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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 204-000-3 | CAS number: 112-72-1
- 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
The key skin sensitisation study for tetradecan-1-ol, conducted according to OECD Test Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP, reports tetradecan-1-ol to be not sensitising to skin (Drug and Safety Testing Center Co, 1997; rel 1).
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:
- weight of evidence
- Study period:
- 19-Jun-1997 to 04-Sep-1997
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- An LLNA study was not performed because there is an existing reliable study for skin sensitisation using the Guinea Pig Maximisation test method. Furthermore, the LLNA test method is not considered to be suitable for fatty alcohols. Please refer to the attached document for further details.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Japan SLC, Shizuoka
- Age at study initiation: 5 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 313-337 g
- Housing: animals were housed in aluminium cages with stainless steel wire mesh floors (350 mm x 400 mm x 200 mm, Natsume Seisakusyo Co., Tokyo); 5 animals/cage.
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): standard pelleted diet for guinea-pigs (RC-4; Oriental Yeast Co.) ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): filtered tap water ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 7 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C):23±2
- Humidity (%): 50±10
- Air changes (per hr): 17
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 hrs dark/12hrs light
IN-LIFE DATES: 19-Jun-1997 to 04-Sep-1997 - Route:
- intradermal and epicutaneous
- Vehicle:
- other: liquid paraffin
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 5% (w/w) intracutaneous, 50% (w/w) epicutaneous occlusive
Challenge: 3% (w/w) and 10% (w/w) - No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: liquid paraffin
- Concentration / amount:
- Induction: 5% (w/w) intracutaneous, 50% (w/w) epicutaneous occlusive
Challenge: 3% (w/w) and 10% (w/w) - No. of animals per dose:
- 10 test animals, 5 control animals
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING STUDY: A preliminary test was performed to assess primary skin irritation using 8 female guinea-pigs. Test substance was administered to four animals by intradermal injection (10%, 5%, 3%, 1%, 0.3% and 0.1% w/w) and to four animals by 24-hr occluded patch. The number of animals showing skin irritation was recorded at 24, 48 and 72 hrs after intradermal treatment and at 3, 24 and 48 hrs after occluded patch testing. The results of this test were used to determine the doses for intradermal injection, topical induction and topical challenge.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 2 - intracutaneous, followed by epicutaneous 7 days later
- Exposure period: 21 days between initial induction and challenge
- Test groups: 10 females
- Control group: 5 females
- Site: intracutaneous - intradermal injections were performed in the shaved skin area on both sides of the midline in the scapular region; epicutaneous - occlusive patches were applied to the previously treated areas
- Frequency of applications: intracutaneous induction followed by epicutaneous induction 1 week later
- Duration: epicutaneous induction - 48 hrs
- Concentrations: 5% intracutaneous, 50% epicutaneous
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 2
- Exposure period: 24 hrs
- Test groups: 10 females
- Control group: 5 females
- Site: flank
- Concentrations: 3%, 10 % (w/w)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24, 48 hrs
OTHER:
Grading system used for evaluation of patch test results (Magnusson and Kligman) : 0 = no visible change, 1 = discrete or patch erythema; 2 = moderate and confluent erythema; 3 = intense erythema and swelling.
MAIN STUDY
Induction:
(Day 0) Intradermal injections of 0.1ml of each of following: (a) 1:1 (v/v) emulsion of Freund¿s complete adjuvant (FCA) and physiological saline, (b) 5% (w/w) of the test substance in liquid paraffin, and 1:1 (v/v) emulsion of 10% (w/w) test substance in FCA and physiological saline.
(Day 7) Occluded patches of 0.2 ml 50% (w/w) of the test substance in liquid paraffin were applied for 48 hrs.
Challenge:
(Day 21) Occluded patches of 0.1 ml of each of the 10%, 3% (w/w) of the test substance in liquid paraffin and liquid paraffin alone were applied for 24 hrs. - Challenge controls:
- Five female animals were administered intradermally: 0.1 ml of liquid paraffin and 0.1 ml of an emulsion of Freund¿s complete adjuvant (FCA) and physiological saline. Seven days later an occluded patch of liquid paraffin was applied for 48 hrs. At the challenge exposure, occluded patches of paraffin were applied to the animals flanks for 24 hrs.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- DNCB and formalin, not concurrent
- Positive control results:
- Evidence presented over a relevant time period that the strain of guinea pig did respond to known sensitisers.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 3% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test
- 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:
- 5
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 10% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 3% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test.
