100% water
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Reading:
other: positive control
Hours after challenge:
24
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
nil
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
0
Remarks on result:
not measured/tested

Any other information on results incl. tables

In the first study, 3/10 females exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 h after challenge, in the parallel test with formaldehyde 1/10 females exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 h after challenge, which can be interpreted as weak sensitizing potential.

In the second study using 12 female animals at a concentration of 50 % methanol, 1/12 exhibited a slight skin response (erythema score 1) 24 and 48 h after challenge which can be interpreted as a weak sensitising potential.

The intracutane inductions produced necroses and some open ulcerations in both studies.

In summary, the low number of 4/22 animals with slight erythema (score 1) gives no evidence of a notable sensitisation potential of methanol.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information