Dodecan-5-olide

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Skin irritation

Acute Dermal Irritation/corrosion Study of test chemical was performed as per OECD guideline No. 404 using three healthy young adult female. Rabbits with good intact skin were selected for the study.

The individual mean score at 24, 48 and 72 hours for Animal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, for erythema and oedema formation, respectively

Hence, it was concluded that the test chemical was Non-Irritating to the skin of female New Zealand White rabbits under the experimental conditions tested and Classified as “Category- Not Classified as Skin Irritant” as per CLP Classification.

Eye Irritation

Acute eye irritation/corrosion study was conducted in rabbits to evaluate the eye irritant nature of the test chemical. The study was performed as per OECD 405 Guidelines using three male New Zealand White rabbits.

The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3at 24, 48, 72 hoursfor corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively.

Under the experimental conditions tested, no eye irritation on eyes of rabbits was observed at 72 hours. Hence, the test chemical was considered as “Non Irritant” to New Zealand White male rabbit eyes and being classified as “Not Classified as an Eye Irritant” as per the criteria of CLP regulation.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

skin irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

Data is from experimental report

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 404 (Acute Dermal Irritation / Corrosion)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The objective of the study was to assess the irritant and/or corrosive effects of test chemical after dermal application on the intact skin of rabbits.

GLP compliance:

yes

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:

Species :Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Strain :New Zealand White
Age :3 to 3.5 Months (Approximately)
Sex :Female
Number of Animals: Three
Supplier/Source: Procured from LIVEON BIOLABS PVT. LTD. (CPCSEA Reg. No. 1610/RO/bc12/CPCSEA).
Health Status: Healthy young adults rabbits were used for the study. Females were nulliparous and non pregnant.
Body weight of animals: Minimum: 1.624 kg and Maximum: 2.376 kg (Prior to Treatment)

Acclimatisation: Rabbits were acclimatised to the test conditions for a period of 8 days (Animal No.-1) and 10 days (Animal No.-2 and 3) prior to the application of the test item.

Identification: During acclimatization marking was done with non toxic marker pen in the inside of left ear of rabbits and after acclimatization, animals were marked with permanent number in the inner side of right ear of rabbits. Permanent marker and cage card was used for identification. The individual cage cards were labelled with at least project No., species, strain, group, sex, animal number, experiment start and end date.

Husbandry Conditions
Diet : All animals were provided conventional laboratory rabbit diet (Nutrivet Life Sciences, Pune) ad libitum. Batch No.: 200004.
Water : Aqua guard filtered tap water was provided ad libitum.
Husbandry : The animals were housed individually in stainless steel cages.
Room Sanitation: The experimental room floor and work tops were swept and mopped with disinfectant solution every day.
Cages and water bottle: All the cages and water bottles were changed minimum twice a week.

Experimental Room Condition
Temperature : Minimum: 19.90 °C, Maximum: 22.30 °C
Relative humidity: Minimum: 52.80 %, Maximum: 67.40 %
Light-dark-rhythm: 12:12
Air Changes: More than 12 changes per hour

Type of coverage:

semiocclusive

Preparation of test site:

clipped

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes

Amount / concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit):0.5 ml
- Concentration (if solution): No data available

VEHICLE
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 0.5 ml distilled water
- Concentration (if solution): No data available
- Lot/batch no. (if required): No data available- Purity: No data available

Duration of treatment / exposure:

4 hours

Observation period:

72 hours

Number of animals:

3 female rabbits

Details on study design:

TEST SITE
- Area of exposure: approximately 6 X 6 cm at contralateral sites
- Type of wrap if used: porous gauze dressing and non-irritating tape (Micropore 3”)

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing (if done): residual test item was removed by using cotton soaked in distilled water
- Time after start of exposure: 4hr

Control site: 0.5 ml distilled water was applied at control site.

Irritation parameter:

erythema score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.33

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 hours

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritation parameter:

edema score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 hours

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritant / corrosive response data:

The patch was removed after 4 hours and rabbits were observed for erythema and oedema at 24, 48 and 72 hours after patch removal, evaluated and graded as per Draize method. The individual mean score at 24, 48 and 72 hours for Animal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, for erythema and oedema formation, respectively.

Fully reversible erythema and No edema (skin irritation) were observed at the end of 72 hour observation period after patch removal.

Other effects:

Clinical Observation:
No systemic toxicity was observed at treated rabbits during the experimental period.
Mortality:
No mortality was observed during the observation period.

Table 1

Skin Reaction

 

In Treated area Dose: 0.5 ml of test item                                                                      Sex: Female

 

Animal No.	Test	Treated  area*	Erythema score				Oedema score
			1h	24h	48h	72h	1h	24h	48h	72h
1	Initial	Right	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	Confirmatory	Left	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3		Left	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

 

 

 

 

 

In Control areaDose: 0.5 ml of distilled water                                                         Sex:Female

 

Animal No.	Test	Treated area*	Erythema score				Oedema score
			1h	24h	48h	72h	1h	24h	48h	72h
1	Initial	Left	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	Confirmatory	Right	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3		Right	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Key:h = Hour.

 

Erythema                                                                                                       Oedema

0 =No erythema                                                                                           0 =No oedema

Table 1 Continued…

Mean Individual Animal Score at 24, 48 and 72 hours

 

Animal Number                   Observations	1	2	3
Erythema	0.33	0.33	0.33
Oedema	0.00	0.00	0.00

 

Table 2

Individual Animal BodyWeight

Sex:Female

Animal No.	Body Weight (kg)
	Prior to Dosing	At termination
1	1.624	1.690
2	2.198	2.234
3	2.376	2.396

Table 3

Individual AnimalClinical Signs

Sex:Female

Animal No.	Days (Post dosing Observation)
	0	1	2	3
1	1	1	1	1
2	1	1	1	1
3	1	1	1	1

Key: ./. = Not Applicable. 1 = Normal.

