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: - | CAS number: -
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2009
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Justification for type of information:
- See attached document with the justification for the category/read-across approach.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- Magnusson and Kligman Test
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- This study was already available and considered to be the key study.
- Specific details on test material used for the study:
- Test Substance / Item : COASOL
Code by test facility : D08-11
Lot No. : 50046869
Manufactured by: Dow Haltermann Custom Processing, Middlesbrough, UK
Date of receipt at test facility : October 5, 2009
Purity as per Certificate of Analysis: 99% total diester content
Physical appearance : Colorless liquid
Storage conditions : Ambient (+18 to +30°C) - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- DMSO
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal Induction: 5% v/v in DMSO
Epicutaneous induction and Challenge: 100% undiluted test material - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- DMSO
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal Induction: 5% v/v in DMSO
Epicutaneous induction and Challenge: 100% undiluted test material
Dosing solutions:
Control group:
Solution-1: 20 mL of 50% v/v CFA mixture (10 mL of CFA + 10 mL of distilled water) with 20 mL of DMSO was mixed as a 1:1 mixture and vortexed.
Solution-2: Undiluted DMSO.
Solution-3: 10 mL of solution 1 with 10 mL of solution 2 was mixed as a 1:1 mixture and vortexed.
Treatment group:
Solution-4: 5% v/v of test substance in Dimethyl Sulphoxide : 1 mL of test substance was made up to 20 mL and vortexed.
Solution-5: 1 mL of test substance made up to 10 mL with Dimethyl Sulphoxide (i.e., 10% v/v) and added to 10 mL of solution 1 (10 mL of 1 : 1 mixture of solution-1 and solution-2) to achieve the final concentration of 5 % v/v and vortexed. - No. of animals per dose:
- 10 per sex per dose in treatment group
5 per sex per dose in control group - Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 6
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- The test material was not sensitising under the circumstances of this study at the highest doses possible (100%) for topical induction and challenge.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Study period:
- 1989
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- comparable to guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- not applicable
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male/female
- Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Test substance:
10 % (v/v, in water) and 100 %
Positive control:
3% and 30% (v/v, in water) - Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- Test substance:
10 % (v/v, in water) and 100 %
Positive control:
3% and 30% (v/v, in water) - No. of animals per dose:
- 5 males and 5 females
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 1,4-benzenediamine
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- both 10 and 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: both 10 and 100 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- both 10 and 100 %
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: both 10 and 100 %. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- all 4 groups (10 and 100% test item and 3 and 30% positive control substance)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Remark
- Remarks:
- Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: all 4 groups (10 and 100% test item and 3 and 30% positive control substance). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- all 4 groups (10 and 100% test item and 3 and 30% positive control substance)
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 5
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: see Remark
- Remarks:
- Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: all 4 groups (10 and 100% test item and 3 and 30% positive control substance). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 3%
- No. with + reactions:
- 6
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 3%. No with. + reactions: 6.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 30%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 30%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 3%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 3%. No with. + reactions: 4.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 30%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- none
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: positive control. Dose level: 30%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: none.
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- DBE was tested for its sensitizing potential in a guinea pig maximization test according to OECD TG 406.
During the challenge phase, no dermal irritation was observed in the test or negative control animals treated with DBE. No to moderate erythema was observed in the positive control animals, showing the sensitivity and validity of the test system. No dermal irritation was observed in the negative control animals treated with the positive control substance.
Under the conditions of this study, DBE did not produce delayed hypersensitivity or allergic reactions in guinea pigs. - Executive summary:
DBE has been tested for its sensitizing potential in a guinea pig maximization test according to OECD no. 406 and EU guideline no. B.6 tris in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice.
The test item was administered epicutaneously (open, once) and intradermally (4 times, once a week) at doses of 100 % and 10 % (v/v in water) following the standard procedure of OECD 406. The challenge was conducted 2 weeks after the last induction epicutaneous (open) at 100 % and 10 % (v/v in water). Positive (1,4 benzenediamine) and negative controls were conducted following OECD 406.
Erythema and edema were scored according to the Draize scoring system.
No mortality was recorded during the study. Body weight gain of the treated animals was not affected by treatment.
During the challenge phase, no dermal irritation was observed in the test or negative control animals treated with DBE. No to moderate erythema was observed in the positive control animals, showing the sensitivity and validity of the test system. No dermal irritation was observed in the negative control animals treated with the positive control substance. Under the conditions of this study, DBE did not produce delayed hypersensitivity or allergic reactions in guinea pigs.
