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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 701-408-8 | 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
![](https://poisoncentres.echa.europa.eu/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/print_toxicological-information.png)
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
In the key in vivo skin sensitisation study, conducted according to OECD Test Guideline 406 (Buehler test) and in compliance with GLP, trimethoxy(methyl)silane and its reaction products with [3-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxysilane and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine (EC 945 -567 -3) was concluded to be not sensitising to skin (Eurofins Munich / BSL Munich, 2020).
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
- Study period:
- 20th of November 2019 to 20th of February 2020
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- Adopted the 17th of July 2003
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- An LLNA study was not performed because the test method is not considered to be suitable for substances that contain silicon.
Buehler test was selected based on that in vitro methods for assessing sensitisation potential are available but cannot yet fully substitute the animal tests. The sensitivity and reliability of the experimental technique is assessed on a regular basis using mercaptobenzothiazole, which is recommended by the OECD 406 and is known to have moderate skin sensitisation properties. - Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- other: Crl:HA
- Sex:
- male
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River, 97633 Sulzfeld, Germany
- Females nulliparous and non-pregnant: N/a
- Microbiological status of animals, when known: Not specified
- Age at study initiation: Approximately 5-6 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 343 - 387 grams
- Housing: Semi barrier in an air-conditioned room.
- Diet: Autoclaved hay and Altromin 3122 maintenance diet for guinea pigs, rich in crude fibre, ad libitum .
- Water: Tap water, ad libitum.
- Acclimation period: At least 5 days
- Indication of any skin lesions: None reported
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 22 ± 3 °C
- Humidity (%): 55 ± 10%
- Air changes (per hr): At least 10 x / hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 hours light / 12 hours dark
- IN-LIFE DATES: From: not reported To: 20th of February 2020 - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone, extra dry
- Concentration / amount:
- 100%
- Day(s)/duration:
- Occlusive dressing kept in contact with the skin for 6 hours; induction was repeated once a week for three consecutive weeks.
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: acetone
- Concentration / amount:
- 100%
- Day(s)/duration:
- Occlusive dressing kept in contact with the skin for 6 hours.
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 20
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS: 5 animals were used. The adequate concentrations for the induction and challenge was determined by a preliminary test with different concentrations. The test item was applied topically at 5 different concentrations (25%; 50%; 75%; 90% or 100%, each diluted with the vehicle acetone) to the flanks of the animals for 6 hours using occlusive dressings. Based on the gained result of this preliminary test, a concentration of 100% for the dermal induction and 100% for the challenge application respectively was used.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3 exposures
- Exposure period: 3 weeks
- Test groups: Test groups treated with 100% of the test substance.
- Control group: The negative control was a dry gauze patch (since the test item was applied undiluted)
- Site: Flanks
- Frequency of applications: Once a week
- Duration: 6 hours
- Concentrations: 100% test substance
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: One
- Day(s) of challenge: 14 days after the last induction
- Exposure period: 6 hours
- Test groups: The right flanks of 20 animals were treated with 0.5 mL of 100% test item in acetone.
- Control group: The left flanks of 10 animals were treated with 0.5 mL of acetone only.
- Site: Both flanks
- Concentrations: 100% test item in acetone.
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): At 24 and 48 hours. - Challenge controls:
- A dry patch was applied to an area of approximately 2.5 x 2.5 cm on the left flank at an untreated site (intraspecific control) and was held in contact with the help of an occlusive dressing for 6 hours for the negative control.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
- Positive control results:
- The sensitisation rate after application of the positive control substance 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (25% in vaseline) was 90%, confirming the reliability of the test system.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100% in acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 100% in acetone
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
- No. with + reactions:
- 18
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- 90% of positive control animals showed skin sensitisation
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
- No. with + reactions:
- 16
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- 80% of positive control animals showed skin sensitisation
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- In the in vivo skin sensitisation study, conducted according to OECD Test Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP, the test material was concluded to not be sensitising to skin. Positive and negative controls were included and gave the expected results.