Interpretation of results:

other: not irritating

Conclusions:

The patch was removed after 4 hours and rabbits were observed for erythema and oedema at 24, 48 and 72 hours after patch removal, evaluated and graded as per Draize method. The individual mean score at 24, 48 and 72 hours for Animal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, for erythema and oedema formation, respectively.

Fully reversible erythema and No edema (skin irritation) were observed at the end of 72 hour observation period after patch removal.
Hence, it was concluded that the test chemical was Non-Irritating to the skin of female New Zealand White rabbits under the experimental conditions tested and Classified as “Category- Not Classified as Skin Irritant” as per CLP Classification.

Executive summary:

Acute Dermal Irritation/corrosion Study of test chemical was performed as per OECD guideline No. 404 using three healthy young adult female. Rabbits with good intact skin were selected for the study. The hairs of all the rabbits were clipped at contralateral sites, approximately 24 hours prior to treatment. A dose of 0.5 ml of test item (as such) was applied to the skin, over an area of approximately 6 x 6 cm clipped of hair on one side of rabbits. The other untreated side was kept as control area and 0.5 ml of distilled water was applied at this site. At the end of 4 hours, the gauze patch was removed and test item application site was wiped with water without altering the integrity of the epidermis. 

Initially, the test item was applied to the clipped area of skin of one rabbit. The test site was covered with gauze patch. After 4 hours of exposure, animal no. 1 revealed very slight erythema (barely perceptible) and edema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours observation. Hence the confirmatory test was conducted on additional two animals (no. 2 and 3) to confirm the non-irritant nature of the test item.

After 4 hours of exposure, animal no. 2 and 3 revealed very slight erythema (barely perceptible) and no edema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours observation.

The patch was removed after 4 hours and animals were observed for erythema and oedema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after patch removal, evaluated and graded as per DSraize method.

The individual mean score at 24, 48 and 72 hours for Animal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, for erythema and oedema formation, respectively

Hence, it was concluded that the test chemical was Non-Irritating to the skin of female New Zealand White rabbits under the experimental conditions tested and Classified as “Category- Not Classified as Skin Irritant” as per CLP Classification.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

skin irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

Data is from experimental study report

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The purpose of this study was to assess potential for the test article to be dermal irritants. The dermal irritation potential of test article may be predicted by measurement of their cytotoxic effect, as reflected in the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, in the MatTek EpiDerm™ model.

GLP compliance:

no

Specific details on test material used for the study:

STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: Room temperature or Fridge storage

TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing: Prior to the main test, the test articles are tested for their ability to reduce/interact with MTT and their ability to stain the tissues itself. All tests are performed according to the by MatTek provided test protocol.

Test system:

human skin model

Source species:

human

Cell type:

non-transformed keratinocytes

Cell source:

other: as provided by MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakia

Source strain:

other: Not applicable

Details on animal used as source of test system:

- Description of the cell system used:The normal human-derived keratinocytes were cultured at the air-liquid interface in a chemically defined medium on a permeable polycarbonate insert (surface 0.5 cm2). They were cultured in chemically defined serum free medium to form a multi-layered epithelium similar to that found in native epidermis. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek according to specific QC standards including: histology, tissue viability (MTT mean optical density), reproducibility (SD) and tissue thickness.Test System IdentificationAll of the EpiDerm™ 3-dimensional human tissues used in this study were identified by the date of arrival and the lot number. Certificate of Analysis for the tissues are included in this report. Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information.

Justification for test system used:

The 3-Dimensional Human Dermal Epithelial Model (EpiDerm™, MatTek, In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakia) is made up of normal human keratinocytes in serum free medium. The cells form an epithelial tissue that consists of organized basal, spinous, granular, and cornified layers analogous to those found in vivo. The EpiDerm™ model also contains epidermis-specific differentiation markers such as pro-filaggrin, the K1/K10 cytokeratin pair, involucrin, and type I epidermal transglutaminase, as well as keratohyalin granules, tonofilament bundles, desmosomes, and a multi-layered stratum corneum containing intercellular lamellar lipid layers arranged in patterns characteristic of in vivo epidermis. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek, Inc. according to specific QC standards including: histology (cell layers), tissue viability (MTT mean optical density) and reproducibility (SD). Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information. Bias was not a factor in this test system.

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Details on test system:

The tissues were exposed to the test article neat (undiluted) on April 25, 2018 (Run 1 of 1). EpiDerm™ tissues were purchased from MatTek. Quality control of the tissues was performed by MatTek and the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for the tissues is provided and is kept in the study binder. Tissues were exposed for approximately 1 hour, with 35 minutes in an approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 humidified incubator and the remaining 25 minutes at room temperature. Following the exposure time, the tissues were rinsed and placed in fresh media for approximately 24 hours. The media was then changed again and the tissues were incubated in fresh media for another ~18 hours for a total of approximately 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The tissue viability was then assessed by MTT assay. The tissue CoA was used instead of verification of barrier properties of the tissue.MTT and Color Pre-testsPretesting has actually been conducted for all chemicals, although the first intitial 8 test chemicals a pretesting was not conducted (for skin).MTT AssayFollowing the rinsing period, the MTT assay was performed by transferring the tissues to 24-well plates containing 300 µL MTT medium (1.0 mg/mL). After 3 hours MTT incubation at approximately 37°C, approximately 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator, the blue formazan salt was extracted by submerging tissues in 2 mL isopropanol in a 24-well plate. The extraction time was approximately 3 hours with gentle shaking. The optical density of the extracted formazan (200 µL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm. Relative cell viability is calculated for each tissue as % of the mean negative control tissues.Evaluation of Test Article in the Cell Models:1. Cell system: Upon receipt, the MatTek EpiDerm™ tissue cultures were placed in 0.9 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (in a 6-well plate). The culture inserts are incubated for ~one hour. The tissues were then transferred to 6-well plates containing 0.9 mL fresh Maintenance medium and they were incubated overnight (18 ± 3 hrs) at ~37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.2. Control and Test Article Exposures: On the day of dosing, the tissues are then removed from the incubator and the controls and the test article are applied topically to tissues by pipette(liquid) Tissues were exposed to controls and the test article for one hour, with ~35 minutes in a 37°C, 5% CO2 humidified incubator and the remaining 25 minutes at room temperature.a) Controls30 µL of negative control DPBS and 30 μL of the positive control 5% SDS was applied topically to the tissue and gently spread by placing a nylon mesh on the apical surface of each tissue, if necessary.b) Test Articles 30 µL of the test article was applied topically to the tissue 3. Post-exposure treatmentAfter the 1 hour exposure, the tissues were rinsed 15 times with sterile DPBS. After the 15th rinse from washing bottle, each insert wasw completely submerge 3 times in 150 ml DPBS. The apical surface was gently blotted with a cotton swab. The tissues were placed in 0.9 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (6-well plate) for 24 ± 2 hours. After this initial ~24 hour incubation, the tissues were placed in 6-well plates containing 0.9 mL fresh Maintenance medium and incubated for another 18 ± 3 hours, for a total of an approximately 42 hour post-exposure incubation.RECONSTRUCTED HUMAN EPIDERMIS (RHE) TISSUE- Model used: The EpiDerm™ 3 dimensional human tissue model- Tissue Lot number(s): 26459- Date of initiation of testing: 6/08/2017TEMPERATURE USED FOR TEST SYSTEM- Temperature used during treatment / exposure: 37°C- Temperature of post-treatment incubation (if applicable): 37°CREMOVAL OF TEST MATERIAL AND CONTROLS-Volume and number of washing steps: The test substance was rinsed from the tissues with sterile DPBS by filling and emptying the tissue insert 15 times to remove any residual test material. This was followed by completely submerge the insert 3 times in 150 ml DPBS.MTT DYE USED TO MEASURE TISSUE VIABILITY AFTER TREATMENT / EXPOSURE- MTT concentration: 300 µL MTT medium (1.0 mg/mL).- Incubation time: After 3 hours- Spectrophotometer: Synergy H4 spectrophotometer - Wavelength: 570 nm- Filter: No data- Filter bandwidth: No data- Linear OD range of spectrophotometer: No dataNUMBER OF REPLICATE TISSUES: 3CALCULATIONS and STATISTICAL METHODSAll data were background subtracted before analysis. MTT data are presented as % viable compared to negative control. Data were generated as follows: MTT AssayBlanks:·        The optical density (OD) mean from all replicates for each plate (ODblank). Negative Controls (NC):·        The blank corrected value was calculated: ODNC= ODNCraw– ODblank. ·        The OD mean per NC tissue was calculated. ·        The mean OD for all tissues corresponds to 100% viability. ·        The mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated. Positive Control (PC):·        Calculate the blank corrected value: ODPC= ODPCraw– ODblank. ·        The OD mean per PC tissue was calculated. ·        The viability per tissue was calculated: %PC = [ODPC/ mean ODNC] x 100. ·        The mean viability for all tissues was calculated: Mean PC = Σ %PC / number of tissues. ·        The standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated. Tested compound :·        Calculate the blank corrected value ODTT= ODTTraw– ODblank. ·        The OD mean per tissue was calculated. ·        The viability per tissue was calculated: %TT = [ODTT/ mean ODNC] x 100. ·        The mean viability for all tissues was calculated: Mean TT = Σ %TT / number of tissues. ·        The standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated. Data Correction Procedure for MTT Interfering Compounds (if applicable)True viability = Viability of treated tissue – Interference from test article = ODtvt– ODktwhere ODkt= (mean ODtkt– mean ODukt).ODtvt= optical density of treated viable tissueODkt= optical density of killed tissuesODtkt= optical density of treated killed tissueODukt= optical density of untreated killed tissue (NC treated tissue) Data Correction Procedure for Colored Compounds (if applicable)True viability = Viability of treated tissue incubated in MTT media – Viability of treated tissue incubated in media without MTT = ODtvt– ODvt.ODtvt= optical density of treated viable tissue incubated in MTT mediaODvt= optical density of viable tissues incubated in media alone - Evaluation of data The results of the assay was evaluated and compared to negative control. Table: Criteria for in vitro Interpretation: In VitroResults In VivoPredictionMean tissue viability ≤50% Irritant (I), R38Mean tissue viability >50% Non-irritant (NI)- Assay quality controls- Negative Controls (NC)The Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (DPBS) was used as a NC. The assay passed all acceptance criteria if the ODs of the negative control exposed tissues were between ≥0.8 and ≤2.8.  - Positive Controls (PC)5% solution of sodium dodecyl sulfate was used as a PC. The assay is meeting the acceptance criteria if the viability of the PC is ≤20% of the negative control.   - Standard Deviation (SD)The standard deviation (SD) calculated from individual percent tissue viabilities of the test article exposed replicates was ≤18.

Control samples:

yes, concurrent negative control

yes, concurrent positive control

Amount/concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 30 µL
- Concentration (if solution): neat

VEHICLE (Not used)
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): none
- Concentration (if solution): none
- Lot/batch no. (if required): none
- Purity: none

NEGATIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 30 µL
- Concentration (if solution): neat

POSITIVE CONTROL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight): 30 µL
- Concentration (if solution): 5% solution of sodium dodecyl sulfate

Duration of treatment / exposure:

The exposure times were approximately 1 hour, with ~35 minutes exposure in the incubator and ~25 minutes at room temperature.

Duration of post-treatment incubation (if applicable):

For a total of an approximately 42 hour post-exposure incubation.

Number of replicates:

3 tissues were used for test compound and control.