Based on this results DBE is not classified according to Annex VI of the Directive 67/548/CEE and according to EU Regulation 1272/2008 (CLP).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Study period:
- March 09 to June 06, 2005
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- not applicable
- 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:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan, NL-5960 AD Horst, The Netherlands
- Age at study initiation: 8-12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 16-24 g
- Housing:cage
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum):ad libitum
- Acclimation period:under test conditions - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- 0.0% (Control), 5, 10, 25, 50, 100% (w/v)
- No. of animals per dose:
- 4 female animals per dose
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
- Lymph node proliferation response: at 10, 25, 50 and 100% (w/v) - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Positive control results:
- As positive control for the current LLNA test, three groups each of four female mice were treated daily with alpha-hexylcinnamaldehyde at concentrations of 5 %, 10 % and 25 % (w/v) in acetone:olive oil, 4:1 (v/v) by topical application to the dorsum of each ear lobe (left and right) for three consecutive days. A control group of four mice was treated with the vehicle (acetone:olive oil, 4:1 (v/v).
The results obtained (STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.) for this positive test are reported as follows:.
Group 2 5* % (w/v) 2.4 * (S.I.)
Group 3 10 * % (w/v) 3.6 * (S.I.)
Group 4 25 % (w/v) 11.2 (S.I.)
A clear dose-response relationship was observed. * This value was used in calculation of EC3. The estimated concentration of test item required to produce a S.I. of 3 is referred to as the EC3 value and found to be EC3 = 7.5 % (w/v), - Parameter:
- SI
- Remarks on result:
- other: 0.6, minimum 1.0, maximum
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Remarks on result:
- other: 4'890 minimum; 2'589 maximum;
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- A test item is regarded as a sensitizer in the LLNA if the exposure to one or more test concentrations resulted in 3-fold or greater increase in incorporation of 3HTdR compared with concurrent controls, as indicated by the STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.).
RHODIASOLV RPDE was found to be a non-sensitizer when tested at up to the concentration of 100 % (undiluted). - Executive summary:
In order to study a possible contact allergenic potential of RHODIASOLV RPDE, a local lymph node assay (LLNA) was performed according to the OECD Guideline 429 and und GLP Regulations. Five groups each of four female mice were treated daily with the test item at concentrations of 5 %, 10 %, 25 %, 50 % (w/v) in acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v) and 100 % (undiluted) by topical application to the dorsum of each ear lobe (left and right) for three consecutive days. A control group of four mice was treated with the vehicle (acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v)) only. Five days after the first topical application the mice were injected intravenously into a tail vein with radio-labelled thymidine 3H-methyl thymidine. Approximately five hours after intravenous injection, the mice were sacrificed, the draining auricular lymph nodes excised and pooled per group. Single cell suspensions of lymph node cells were prepared from pooled lymph nodes which were subsequently washed and incubated with trichloroacetic acid overnight. The proliferative capacity of pooled lymph node cells was determined by the incorporation of 3H-methyl thymidine measured. All treated animals survived the scheduled study period. No clinical signs were observed in any animals of the control group, Group 2 (5 %), Group 3 (10 %) or Group 4 (25 %). On the second application day, a slight to moderate ear erythema was observed at both dosing sites in all mice of Group 5 (50 %) and Group 6 (100 %, undiluted), persisting for a total of two days.
The results obtained (Stimulation Index (S.I.)) for each group of animals and exposure were as follows: group 2 (5% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 3 (10% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 4 (25% (w/v)), S.I. 1.0; group 5 (50% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 6 (100% (w/v)), S.I. 0.5.
A test item is regarded as a sensitizer in the LLNA if the exposure to one or more test concentrations resulted in 3-fold or greater increase in incorporation of 3HTdR compared with concurrent controls, as indicated by the stimulation index (S.I.). In this study S.I. of 0.6, 0.6, 1.0, 0.6 and 0.5 were determined with the test item at concentrations of 5 %, 10 %, 25 %, 50 % (w/v) in acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v) and 100 % (undiluted), respectively.
RHODIASOLV RPDE was therefore found to be a non-sensitizer when tested at up to the concentration of 100 % (i.e., undiluted).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across based on grouping of substances (category approach)
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Study period:
- 1981
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment
- Qualifier:
- no guideline followed
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Weekly Intradermal induction using 0.1ml of a 1% solution in dimethyl phthalate for 4 weeks. 15 days later challenge (topical)
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- intracutaneous test
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- other: dimethylphalate
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal induction: 0.1 ml of a 1% solution of the test material in Dimethylpthalate
Topical challenge: 0.05ml of 100% solution of test material AND 0.05ml of 10% solution of test material in Dimethylpthalate - Route:
- epicutaneous, open
- Vehicle:
- other: dimethylphalate
- Concentration / amount:
- Intradermal induction: 0.1 ml of a 1% solution of the test material in Dimethylpthalate
Topical challenge: 0.05ml of 100% solution of test material AND 0.05ml of 10% solution of test material in Dimethylpthalate - No. of animals per dose:
- 10 test and 10 control
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- mild erythema
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: mild erythema.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 1
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- slight erythema in 1 animal
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: slight erythema in 1 animal.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% in DMA
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 10% in DMA. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% in DMA
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 10% in DMA. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 9
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- mild erythema
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 9.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: mild erythema.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 100%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 10% in DMA
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 10% in DMA. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 10% in DMA
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 10% in DMA. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Not sensitising.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Data waiving:
- study scientifically not necessary / other information available
- Justification for data waiving:
- other:
Referenceopen allclose all
There were no toxic signs during the study nor any pre-terminal deaths. All animals gained weight throughout the observation period. There were no signs of irritation or sensitisation during the study.
