Caesium hydroxide

Skin sensitisation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Study period:

1972

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Non GLP and non guideline study, but sufficient for hazard assessment together with read-across to other Cs-salts.

Cross-reference

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

reference to other study

Data source

Reference

Reference 1

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Acute toxicity of cesium and rubidium compounds

Author:

Johnson, G.T.; Lewis, R.T. and Wagner, W.D.

Year:

1975

Bibliographic source:

Toxicology and applied pharmacology 32, 239-245 (1975)

Reference 2

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

1972

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

not specified

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)

Deviations:

not specified

GLP compliance:

no

Type of study:

other: similar to Landsteiner and Jacobs (1935)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Caesium hydroxide

EC Number:

244-344-1

EC Name:

Caesium hydroxide

Cas Number:

21351-79-1

Molecular formula:

CsHO

IUPAC Name:

caesium hydroxide

Constituent 2

Reference substance name:

Cesium hydroxide

IUPAC Name:

Cesium hydroxide

Test material form:

solid: crystalline

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:

guinea pig

Strain:

other: albino

Sex:

male

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Age at study initiation: young adult
- Weight at study initiation: 300 - 400 g

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Induction

Induction 1

Route:

intradermal and epicutaneous

Vehicle:

water

Induction 2

Concentration / amount:

0.1 % induction and challenge

Challenge

Challenge 1

Route:

intradermal

Vehicle:

water

Challenge 2

Concentration / amount:

0.1 % induction and challenge

No. of animals per dose:

control: 5 males
test group 10 males

Details on study design:

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: The test material was injected three times weekly for a total of nine treatments.
- Exposure period: three weeks
- Test groups: treatment with test material (0.1%)
- Control group: treatment with test material (0.1%)
- Site: back of the animal (clipped free of hair)

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: one single treatment
- Day of challenge: 2 weeks after last induction
- Test groups: treatment with test material (0.1%)
- Control group: treatment with vehicle (water)
- Site: back of the animal (clipped free of hair)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24, 48 and 72

EVALUATION CRITERIA:
If the response to the challenge injection is greater in terms of intensity or local inflammatory response than to the sensitizing doses, or the number of animals responding is substantially greater, then the material is considered to be a skin sensitizer.

Positive control substance(s):

no

Results and discussion

Any other information on results incl. tables

There was no evidence of erythema, swelling or dicolorartion of the test sites after each of the nine sensitizing cutaneous injections or after the challenge dose. These results indicate that cesium hydroxide did not induce cutaneous sensitisation in guinea pigs in any of the 10 test animals.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

not sensitising

Remarks:

Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU

Conclusions:

Cesium hydroxide did not induce cutaneous sensitisation in guinea pigs.

Executive summary:

In a dermal sensitization study with cesium hydroxide (0.1 %) in water, young adult male albino guinea pigs (in total 15 animals) were tested using the method of Landsteiner and Jacobs (1935). The test compound was administered intradermally three times a week, for a total of nine treatments. Following a two-week period with no further injections a challenge of 0.1% was administered the same way. There was no evidence of erythema, swelling or dicolorartion of the test sites after each of the nine sensitizing cutaneous injections or after the challenge dose. These results indicate that cesium hydroxide did not induce cutaneous sensitisation in guinea pigs.