Irritation / corrosion parameter:

% tissue viability

Run / experiment:

Run 1

Value:

2.4

Vehicle controls validity:

not specified

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

positive indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met.

	n	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2	of aliquotes
NC	1	1.865	1.8438	1.829	1.808	1.819	98.3
	2	1.8808	1.8835	1.845	1.848	1.846	99.8
	3	1.9193	1.925	1.884	1.889	1.886	101.9
PC	1	0.0795	0.0786	0.044	0.043	0.043	2.3
	2	0.0742	0.0747	0.039	0.039	0.039	2.1
	3	0.0853	0.085	0.050	0.049	0.049	2.7

C4	1	0.073	0.0773	0.037	0.042	0.039	2.1
	2	0.077	0.085	0.041	0.049	0.045	2.4
	3	0.0845	0.0833	0.049	0.048	0.048	2.6

	mean	SD	mean of	SD	CV %
	of OD	of OD	viabilities [%]	of viabilities	[%]
NC	1.851	0.034	100.0	1.84	1.84
PC	0.044	0.005	2.4	0.29	12.23

C4

0.044

0.004

2.4

0.24

10.05

Interpretation of results:

Category 2 (irritant) based on GHS criteria

Conclusions:

The dermal irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline followed for this study. The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test chemical was determined to be 2.4 %. Thus, substance Dodecan 5-olide (CAS No. 713-95-1) was considered to be irritating to the human skin.

Executive summary:

The dermal irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiDerm™ model was used to assess the potential dermal irritation of the test article by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to the test article and controls for ~one hour, followed by a 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay. 

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met and passed the acceptance of criteria.

The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test chwmical was determined to be 2.4 %.

Hence, under the current experimental test conditions it was concluded that test chemical was considered to be irritating to human skin and can thus be classified as ''Irritating to skin in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

Data is from experimental study report

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The objective of the study was to assess the irritant and/or corrosive effects of test chemical on eye when exposed by an ocular route in rabbits.

GLP compliance:

yes

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Species : Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Strain : New Zealand White
Age : 2.5 to 3.5 Months (Approximately)
Sex : Male
Number of Animals: Three
Supplier/Source: Procured from Sainath Agencies, Hyderabad, India (CPCSEA Reg. No. 282/24-11-2000).
Health Status : Healthy young adult animals were used
Body weight of animals : Minimum: 1.683 kg and Maximum: 1.796 kg (Prior to Treatment)
Acclimatisation: Rabbits were acclimatised to the test conditions for a period of 7 days (Animal No.-1) and 10 days (Animal No. 2 and 3) prior to the application of the test item.
Identification : During acclimatization marking was done with non toxic marker pen in the inside of left ear of rabbits and after acclimatization, animals were marked with permanent number in the inner side of right ear of rabbits. Permanent marker and cage card was used for identification. The individual cage card was labelled with at least study no., study type, test system, sex, dose, experiment start date and experiment completion date..

Husbandry Conditions
Diet: All animals were provided conventional laboratory rabbit diet (Nutrivet Life Sciences, Pune) ad libitum. Batch No.: 200005.
Water : Aqua guard filtered tap water was provided ad libitum.
Husbandry: The animals were housed individually in stainless steel cages.
Room Sanitation : The experimental room floor and work tops were swept and mopped with disinfectant solution every day.
Cages and water bottle: All the cages and water bottles were changed minimum twice a week.

Experimental Room Condition
Temperature : Minimum: 19.60°C, Maximum: 22.20 °C
Relative humidity: Minimum: 56.50 % Maximum: 69.20%
Light-dark-rhythm: 12:12
Air Changes: More than 12 changes per hour

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes, concurrent no treatment

Amount / concentration applied:

0.1 ml test item (as such) was placed in the conjunctival sac of three rabbits

Duration of treatment / exposure:

24 hours

Observation period (in vivo):

at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after instillation of test item.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

three male rabbits

Details on study design:

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing (if done): The treated eye of rabbit was washed with normal saline
- Time after start of exposure: 24 hrs

SCORING SYSTEM: Grading of irritation lesions was carried out as per Draize Method

TOOL USED TO ASSESS SCORE: Ophthalmoscope and fluorescein strips.

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: Not applicable

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: Not applicable

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: Not applicable

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

mean

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

other: Not applicable

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Irritant / corrosive response data:

The following grading scores were observed in treated eye of tested rabbits.
Observation at 1 hour after instillation of test item revealed:
Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals;
Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;
Iris:Normal in all the animals.
Conjunctivae - Some blood vessels definitely hyperaemic (injected) was observed in all the animals;
Chemosis: No swelling above normal (includes nictitating membranes) was seen in all the animals.

Observation at 24 hour after instillation of test item revealed:
Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals;
Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;
Iris: Normal in all the animals.
Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals;
Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

At 24 hours observation the rabbits were examined for corneal epithelium cell damage using sodium fluorescein strips and noticed 0% damage in animal no. 1, 2 and 3.

 
Observation at 48 hour after instillation of test item revealed:
Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals;
Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;
Iris:Normal in all the animals.
Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals;
Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

Observation at 72 hour after instillation of test item revealed:
Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals;
Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;
Iris:Normal in all the animals.
Conjunctivae - Blood vessels normal was observed in all the animals;
Chemosis:No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3at 24, 48, 72 hoursfor corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively.

Table 1 : Individual Animal Eye Irritation Scores

 

In Treated area Dose: 0.1 ml of test item (as such)                                               Sex: Male

Animal Numbers	1					2					3
Application Side	Right					Right					Right
Eye Reactions	At hour					At hour					At hour
	*	1	24	48	72	*	1	24	48	72	*	1	24	48	72
Corneal Opacity	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Area of Opacity	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iris	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Conjunctiva	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0
Chemosis	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Corneal Damage%	0%					0%					0%

 

 

Dose:Untreated (Control Eye)                                                                       Sex: Male

Animal Numbers	1					2					3
Application Side	Left					Left					Left
Eye Reactions	At hour					At hour					At hour
	*	1	24	48	72	*	1	24	48	72	*	1	24	48	72
Corneal Opacity	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Area of Opacity	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iris	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Conjunctiva	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Chemosis	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Corneal Damage%	0%					0%					0%

Key:*= Pre-exposure eye examination.

