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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

No effects seen in skin or eyes

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin irritation / corrosion

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
July 1981
Reliability:
4 (not assignable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
documentation insufficient for assessment
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
other: KLIGMAN, A. (1966) The Identification of Contact Allergens by Human Assay, III. The Maximisation Test: A Procedure for Screening and Rating Contact Sensitizers. THE JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY. 47 (5). p393-409.
Deviations:
not specified
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
study pre-dates GLP introduction
Species:
human
Strain:
other: Homo sapiens
Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
Twenty-nine healthy adult male and female volunteers were screened and twenty-two completed the study.
Type of coverage:
occlusive
Preparation of test site:
not specified
Vehicle:
not specified
Controls:
yes
Duration of treatment / exposure:
72 hours
Observation period:
72 hours
Number of animals:
22
Details on study design:
see below
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Time point:
72 h
Score:
0
Irritant / corrosive response data:
Data sheets with final tabulations are shown below. 5% SLS produced very little irritation in this group.

2,6-DIMETHYL 2-HEPTENAL 7

Subject No. Challenge
SLS NO SLS
48-hrs 72-hrs 48-hrs 72-hrs
1 N N N N
2 N N N N
3 N N N N
4 Disqualified
5 N N N N
6 Cancel
7 Cancel
8 N N N N
9 N N N N
10 N N N N
11 N N N N
12 N N N N
13 N N N N
14 N N N N
15 Cancel
16 N N N N
17 Cancel
18 N N N N
19 N N N N
20 N N N N
21 N N N N
22 N N N N
23 N N N N
24 N N N N
25 N N N N
26 N N N N
27 Cancel
28 N N N N
29 Cancel

Petrolatum Control

Subject No. Challenge
SLS NO SLS
48-hrs 72-hrs 48-hrs 72-hrs
1 N N N N
2 N N N N
3 N N N N
4 Disqualified
5 N N N N
6 Cancel
7 Cancel
8 N N N N
9 N N N N
10 N N N N
11 N N N N
12 N N N N
13 N N N N
14 N N N N
15 Cancel
16 N N N N
17 Cancel
18 N N N N
19 N N N N
20 N N N N
21 N N N N
22 N N N N
23 N N N N
24 N N N N
25 N N N N
26 N N N N
27 Cancel
28 N N N N
29 Cancel
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
2,6-DIMETHYL 2-HEPTENAL produced no reactions and were not considered significantly irritant or allergic in the 22 subjects tested.
Executive summary:

Twenty-two healthy male and female volunteers were screened and completed the study.

The material was applied under occlusion. Following a ten to fourteen day rest period challenge patches of all materials were applied under occlusion to fresh sites for 48 hours.

No reactions were observed from the 22 subjects screened.

Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
May 1974
Reliability:
4 (not assignable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
documentation insufficient for assessment
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
other: KLIGMAN, A. (1966) The Identification of Contact Allergens by Human Assay, III. The Maximisation Test: A Procedure for Screening and Rating Contact Sensitizers. THE JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY. 47 (5). p393-409.
Deviations:
not specified
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
pre-dates GLP introduction
Species:
other: human
Strain:
other: Homo sapiens
Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
Twenty-nine healthy adult male and female volunteers were screened and twenty-two completed the study.
Type of coverage:
occlusive
Preparation of test site:
not specified
Vehicle:
not specified
Controls:
yes
Amount / concentration applied:
4%
Duration of treatment / exposure:
48 hours
Observation period:
48 hours
Number of animals:
22
Irritation parameter:
other: Maximization Test
Time point:
other: on removal of the patch
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Irritation parameter:
other: Maximisation Test
Time point:
24 h
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Irritation parameter:
other: Maximisation Test
Time point:
48 h
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Irritant / corrosive response data:
Data sheets with final tabulations are shown below. 4% SLS produced very little irritation in this group.

The data sheets with final tabulations are shown below. As can be seen from the data sheets, 1% SLS produced very little irritation. No evidence of contact sensitization was observed in the 22 test subjects.