Reference
Table 1: Frequency of Sensitisation in Positive-Control Animals
20 animals used for positive-control group
Group / Time of Observation |
E0 |
E1 |
E2 |
E3 |
O0 |
O1 |
O2 |
O3 |
Sensitised Animals (%) |
C/24 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
C/48 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
T/24 |
2 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
T/48 |
4 |
12 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
E0–E3 = erythema grade 0–3; O0–O3 = oedema grade 0–3; 0–20 = number of animals T = test group (2-mercaptobenzothiazole: 25% in vaseline); C = control group; 24/ 48 = 24/48 hours after end of challenge treatment
Table 2: Individual Grading of Reactions after Challenge
|
Negative-Control Group |
||||||||
Animal No. |
Conc. % |
24 hoursafter patch removal |
48 hoursafter patch removal |
||||||
Test Item |
Control |
Test Item |
Control |
||||||
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
||
21 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
23 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
26 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
28 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
29 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Test Group |
||||||||
Animal No. |
Conc. % |
24 hoursafter patch removal |
48 hoursafter patch removal |
||||||
Test Item |
Control |
Test Item |
Control |
||||||
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
||
1 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
E = erythema; O = oedema; 0 – 3 = grade
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The key in vivo skin sensitisation study with trimethoxy(methyl)silane and its reaction products with [3-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxysilane and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine was conducted according to OECD Test Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP.
At induction, three epicutaneous occlusive applications of 100% of the test material were applied to the flanks of 20 test guinea pigs for six hours. This was in total repeated three times for three consecutive weeks. Following each application, each guinea pig was examined for dermal reactions. At challenge (14 days after the last topical induction application), 0.5 mL of 100% of the test material in acetone was applied topically to the right flank of each test animal and kept in contact with the skin for six hours under occlusive dressing. Dermal reactions were evaluated at 24 and 48 hours after removal of the test material. Changes in body weight were recorded prior to administration and at the end of the observation period. All animals were observed for signs of toxicity at least once daily during the test period. Positive and negative controls were included and provided expected results. No evidence of sensitisation occurred; the percentage of affected animals was 0%. Moreover, no systemic toxicity was observed throughout the study and no mortality occurred in any animals. The body weight development of all animals was within the range of variation for this strain. Consequently, it was concluded that the test substance is not sensitising to skin (Eurofins Munich / BSL Munich, 2020).
The current accepted and preferred method for skin sensitisation testing when in vitro testing is not possible according to the REACH legislation (EC no 1907/2006) and CLP Regulation (EC No 1272/2008) is the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). There is also a question regarding the reliability of the LLNA for silicon-based substances, which means that conducting such a study would not add weight to the database for a positive or negative outcome and therefore, will not make any contribution to the protection of human health. OECD Test Guideline 429 acknowledges the limits of the LLNA, and states that there are instances where ‘test substance classes or substances containing functional groups shown to act as potential confounders’ make the use of guinea pig tests more appropriate. It is concluded that the LLNA is not applicable where the properties of the test material cause interference in the accuracy of the LLNA (OECD 2002). The statement in the OECD TG 429 is given with reference to the findings of Basketteret al. (2009a), who demonstrated false positives in silicone based substances which had previously been demonstrated to be non-sensitisers in the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT). The importance of available evidence from guinea pig results, consideration of chemical reactivity, epidermal bioavailability and clinical and experimental human data are emphasised as central to reaching appropriate regulatory decisions for substances which have been shown to fall outside the specificity of the LLNA (Basketteret al., 2009b). The non-applicability of the LLNA for silicone based substances has also been demonstrated by Petryet al.(2012). The sensitisation potential of polyfunctional silicone materials was tested in a comparative study investigating the GPMT and the LLNA assays, which found the five tested substances to be negative in the GPMT whereas they were concluded to be weak to moderate skin sensitisers in the LLNA (Petryet al.,2012).
Basketter D, Ball N, Cagen S, Carillo JC, Certa H, Eigler D, Garcia C, Esch H, Graham C, Haux C, Kreiling R, Mehling A (2009a). Application of weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation datasets: implication for REACH. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol.,55, 90-96.
Basketter D, McFadden JF, Gerberick F, Cockshott A, Kimber I (2009b) Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH.Contact Dermatitis, 60, 65-69.
Petry, T., Bosch, A., Coste, X., Dupuis, V., Eigler, D., Germain, P. (2012). An assessment of the skin sensitisation hazard of a group of polyfunctional silicones using a weight of evidence approach. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 64, 305 -314.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the available skin sensitisation data, no classification for skin sensitisation is required for trimethoxy(methyl)silane and its reaction products with [3-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxysilane and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.
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.
![ECHA](/o/diss-blank-theme/images/factsheets/A-REACH/factsheet/echa_logo.png)