 

Table 1 (Continued): Eye Irritation Scores - Mean Values after 24, 48, 72 Hours (Treated eye)

Animal No.  Eye Reaction	1	2	3
Corneal Opacity	0.00	0.00	0.00
Iris	0.00	0.00	0.00
Conjunctiva	0.00	0.00	0.00
Chemosis	0.00	0.00	0.00

 

 

Formula :

 

Mean Eye Irritation Score =                   

Sum of the Individual Animal Score for eye reactionat24, 48 and 72 hours

Number of the Observations (3)

Table 2: Individual AnimalClinicalSigns

 

Sex:Male

Animal No.	Days (Post application observation)
	0	1	2	3
1	1	1	1	1
2	1	1	1	1
3	1	1	1	1

Key:1 = Normal

Table 3: Individual Animal Body Weight

Sex : Male

Animal No.	Animal Body Weight (kg)
	Prior to application	At termination
1	1.796	1.862
2	1.778	1.860
3	1.638	1.778

Key: kg = Kilogram

Interpretation of results:

other: not irritating

Conclusions:

The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3 at 24, 48, 72 hoursfor corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively.
 
Under the experimental conditions tested, no eye irritation on eyes of rabbits was observed at 72 hours. Hence, the test chemical was considered as “Non Irritant” to New Zealand White male rabbit eyes and being classified as “Not Classified as an Eye Irritant” as per the criteria of CLP regulation.

Executive summary:

Acute eye irritation/corrosion study was conducted in rabbits to evaluate the eye irritant nature of the test chemical. The study was performed as per OECD 405 Guidelines using three male New Zealand White rabbits.

 

Rabbits free from injury of eye were selected for the study. The eyes of all the rabbits were examined 24 hours prior to treatment. One eye of each rabbit served as control and other as treated. Control eye was left untreated whereas; 0.1 ml of test item was instilled in the other (treated) eye of each rabbit. The eye was observed at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after test item instillation. Ophthalmoscope was used for scoring of eye lesions.

 

In the initial test, 0.1 ml of test item was applied into the conjunctival sac of the right eye of animal no.1 whereas the left eye of the rabbit served as the control. As animal no. 1 showed no severe ocular lesions till 24 hour observation hence a confirmatory test was conducted on additional two rabbits (animal no. 2 and 3); 0.1 ml of test item was instilled into the conjunctival sac of right eye of both the rabbits and left eye served as the control. Ocular lesions were seen in animal no. 2 and 3 which were recovered till 72 hours observation. Untreated eye of all the three rabbits was normal throughout the experimental period of 72 hours.

 

The following grading scores were observed in treated eye of tested rabbits.

Observation at 24 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;

Iris: Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals; Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

 

At 24 hours observation the rabbits were examined for corneal epithelium cell damage using sodium fluorescein strips and noticed 0% damage in animal no. 1, 2 and 3.

 

Observation at 48 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;

Iris:Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals; Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

 

Observation at 72 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;

Iris:Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels normal was observed in all the animals; Chemosis:No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals.

 

The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3at 24, 48, 72 hoursfor corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively.

 

Under the experimental conditions tested, no eye irritation on eyes of rabbits was observed at 72 hours. Hence, the test chemical was considered as “Non Irritant” to New Zealand White male rabbit eyes and being classified as “Not Classified as an Eye Irritant” as per the criteria of CLP regulation.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Justification for type of information:

Data is from experimental study report.

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 492 (Reconstructed Human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) Test Method for Identifying Chemicals Not Requiring Classification and Labelling for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The purpose of this study was to assess potential for the test article to be ocular irritants. The ocular irritation potential of a test article may be predicted by measurement of its cytotoxic effect, as reflected in the (MTT) assay, in the MatTek EpiOcular™ model

GLP compliance:

no

Species:

human

Strain:

other: Not applicable

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

- Description of the cell system used:
The normal human-derived keratinocytes were cultured at the air-liquid interface in a chemically defined medium on a permeable polycarbonate insert (surface 0.5 cm2). They were cultured in chemically defined serum free medium to form a multi-layered epithelium similar to that found in native corneal mucosa. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek according to specific QC standards including: histology, tissue viability (MTT mean optical density), reproducibility (SD) and tissue thickness.

- Test System Identification
All of the EpiOcular™ 3-dimensional human tissues used in this study were identified by the date of arrival and the lot number. Certificate of Analysis for the tissues is included in this report. Tissue plates were appropriately labeled with study information. Bias was not a factor in this test system.
- Justification of the test method and considerations regarding applicability
EpiOcularTM Eye Irritation (OCL) by MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories, Bratislava, Slovakien

The test articles and controls were evaluated for potential ocular irritancy using the EpiOcular™ 3 dimensional human tissue model purchased from MatTek,In Vitro Life Science Lab. (Bratislava, Slovakia).The EpiOcular tissue construct is a nonkeratinized epithelium prepared from normal human keratinocytes (MatTek). It models the cornea epithelium with progressively stratified, but not cornified cells. These cells are not transformed or transfected with genes to induce an extended life span in culture. The “tissue” is prepared in inserts with a porous membrane through which the nutrients pass to the cells. A cell suspension is seeded into the insert in specialized medium. After an initial period of submerged culture, the medium is removed from the top of the tissue so that the epithelial surface is in direct contact with the air. This allows the test material to be directly applied to the epithelial surface in a fashion similar to how the corneal epithelium would be exposed in vivo. Each lot of tissues was Quality Assured by MatTek, Inc. according to specific QC standards including: histology (cell layers), tissue viability (MTT mean optical density) and reproducibility (SD).

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes, concurrent positive control

yes, concurrent negative control

Amount / concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 50 μL of liquid test article

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Tissues were exposed for approximately 30 minutes for liquid test article and controls, at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator

Observation period (in vivo):

Not applicable

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

Following the washing and post-soak step, tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of ~2 hours for liquid test articles and controls.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

2 tissues were used for test compound and control.