- 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:
- 5
- Clinical observations:
- There were reportedly no significant differences in general condition and body weight gain between test and control groups over the course of the test
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Group:
- positive control
- Remarks on result:
- other: Evidence presented over a relevant time period that the strain of guinea pig did respond to known sensitisers.
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Kalcol 4098 showed no evidence of being a skin sensitizer when tested using the Guinea pig maximization test in a reliable study conducted in accordance with OECD Guidelines 406. The study was GLP compliant.
- Executive summary:
[In view of the structural and chemical similarities, it is considered that the results of this study can be used for read-across to Alcohols C12 -13 branched and linear.]
Reference
RESULTS OF RANGE FINDING STUDY:
Following intradermal injection, skin irritation was seen at concentrations of 10% and 5% persisting for 72 hours
but less marked at the lower concentration. The 3% concentration showed evidence of irritation at 24 hours in oneanimal only. Lower concentrations from 0.1 -1% showed no irritation. Following topical application slight
irritation was seen in 2/4 animals at 50% only.
TEST: There was no evidence of sensitisation in any of the test or control animals at either challenge concentration
Table 1. Summary of the delayed contact hypersensitivity study of KALCOL 4098 in female guinea-pigs
Group |
Number of animals showing positive reaction/Total number of animals |
|||||
24 hrs after challenge |
48 hrs after challenge |
|||||
10% |
3% |
vehicle |
10% |
3% |
vehicle |
|
Test |
0/10 |
0/10 |
0/10 |
0/10 |
0/10 |
0/10 |
Control |
0/5 |
0/5 |
0/5 |
0/5 |
0/5 |
0/5 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The key skin sensitisation study for tetradecan-1-ol, conducted according to OECD Test Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP, reports tetradecan-1-ol to be not sensitising to skin (Drug and Safety Testing Center Co, 1997; rel 1).
The key study was the most recent and high reliability study available. In the study, diluted test material in liquid paraffin was tested in 10 guinea pigs. Control group consisted of 5 animals.
At induction phase, 0.1 ml of 5% (w/w) of test material in liquid paraffin was applied intracutaneously as intradermal injection. 7 days later, 0.2 ml of 50 % (w/w) was applied epicutaneously to the test area and kept in contact to the skin under occlusive dressing for 48 hours.
At challenge phase (21 days after induction), 0.1 ml of 3% and 10 % (w/w) of test material in liquid paraffin were applied onto the skin of the test animals and kept in contact under occlusive dressing for 24 hours.
Skin reaction scores were evaluated at 24 and 48 hours after challenge.
No skin reactions were noted at 24 and 48 hours observations. The test material was reported to be not sensitising under the conditions of the study.
A reliability 4 supporting study in human supports the findings of the key study (Opdyke, 1975).
A full discussion of the Category and considerations of RAAF Assessment Entities can be found in the Human Health Alcohols C6-24 Category report (PFA, 2021).
Discussion of trends in the Category of C6-24 linear and essentially-linear aliphatic alcohols:
There is evidence throughout the carbon number range C6-C24 that long chain alcohols are not sensitising; this conclusion does not vary with carbon number within the Category: read-across substances are chosen based on carbon chain length and similarity of physicochemical properties.
A mouse local lymph node assays (LLNA) performed with Alcohols C14-15 branched and linear and with Alcohols C16-17 branched and linear was positive, although this study, which has significant deficiencies in terms of methodology and presentation of results, may have been confounded by skin irritation (House 2000). The LLNA studies pre-date the guideline, OECD TG 429, which indicates that for certain classes of substances, the LLNA may give false positives, and refers to Basketter et al (2009). This paper presents information on two fatty alcohols, and concludes that the fatty alcohols are not sensitisers, and may give a true false positive in the local lymph node assay. For such substances, use of the guinea pig maximisation assay is recommended. Data from guinea pig maximisation assays are available for a number of constituents of the substance and for multi-constituent substances with similar composition; the majority of these studies gave clear negative results. Therefore no classification is proposed for sensitisation, and the Category conclusion is that the members of the C6-24 alcohols category are not sensitisers.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the available information, tetradecan-1-ol does not require classification for skin sensitisation 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)