Dimethyl Heptenal

Subject No. Challenge
SLS NO SLS SLS NO SLS
48-hrs 72-hrs 48-hrs 72-hrs 96-hrs 96-hrs
1 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
2 Black 0 ± 0 0    
3 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
4 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
5 Black 0 0 0 0    
6 Black (Dropped - Now Show)
7 Black 0 0 0 0    
8 Caucasian (Paroled)
9 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
10 Black 0 0 0 0    
11 Caucasian 0 ± 0 0    
12 Caucasian 0 B 0 0 B 0
13 Caucasian 0 B 0 0 B-H 0
14 Caucasian B 0 0 0    
15 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
16 Caucasian (Dropped - W-Wing)
17 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
18 Caucasian 1-B 0 0 0    
19 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
20 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
21 Caucasian B 0 0 0    
22 Caucasian 0 B 0 0 B 0
23 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    
24 Caucasian 0 ± 0 0    
25 Caucasian 0 0 0 0    

Petrolatum Control

Subject No. Challenge
SLS NO SLS SLS NO SLS
48-hrs 72-hrs 48-hrs 72-hrs 96-hrs 96-hrs
1 Caucasian     0 0    
2 Black     0 0    
3 Caucasian     0 0    
4 Caucasian     0 0    
5 Black     0 0    
6 Black (Dropped - Now Show)
7 Black     0 0    
8 Caucasian (Paroled)
9 Caucasian     0 0    
10 Black     0 0    
11 Caucasian     0 0    
12 Caucasian     0 0   0
13 Caucasian     0 0   0
14 Caucasian     0 0    
15 Caucasian     0 0    
16 Caucasian (Dropped - W-Wing)
17 Caucasian     0 0    
18 Caucasian     0 0    
19 Caucasian     0 0    
20 Caucasian     0 0    
21 Caucasian     0 0    
22 Caucasian     0 0   0
23 Caucasian     0 0    
24 Caucasian     0 0    
25 Caucasian     0 0    
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
The test substance produced no reactions that were considered allergenic in the 22 subjects tested.
Executive summary:

A study was carried out on 22 healthy male inmate volunteers according to the method of Kligman (1966). The test substance was applied with and without pretreatment with SLS, and volunteers monitored for 72 hours, with some also being observed at 96 hours also. The results indicate no contact sensitzation or irritation was observed in the study.

Endpoint:
skin irritation: in vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
March 1974
Reliability:
4 (not assignable)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
documentation insufficient for assessment
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
other: Irritation assessed during an acute dermal LD50 study.
Deviations:
not specified
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
pre-dates GLP
Specific details on test material used for the study:
Sample marking: Dimethyl heptenal (Melonal)
Species:
rabbit
Strain:
not specified
Type of coverage:
occlusive
Preparation of test site:
not specified
Vehicle:
not specified
Controls:
yes
Observation period:
14 days
Number of animals:
4
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Basis:
animal #1
Time point:
14 d
Score:
> 5
Remarks on result:
other: greater than 5 gms/kg
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Basis:
animal #2
Time point:
14 d
Score:
> 5
Remarks on result:
other: greater than 5 gms/kg
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Basis:
animal #3
Time point:
14 d
Score:
> 5
Remarks on result:
other: greater than 5 gms/kg
Irritation parameter:
overall irritation score
Basis:
animal #4
Time point:
14 d
Score:
> 5
Remarks on result:
other: greater than 5 gms/kg
Irritation parameter:
erythema score
Remarks:
Mild
Basis:
mean
Time point:
24 h
Score:
0
Reversibility:
fully reversible within: 24hrs
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation

Symptomatology: Mild erythema on rabbits lasting 24 hours.

Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
Mild erythema on rabbits lasting 24 hours.
Executive summary:

Irritation was assessed during an acute dermal LD50 study on a group of 4 rabbits. Dermal irritation acores were all zero over the 14 day period. Mild erythema lasting 24 hours was observed. Melonal was therefore considered to be a mild irritant resulting in no classification.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Eye irritation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
13 January 2017
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 437 (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Specific details on test material used for the study:
Identification: Melonal
Appearance: Colourless to pale yellow liquid
Batch: PE00166491
Species:
other: Bovine eyes from young cattle were obtained from the slaughterhouse (Vitelco, 's Hertogenbisch, The Netherlands), where the eyes were excised by a slaughthouse employee as soon as possible after slaughter.
Strain:
not specified
Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
Bovine eyes from young cattle were obtained from the slaughterhouse (Vitelco, 's Hertogenbisch, The Netherlands), where the eyes were excised by a slaughthouse employee as soon as possible after slaughter. Eyes were collected and transported in physiological saline in a suitable container under cooled conditions. The eyes were checked for unacceptable defects, such as opacity, scratches, pigmentation and neovascularization by removing them from the physiological saline and holding them in the light. Those exhibiting defects were discarded. The isolated corneas were stored in a petri dish with cMEM (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium (Life Technologies, Bleiswijk, The Netherlands) containing 1% (v/v) L-glutamine (Life Technologies) and 1% (v/v) Foetal Bovine Serum (Life Technologies)).
Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Controls:
yes, concurrent positive control
yes, concurrent negative control
Irritation parameter:
in vitro irritation score
Value:
9.5
Vehicle controls validity:
valid
Negative controls validity:
valid
Positive controls validity:
valid
Remarks on result:
other:
Remarks:
In vitro irritancy score (IVIS) = mean opacity value + (15 x mean OD490 value)
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
No category. Since Melonal induced an IVIS > 3 ≤ 55, no prediction on the classification can be made.
Executive summary:

The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range indicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas.The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (Ethanol) was 43 and was within two standard deviations of the current historical positive control mean (Appendix 3,Table 6). It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly.