Details on study design:

- Details of the test procedure used
The tissues were exposed to the test article neat (undiluted). EpiOcular™ tissues were purchased from MatTek. Quality control of the tissues was performed by MatTek and the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for the tissues is provided and is kept in the study binder. Tissues were exposed for approximately 30 minutes for liquid test articles and controls, at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. After the exposure, the test article was rinsed off the tissues and the tissues were soaked in media for ~12 minutes for liquid test articles and controls. Following the post soak, the tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time totaling ~2 hours for liquid test articles and controls. Tissue viability was assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol- 2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay.

- MTT Auto reduction and colouring assessment

MTT Pre-test
The test article was assessed for the potential to interfere with the assay. Approximately 50 μL of liquid test article was added to 1 mL of MTT media (~1 mg/mL) and incubated in a humidified incubator at approximately 37°C and approximately 5% CO2 for 3 hours. 50 μL of ultr apure water was used as a negative control.
- Test Article Color Test
Approximately 50 μL of liquid test article was added to 1.0 mL of ultrapure water and 2.0 mL isopropanol and incubated in a humidified incubator at approximately 37°C and approximately 5% CO2 for 2 hours, 04 minutes and 35 seconds. Samples were then added to the wells of a clear 96-well plate and the plate was read on Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm . Test articles that tested positive for excessive coloration (OD >0.08) were assessed on living-tissue controls that were incubated in both culture media and MTT media as well (n=3 for both conditions).

- MTT Assay:
Inserts are removed from the 24-well plate after 3 hrs of incubation and the bottom of the insert is blotted on absorbent material, and then transferred to a pre-labeled 6-well plate containing 1 ml isopropanol in each well so that no isopropanol is flowing into the insert. At the end of the non-submerged extraction inserts and tissues are discarded without piercing and 1 ml of isopropanol is added into each well. The extract solution is mixed and the optical density of the extracted formazan (200 μL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm. Relative cell viability was calculated for each tissue as % of the mean negative control tissues.

- Evaluation of Test Article in the cell Models
1. Cell System:
Upon receipt, the MatTek EpiOcular™ tissue cultures were placed in 1.0 mL of fresh Maintenance medium (in a 6-well plate) for 60 minutes. After the 60 minutes incubation, the Maintenance medium was exchanged with fresh medium and the tissues were incubated overnight (16-24 hrs) at approximately 37°C, approximately 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
2. Control and Test Article Exposures:
20 µL of calcium and magnesium free DPBS was added to each tissue and the tissues placed back into the incubator for 30 minutes. The controls and the test article will be applied topically to tissues by pipette.2 tissues will be used per test compound and control.
a)Controls: 50 µL of negative control sterile ultrapure water and positive control methyl acetate were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
b)Test Article: 50 μL of liquid test article were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
3. Post exposure treatment:
After the exposure, the tissues were rinsed 20 times with sterile of DPBS to remove test material. The apical surface was gently blotted with a cotton swab and cultures were immediately transferred to a 12-well plate containing 5 mL of media per well. Tissues exposed to liquid test articles (and the respective control) were incubated, submerged in the media for ~12 minutes at room temperature.For liquid test articles, tissues, Tissuses were then transferred to 6-well plates containing 1.0 mL fresh Maintenance medium per well and incubated for a post-exposure recovery period for 2 hours at approximately 37 degC, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
- Doses of test chemical and control substances used
Test Article:
50 μL of liquid test article were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified
incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
Controls: 50 µL of negative control sterile ultrapure water, positive control methyl acetate were added to the tissues. The tissues were placed into the ~37°C humidified incubator with 5% CO2 for the approximately 30 minute exposure time.
- Duration and temperature of exposure, post-exposure immersion and post-exposure incubation periods:
Tissues were exposed for approximately 6 hours for solid test articles and controls, at approximately37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator.
Following the washing and post-soak step, tissues were rinsed and incubated at approximately 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator for a post-exposure recovery time of ~2 hours for liquid test articles and controls.

- Justification for the use of a different negative control than ultrapure H2O (Not applicable)
- Justification for the use of a different positive control than neat methyl acetate (Not applicable)
- Number of tissue replicates used per test chemical and controls: 2 tissues were used for test compound and control.
- Description of the method used to quantify MTT formazan
The blue formazan salt was extracted by placing the tissue insterts in 1 mL isopropanol in a 6-well plate. The extraction for solid exposed tissues was 3 hrs incubation. After an addition of 1 ml isopropanol and mixing, the optical density of the extracted formazan (200μL/well of a 96-well plate) was determined using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC Microplate Photometer at 570 nm.