None
Calculation and results of individual data -
The proliferative capacity of pooled lymph node cells was determined by the incorporation of 3H-methyl thymidine measured on a 13-scintillation counter See in text table below for stimulation index (S.I.).
Test item concentration % (w/v) |
S.I. |
|
Group 2 |
5 |
0.6 |
Group 3 |
10 |
0.6 |
Group 4 |
25 |
1.0 |
Group 5 |
50 |
0.6 |
Group 6 |
100 (undiluted) |
0.5 |
No dose-response relationship was observed. |
||
Calculation of the EC 3 value was not performed because no test concentrations produced a STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.) of 3 or higher. |
The radioactive disintegration values for the individual treatment groups are included in table below.
Viability / Mortality - No deaths occurred during the study period.
Clinical Signs -
No clinical signs were observed in any animals of the control group, Group 2 (5 %), Group 3 (10 %) or Group 4 (25 %). On the second application day, a slight to moderate ear erythema was observed at both dosing sites in all mice of Group 5 (50 %) and Group 6 (100 %, undiluted), persisting for a total of two days. The individual clinical were graded in severity of the symptoms into four grades: slight (1), moderate (2), severe (3) and very severe (4).
Body weights -
The body weight of the animals, recorded prior to the first application and prior to necropsy, was within the range commonly recorded for animals of the strain and age.
Table 1
Test item |
Measurement |
Calculation |
Result |
|||
concentration |
dpm |
dpm - |
number of |
dpm per |
S.I. |
|
% (w/v) |
BGa) |
lymph nodes |
lymph nodeb) |
|||
-- |
BG I |
10 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
BGII |
14 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
CG 1 |
4902 |
4890 |
8 |
611 |
-- |
5 |
TG 2 |
2978 |
2966 |
8 |
371 |
0.6 |
10 |
TG 3 |
2898 |
2886 |
8 |
361 |
0.6 |
25 |
TG4 |
4846 |
4834 |
8 |
604 |
1.0 |
50 |
TG5 |
2726 |
2714 |
8 ** |
339 |
0.6 |
100 * |
TG6 |
2601 |
2589 |
8 ** |
324 |
0.5 |
*, undiluted as delivered by sponsor;
**, the size of the draining lymph nodes of this group was obviously small compared to those of the control group;
BG, background (1 ml 5% trichloroacetic acid) in duplicate;
CG, control group;
TG, test group;
S.I., simulation index
At the first challenge in the 100% dose group there was evidence of some mild irritation consistent with that observed in the skin irritation studies. However by 48 hours all evidence of irritation ahd gone in all but 1 animal. The Uninduced control group also showed the same pattern of results. Therefore this erythema (mild) is considered local irritation rather than evidence of a sensitising response.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Two assays were conducted on this mix of isobutyl esters. In a non-standard guideline study in guinea pigs, animals were induced using 4 weekly intradermal injections of 1% of the test material in dimethylphthalate followed by a challenge 15 days later of a 100% solution and a 10% solution in Dimethylphthalate. This study was negative with some minor signs of irritation that were observed in both test and control animals. A second Guinea pig study, a full guideline GPMT assay, was also negative. The intradermal induction was done with a 5% solution and 100% solutions were used for the topical induction and challenge. No animals were sensitised in this assay. In a LLNA and a GPMT conducted using the reaction mass of methyl esters of adipic acid, glutaric acid and succinic acid
Based on the above information it is concluded that the these dibasic esters are not sensitisers to humans. Therefore it is also concluded that the dibutyl esters would not be sensitising in humans.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
There is no direct link between the ability of something to induce an immune response via the skin in an animal study such as the LLNA or GPMT and the ability to sensitise via inhalation. Therefore it is not possible to conclusively state that this substance is or is not a respiratory sensitiser. Considering that the overall weight of evidence suggest this substance is not a human sensitiser it is unlikely it would be a respiratory sensitiser.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
No data available
Justification for classification or non-classification
No classification required.
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.

EU Privacy Disclaimer
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our websites.