Melonal induced ocular irritation through both endpoints, resulting in a mean in vitro irritancy score of 9.5 after 10 minutes of treatment.

Since Melonal induced an IVIS > 3 ≤ 55, no prediction on the classification can be made.

Endpoint:
eye irritation, other
Type of information:
(Q)SAR
Adequacy of study:
weight of evidence
Study period:
3rd February 2017
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model and falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
Justification for type of information:
1. SOFTWARE
QSAR Toolbox version 3.4.0.17
Database version 3.8.8 / 3.1.2

2. MODEL (incl. version number)
Not applicable

3. SMILES OR OTHER IDENTIFIERS USED AS INPUT FOR THE MODEL
CC(CCC=C(C)C)C=O

4. SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE (Q)SAR MODEL
Toxicity of the target chemical (not irritating) is predicted from category members using read-across based on 10 values (not irritating x6, NOT_SPECIFIED x3, Irritating to eyes (Category 2) x1) from 10 nearest neighbours compared by prediction descriptors. Category members are single chemicals or mixtures and are selected based on the profile of the target chemical. Only chemicals having experimental data are listed in the category.

5. APPLICABILITY DOMAIN
The target chemical FALLS within applicability domain of the prediction (see Section 4.3 of QSAR Toolbox report for details).

6. ADEQUACY OF THE RESULT
The data used for calculating the current prediction is taken from 12 experimental values selected from the following database(s):
1. ECHA CHEM

For further details see the attached QSAR Toolbox report.
Guideline:
other:
Version / remarks:
REACH Guidance: Chapter R.6: QSARs and grouping of chemicals, May 2008.
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Category formation using QSAR Toolbox and datagap filling using trend analysis
Specific details on test material used for the study:
SMILES USED AS FOR THE MODEL
CC(CCC=C(C)C)C=O

The registration substance is a monoconstituent substance with a purity of => 85%. The QSAR prediction has been performed on the structure of the single constituent.
One impurity (CAS 203-816-7) may be present in the registered substance at levels of between 5.0% to 15.0% (see endpoint record 1.2). The impurity is not relevant for classification and labelling and is not expected to significantly affect the eye irritation/corrosion result.
Irritation parameter:
other: QSAR Prediction
Remarks on result:
no indication of irritation
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
Outcome: The prediction is based on 10 neighbours' values, 6 of them equal to prediction.
Prediction confidence is measured by the p-value = 1.91E-14 (very strong confidence)

Conclusion: Not irritating.
Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not irritating)

Additional information

Skin

Twenty-two healthy male and female volunteers were screened and completed the study.

The material was applied under occlusion. Following a ten to fourteen day rest period challenge patches of all materials were applied under occlusion to fresh sites for 48 hours.

No reactions were observed from the 22 subjects screened and also the Epstein (1974) skin sensitisation study.

Eyes

In several studies, The preparation was tested in ocular irritation test according to DRAIZE 8 albino rabbits (4 males and 4 females) on mucosal tolerance. 

0.1 ml of a 50% solution diluted in olive oil was instilled in the conjunctival sac of an animal eye and, while closing the upper and lower lid for one minute. The other eye was treated with water as a control. 1 minute after application, the treated eyes were rinsed for 1 minute with 10-20 ml of lukewarm saline solution in half of the animals.

No reactions were observed in the ocular mucosa. Spontaneous defense reactions were also not observed.

In a 2017 a Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) study on the test substance Melonal induced an IVIS > 3 ≤ 55, (mean in vitro irritancy score of 9.5 after 10 minutes of treatment). Since Melonal induced an IVIS > 3 ≤ 55, no prediction on the classification can be made. A QSAR Toolbox prediction was subsequently run which concluded that Melonal was non-irritating to the eyes. The substance is therefore considered non-irritating to the eyes.



Justification for classification or non-classification

No effects seen in either skin or eye studies.

The substance is therefore not considered classified for irritation endpoints.