- Description of evaluation criteria used including the justification for the selection of the cut-off point for
the prediction model
Calculations and Statistical Methods
MTT Assay
Blanks:
· The OD mean from all replicates for each plate (ODblank).
Negative Controls (NC):
· The blank corrected value was calculated: ODNC= ODNCraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per NC tissue was calculated.
· The mean OD for all tissues corresponds to 100% viability.
· The mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated.
ODblank= optical density of blank samples (isopropanol alone).
ODNCraw= optical density negative control samples.
ODNC= optical density of negative control samples after background subtraction.
Positive Control (PC):
· Calculate the blank corrected value: ODPC= ODPCraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per PC tissue was calculated.
· The viability per tissue was calculated: %PC = [ODPC/ mean ODNC] x 100.
· The mean viability for all tissues was calculated: Mean PC = Σ %PC / number of tissues.
· The standard deviation (SD), standard error of the meanthe mean (SEM) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) was calculated.
ODPCraw= optical density positive control samples.
ODPC= optical density of positive control samples after background subtraction.
Tested Articles:
· Calculate the blank corrected value ODTT= ODTTraw– ODblank.
· The OD mean per tissue is calculated.
· The viability per tissue is calculated: %TT = [ODTT/ mean ODNC] x 100.
· The mean viability for all tissues is calculated: Mean TT = Σ %TT / number of tissues.
· The standard deviation (SD) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV)for the controls and the test articles will be calculated.
ODTTraw= optical density test article samples.
ODPC= optical density of test article samples after background subtraction.
Data Correction Procedure for MTT Interfering Compounds
True viability = Viability of treated tissue – Interference from test article = ODtvt – ODkt where ODkt =
(mean ODtkt – mean ODukt).
ODtvt = optical density of treated viable tissue
ODkt = optical density of killed tissues
ODtkt = optical density of treated killed tissue
ODukt = optical density of untreated killed tissue (NC treated tissue)
Data Correction Procedure for Colored Compounds
True viability = Viability of treated tissue incubated in MTT media – Viability of treated tissue incubated in
media without MTT = ODtvt – ODvt.
ODtvt = optical density of treated viable tissue incubated in MTT media
ODvt = optical density of viable tissues incubated in media alone.
Proposed Statistical methods
The mean, standard deviation (SD) and the percent coefficient of variation (% CV) for the controls and the test article will be calculated.
- Evaluation of data
The results of the assay was evaluated and compared to negative control.
Table: Irritancy Prediction
In VitroResults In VivoPrediction
Mean tissue viability ≤60% Irritant (I) – Category 1 or 2
Mean tissue viability >60% Non-irritant (NI) – No Category
- Assay quality controls
- Negative Controls (NC)
The assay is meeting the acceptance criterion if the mean viability of the NC in terms of Optical Density(OD570) of the NC tissues (treated with sterile ultrapure water) in the MTT assay are >0.8 to <2.5. This is an indicator of tissue viability following shipping and conditions under use.
- Positive Controls (PC)
Methyl acetate was used as a PC and tested concurrently with the test article. The assay is meeting the acceptance criteria if the viability of the PC is <50% of the negative control.
- Standard Deviation (SD)
Each test of ocular irritancy potential is predicted from the mean viability determined on 2 single tissues. The assay meets the acceptance criteria if SD calculated from individual percent tissue viabilities of the
replicates is <18% for three replicate tissues.

Irritation parameter:

other: % mean tissue viabilityq

Run / experiment:

1

Value:

52

Vehicle controls validity:

not valid

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

positive indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met.

Code N°	Tissue	Raw data		Blank corrected data		mean of OD	% of viability
	n	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2	Aliq. 1	Aliq. 2
NC	1	2.5129	2.5316	2.478	2.496	2.487	97.9
	2	2.6516	2.6086	2.616	2.573	2.595	102.1
PC	1	1.4448	1.4139	1.409	1.379	1.394	54.9
	2	1.075	1.0515	1.040	1.016	1.028	40.5

713-95-1	1	1.3857	1.3827	1.350	1.347	1.349	53.1
	2	1.3273	1.329	1.292	1.294	1.293	50.9

	mean	Dif.	mean of	Dif.	Dif./2	Classification
	of OD	of OD	viabilities [%]	of viabilities
NC	2.541	0.108	100.0	4.24	2.12	NI	qualified
PC	1.211	0.366	47.7	14.41	7.20	I	qualified

713-95-1

1.321

0.056

52.0

2.21

1.10

I

qualified

Interpretation of results:

Category 2 (irritating to eyes) based on GHS criteria

Conclusions:

The ocular irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline followed for this study. The mean % tissue viability of test substance was determined to be 2.7%. Thus, the test chemical was considered to be irritating to the human eyes.

Executive summary:

The ocular irritation potential of test article was determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiOcular™ model was used to assess the potential ocular irritation of the test articles by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to solid test articles and control for approx.6 hours, followed by a 25 minute post-soak and approximately 18 hours recovery after the post-soak. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay.

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met, passing the acceptance criteria.

The mean % tissue viability of test substance was determined to be 52.0%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be not irritating/ irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as ‘’Irritating to eyes in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Respiratory irritation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

Skin Irritation

Various studies have been summarized to determine the level of dermal irritation in living organisms. These include in vitro and in vivo experimental studies along with estimated study for the test chemical.

Acute Dermal Irritation/corrosion Study of test chemical was performed as per OECD guideline No. 404 using three healthy young adult female. Rabbits with good intact skin were selected for the study. The hairs of all the rabbits were clipped at contralateral sites, approximately 24 hours prior to treatment. A dose of 0.5 ml of test item (as such) was applied to the skin, over an area of approximately 6 x 6 cm clipped of hair on one side of rabbits. The other untreated side was kept as control area and 0.5 ml of distilled water was applied at this site. At the end of 4 hours, the gauze patch was removed and test item application site was wiped with water without altering the integrity of the epidermis. 

Initially, the test item was applied to the clipped area of skin of one rabbit. The test site was covered with gauze patch. After 4 hours of exposure, animal no. 1 revealed very slight erythema (barely perceptible) and edema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours observation. Hence the confirmatory test was conducted on additional two animals (no. 2 and 3) to confirm the non-irritant nature of the test item.

After 4 hours of exposure, animal no. 2 and 3 revealed very slight erythema (barely perceptible) and no edema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours observation.

The patch was removed after 4 hours and animals were observed for erythema and oedema at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after patch removal, evaluated and graded as per Draize method.

The individual mean score at 24, 48 and 72 hours for Animal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, for erythema and oedema formation, respectively

Hence, it was concluded that the test chemical was Non-Irritating to the skin of female New Zealand White rabbits under the experimental conditions tested and Classified as “Category- Not Classified as Skin Irritant” as per CLP Classification.

The dermal irritation potential of test article was also determined according to the OECD 439 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiDerm™ model was used to assess the potential dermal irritation of the test article by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to the test article and controls for ~one hour, followed by a 42 hour post-exposure recovery period. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay. 

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met and passed the acceptance of criteria.

