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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Description of key information

The substance was found to be a skin sensitiser following a LLNA study.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2014
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
reference to same study
Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
reference to other study
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
EU Method B.42 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
Deviations:
no
Principles of method if other than guideline:
No analysis was conducted to determine the homogeneity, concentration or stability of the test item formulation. This is an exception with regard to GLP and has been reflected in the GLP compliance statement.
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
Species:
mouse
Strain:
CBA
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
The animals were nulliparous and non pregnant. After an acclimatization perios of at least five days the animals were selected at random At the start of the study the animals were in the weight range of 15 to 23g, and were eight to twelve weeks old. The animals were group housed in suspended solid floor polypropylene cages furnished with softwood woodflakes. Free access to mains tap water and food was allowed throughout the study. The temperature and relative humidity were set to achieve limits of 19 to 25°C and 30 ti 70%, respectively. The rate of air exchange was appr. 15 changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give 12 hours continuous light and 12h darkness.
The animals were provided with environmental enrichment items which were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.
Vehicle:
dimethylformamide
Concentration:
50%, 25%, 10%w/w
No. of animals per dose:
4 mice
Details on study design:
PRELIMINARY SCREENING TEST: the mouse was treated daily with 25 microL of test item at 50%w/w, to the ear for 3 days (days 1. 2. 3). The mouse was observed for 6 days. Thickness of each ear was measured.

MAIN STUDY
groups of 4 mice were treated for 3 days by applicaion of 25 microL to the dorsal surface of each ear.
Statistics:
/
Parameter:
other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
Remarks on result:
other: vehicle only: 11983.42 10%w/w: 42349.52 25%w/w: 38475.86 50%w/w: 30307.84
Parameter:
SI
Value:
3.53
Test group / Remarks:
10% w/w
Parameter:
SI
Value:
3.21
Test group / Remarks:
25% w/w
Parameter:
SI
Value:
2.53
Test group / Remarks:
50% w/w
Interpretation of results:
Category 1 (skin sensitising) based on GHS criteria
Remarks:
Migrated information
Conclusions:
The test item was considered to be a sensitizer under the conditions of the test.
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
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
adverse effect observed (sensitising)

Justification for classification or non-classification