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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 200-338-0 | CAS number: 57-55-6
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Sensitizing potential of monopropylene glycol has been extensively studied in both experimental animals and humans. The animal study of Basketter et al., 1998 involved Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) in CBA mice (4/dose) using propylene glycol as 50% aqueous solution and as a neat substance. The stimulation indices were 1.2 and 1.6, respectively. Guillot et al., 1983 performed an evaluation of different protocols, including Magnusson-Kligman assay and Split adjuvant test, to assess the sensitizing properties of monopropylene glycol in guinea pigs. Guinea pigs were induced and challenged epicutaneously under occlusive conditions. Both tests gave negative results using neat substance. Also negative results in Magnusson-Kligman assay were reported by Kero et al. (1980), who used 70% aqueous solution of monopropylene glycol in water.
Also numerous reports on the investigation of sensitizing potential of monopropylene glycol in humans appeared in the literature, out of which those considered to be most reliable are briefly summarized here. Two repeated insult patch tests with monopropylene glycol using human volunteers under occlusive (Consumer Product Testing Co., 1999) and semi-occlusive (Consumer Product Testing Co., 1999) conditions were available for assessment. Approximately 0.2 ml of the test material was applied as a either occluded or semi-occluded patch to the upper back of 113 volunteers (as a neat substance for subjects 1-47 only, and as a 50% aqueous solution for the rest of the panel). Patches were applied three times per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) for a total of nine applications and were removed 24 hours after application. Approximately 2 weeks after the final induction patch application, a challenge patch was applied to a virgin test site adjacent to the original induction patch site, following the same procedure described for induction. The patch was removed and the site scored 24- and 72-hr post-application. One hundred and four subjects completed the study. With the exception of one subject, observations remained within normal limits throughout the test interval. One subject was observed to be hypersensitive in an irritant manner, throughout the induction and challenge phases of the study. Under the conditions of the study, monopropylene glycol did not cause allergic contact dermatitis.
Lessmann et al., 2005, reported the analysis of patch test data of 45138 patients with suspected allergic contact eczema, who have been tested with 20% aqueous solution of monopropylene glycol between 1992 and 2002. Out of these, 1044 patients (2.3%) tested positive, 1083 showed a doubtful, follicular or erythematous reaction (2.4%) and 271 explicit irritant reactions (0.6%). This profile of patch test reactions is indicative of a slightly irritant preparation, and thus, many of the "weak positive" reactions must probably be interpreted as false positive. No private or occupational exposures associated with an increased risk of monopropylene glycol sensitization were identified, except for lower leg dermatitis. The authors concluded that monopropylene glycol exhibits very low sensitization potential, and the risk for sensitization to monopropylene glycol on uncompromized skin appears to be very low.
Very similar findings have been reported by Warshaw et a., 2009, who performed a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data compiled by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (MACDG) from 1996 to 2006 to characterize the prevalence of positive patch-test reactions to monopropylene glycol and the epidemiology of affected patients. Out of a total of 23359 patients tested by NACDG between 1996 and 2006, 810 patients (3.5%) had an allergic patch-test reaction to 30% aqueous solution of monopropylene glycol. Of these allergic reactions, 12.8% were of definite clinical relevance (positive reaction to a personal product containing monopropylene glycol), 88.3% were considered to be currently relevant (definite, probably or possible relevance) and 4.2% were occupation related. Overall, the results concur with the conclusions of the study of Lessmann et al., 2005, suggesting that monopropylene glycol is a weak sensitizer.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Based on the several animal studies and the data from human study (two retrospective cohort studies and repeated insult patch tests with human volunteers), it is concluded that monopropylene glycol is not a skin sensitizer.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
No data on respiratory sensitization are available. However, in accordance with Section 1 of REACH Annex XI, the study is scientifically unjustified, as respiratory tract sensitization is not expected based on the fact that monopropylene glycol is not skin sensitizer and no human data are available indicating a concern for respiratory sensitization.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the negative results from several animal studies, available studies with human volunteers and two cohort studies, classification of monopropylene glycol as skin and respiratory tract sensitizer is not warranted in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC and EU Classification, Labeling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP) 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.