The Mean % tissue viability compared to negative control (n=3) of the test chwmical was determined to be 2.4 %.

Hence, under the current experimental test conditions it was concluded that test chemical was considered to be irritating to human skin and can thus be classified as ''Irritating to skin in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation.

The in vivo result is supported by a study performed to assess the dermal irritation potential of the test chemical in rabbits.

Single 24—hour application of 0.5 ml technical grade compound was applied to the intact and abraded skin of each of 6 New Zealand White rabbits. The treated sites were observed for signs of dermal irritation.

The test chemical produced no primary irritation of the intact skin and to the skin surrounding an abrasion.

Hence, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin.

The above studies are supported by a skin irritation study performed in humans to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. The test chemical was tested 12% in petrolatum on human volunteers in a 48 hours closed patch test.

The test chemical was not irritating to humans after 48 hours exposure.

A skin irritation study was also performed in rabbits to assess the irritation potential of the test chemical. Undiluted test chemical was applied to the intact and abraded skin of rabbits for 24 hours under occlusion and observed for effects.

Moderate signs of irritation were observed to the intact and abraded skin of rabbits after 24 hours exposure.

Hence, the test chemical was considered to be irritating to skin.

Skin irritation effects were also estimated by four different models i.e, Battery, Leadscope, SciQSAR and CASE Ultra used within Danish QSAR database for the test chemical. Based on estimation, no severe skin irritation effects were known when the test chemical was exposed to rabbit skin. Hence, the test chemical can be considered not irritating to skin.

Even though the in vitro Guideline study and one study in rabbit claims that the test chemical was irritating to skin, but other in vivo studies suggest otherwise. Taking all these factors into consideration, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.

Eye Irritation

Various studies have been reviewed to determine the extent of ocular damage of the test chemical in living organisms. These include in vivo experimental studies performed on rabbits along with in vitro study for the test chemical.

Acute eye irritation/corrosion study was conducted in rabbits to evaluate the eye irritant nature of the test chemical. The study was performed as per OECD 405 Guidelines using three male New Zealand White rabbits.

Rabbits free from injury of eye were selected for the study. The eyes of all the rabbits were examined 24 hours prior to treatment. One eye of each rabbit served as control and other as treated. Control eye was left untreated whereas; 0.1 ml of test item was instilled in the other (treated) eye of each rabbit. The eye was observed at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after test item instillation. Ophthalmoscope was used for scoring of eye lesions.

In the initial test, 0.1 ml of test item was applied into the conjunctival sac of the right eye of animal no.1 whereas the left eye of the rabbit served as the control. As animal no. 1 showed no severe ocular lesions till 24 hour observation hence a confirmatory test was conducted on additional two rabbits (animal no. 2 and 3); 0.1 ml of test item was instilled into the conjunctival sac of right eye of both the rabbits and left eye served as the control. Ocular lesions were seen in animal no. 2 and 3 which were recovered till 72 hours observation. Untreated eye of all the three rabbits was normal throughout the experimental period of 72 hours.

The following grading scores were observed in treated eye of tested rabbits. Observation at 24 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals;

Iris: Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals; Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals. At 24 hours observation the rabbits were examined for corneal epithelium cell damage using sodium fluorescein strips and noticed 0% damage in animal no. 1, 2 and 3. Observation at 48 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals; Iris:Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels was normal in all the animals; Chemosis: No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals. Observation at 72 hour after instillation of test item revealed: Cornea-No ulceration or opacity in all the animals; Area of Opacity-Zero in all the animals; Iris:Normal in all the animals. Conjunctivae - Blood vessels normal was observed in all the animals; Chemosis:No swelling (normal) was seen in all the animals. The individual mean score for animal nos. 1, 2 and 3at 24, 48, 72 hoursfor corneal opacity, iris, conjunctiva and chemosis were found 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively.

Under the experimental conditions tested, no eye irritation on eyes of rabbits was observed at 72 hours. Hence, the test chemical was considered as “Non Irritant” to New Zealand White male rabbit eyes and being classified as “Not Classified as an Eye Irritant” as per the criteria of CLP regulation.

This is supported by the results of another eye irritation study performed to assess the potential of the test chemical in New Zealand White Rabbits.

0.1ml technical grade test chemical was instilled into the eyes of 6 New Zealand White rabbits for 24 hours. The treated eyes were observed for effects through out the study.

The test chemical did not produce any to injury to the cornea, and, in addition no injury to the conjunctiva in six out of six rabbits.

Hence, it can be considered to be not irritating to New Zealand White rabbit eyes

The ocular irritation potential of test article was also determined according to the OECD 492 test guideline for this study. The MatTek EpiOcular™ model was used to assess the potential ocular irritation of the test articles by determining the viability of the tissues following exposure to the test article via MTT. Tissues were exposed to solid test articles and control for approx.6 hours, followed by a 25 minute post-soak and approximately 18 hours recovery after the post-soak. The viability of each tissue was determined by MTT assay.

The MTT data show the assay quality controls were met, passing the acceptance criteria.

The mean % tissue viability of test substance was determined to be 52.0%. Hence, under the experimental test conditions it was concluded that test substance was considered to be not irritating/ irritating to the human eyes and can thus be classified as ‘’Irritating to eyes in Category 2” as per CLP Regulation

Even though the in vitro Guideline study claims that the test chemical was irritating to eyes, but the in vivo studies suggest otherwise. Taking all these factors into consideration, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to eyes. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Even though the in vitro Guideline study and one study in rabbit claims that the test chemical was irritating to skin, but other in vivo studies suggest otherwise. Taking all these factors into consideration, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to skin. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.

Even though the in vitro Guideline study claims that the test chemical was irritating to eyes, but the in vivo studies suggest otherwise. Taking all these factors into consideration, the test chemical can be considered to be not irritating to eyes. Comparing the above annotations with the criteria of CLP Regulation, the test chemical can be classified under the category “Not Classified”.