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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 272-657-3 | CAS number: 68901-15-5
- 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
Skin sensitisation (OECD 406): not skin sensitising
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:
- key study
- Study period:
- 17 Feb - 02 Apr 1999
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 1992
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 1996
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Remarks:
- THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- The test was done before LLNA as first-choice method for in-vivo testing was set into force.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- male
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Age at study initiation: approx. 8 - 12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 338 - 426 g
- Housing: singly or in pairs in solid-floor polypropylene cages, bedding woodflakes
- Diet: Guinea Pig FD1 Diet (Special Services Limited, Witham, UK) ad libitum
- Water: mains tap water, ad libitum, analysis was performed
- Acclimation period: minimum 5 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 17 - 23
- Humidity (%): 30 - 70
- Air changes (per hr): approx. 15
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- 100%
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 0 - 14
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest concentration used causing mild-to-moderate skin irritation and well-tolerated systemically
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: ethanol/diethylphtalate 1:1
- Concentration / amount:
- 50% (v/v) and 100%
- Day(s)/duration:
- Day 28
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- 10 (controls), 20 (test groups)
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
The concentrations of test material to be used at each stage of the main study were determined by sighting tests in which groups of guinea pigs were treated with various concentrations of test material. 4 animals were used: 2 animals for the topical induction and 2 for the topical challenge.
For the topical induction 2 animals were treated with 4 concentrations of the test item (10%, 25%, 50% and 100%). Applications were made to the clipped flanks under occlusive conditions for 6 h. The highest concentration of the test item producing only minimal dermal irritation was selected for the topical induction stage of the main study.
For the topical challenge 2 animals were treated with 2 concentrations of the test item (50% and 100%). Previously, the animals had been treated identically to the control animals of the main study an Days 0, 7 and 14. Applications were made to the clipped flanks under occlusive conditions for 6 h. The highest concentration of the test item which produced no evidence of dermal irritation, and 50% of the maximum non-irritant concentration were selected for the topical challenge stage of the main study.
MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 3
- Exposure period: 6 h
- Test groups: undiluted test substance
- Control group: a blank patch was applied
- Site: left flank
- Frequency of applications: every 7 days
- Duration: Days 0-14
- Concentrations: 100%, under occlusive conditions
B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day of challenge: 28
- Exposure period: 6 h
- Test groups: test substance and test substance in ethanol/diethylphthalate 1:1
- Control group: test substance and test substance in ethanol/diethylphthalate 1:1
- Site: right flank (100% test substance) and a separate skin site on the right flank (50% test substance)
- Concentrations: 50% and 100%
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 24 and 48 h after patch removal - Challenge controls:
- The control group is actually a challenge control.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, topical induction and challenge: 50% in acetone/Peg 400 (70:30)
- Positive control results:
- A reliability test with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (50% in acetone/Peg 400 (70:30)) was performed not more than 6 months previously (Feb 1999) using the same animal supplier. The incidence of sensitisation was 55% (11 out of 20 animals).
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- Induction: 0%; Challenge: 50% and 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- Induction: 100%; challenge: 50% and 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- Induction: 0%; challenge: 50% and 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- Induction: 100%; challenge: 50% and 100%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Key result
- Reading:
- other: not specified
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 50% in induction and challenge
- No. with + reactions:
- 11
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of the Buehler test the test substance revealed no sensitising properties.
Reference
Bodyweight gains of animals in the test group, between Day 0 and Day 30, were comparable to those observed in the control group animals over the same period.
No skin reactions were noted at the topical induction sites of test or control group animals at the 1, 8 or 15-day observations.
No skin reactions were noted at the challenge sites of the test or control group animals at the 24 or 48-hour observations.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The skin sensitising potential of the test substance was determined by a Buehler (Key study) and a guinea pig maximisation test (Supporting study). In addition, one LLNA test performed in 1995 showing potential sensitising effects using test substance concentrations of 1, 3 and 10% in acetone is available, but was disregarded due to major methodological deficiencies. The study was conducted according to GLP and equivalent to OECD Guideline 429. However, male, not female, CBA mice were used within the study and acetone was used as a non-standard vehicle which is known to enhance transdermal permeation (Marwah et al., 2014). Further, skin reactions (irritation scores and ear thickness) at application site was not evaluated. In addition, EC3 of positive control was below acceptable range of 4.4 - 14.7 as given in OECD TG 429, Table 1 (2010), thus the assay was possibly too sensitive. In conclusion, this study was disregarded.
In a first sensitisation study, the test substance was investigated in a Buehler test according to OECD Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP (1999). The concentrations of test material to be used at the main study were based on a range finding study.
In the main study, 20 animals were used to investigate the skin sensitising potential of the test substance. In addition, 10 animals treated with vehicle served as control. For the topical induction with the undiluted test substance, applications were made to the clipped flanks under occlusive conditions for 6 h on Day 0, 7 and 14. For the topical challenge on Day 28 undiluted and 50% solution test substance in ethanol/diethyl phthalate 1:1 of were apllied to the clipped flanks under occlusive conditions for 6 h.
The undiluted test substance revealed no skin reactions at the topical induction sites on Days 0, 7 and 14. No skin reactions were observed after challenge with undiluted test substance and a 50% solution of the test substance. Body weight gains of animals in the test group, between Day 0 and Day 30, were comparable to the control group.
Based on the results of this Buehler test, the test substance was not regarded as a skin sensitiser under the conditions of the test.
In a second sensitisation study, the test substance was investigated in a guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT) according to OECD Guideline 406 and in compliance with GLP (1989). A range finding study was performed to determine the appropriate dose level of the test substance following intradermal and epicutaneous administrations. For the intradermal administration test substance concentrations of 0.625, 1.25, 2.5 or 5% were injected intradermally ten times in two animals each. No skin reactions were observed up to the highest concentration tested. For the epicutaneous administration test substance concentrations of 25, 50 and 100% were applied each to the skin of two animals. Exposure to the undiluted test substance resulted in slight erythema. No skin reactions were observed at 25 and 50%. In order to find the highest non-irritant test substance concentration for the challenge application test substance concentrations of 12.5, 25 and 50% were applied epicutaneously to the skin of four animals each. Slight erythema (score 1) was observed as a result of the treatment with 50% test substance concentration. No skin reactions were observed at 12.5 and 25%. A concentration of 5% (w/w) in paraffin oil was selected for the intradermal induction. A 100% test concentration was chosen for the epicutaneous induction and a concentration of 25% (w/w) in diethyl phthalate was selected for the challenge application.
In the main study, 20 animals were used to investigate the skin sensitising potential of the test substance. In addition, 20 animals treated with vehicle served as control. In the first induction stage no skin reactions were observed following the intradermal injections of 0.05 mL test substance. Intradermal injections of 0.05 mL FCA mixed with test substance or vehicle elicited irritation. On Day 6, 10% SDS was massaged with a glass rod into the skin of the same scapular area in order to provoke a mild inflammatory reaction. The challenge with 0.1 mL of the 25% solution of the test substance in diethyl phthalate on Day 21 revealed no positive skin responses in the control and test group. The animals made normal body weight changes over the duration of the study and exhibited normal appearance and behaviour.
Based on the results of this GPMT, the test substance was not regarded as a skin sensitiser under the conditions of the test.
Further data are available confirming the absense of the skin sensitising potential of the test substance. In human repeated insult patch tests (HRIPT), no reactions considered indicative of skin sensitisation were observed (Api et al., 2015).
References:
Api A. M.et al. (2015), RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, allyl (cyclohexyloxy)acetate, CAS registry number 68901-15-5, Food and Chemical Toxicology, doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.03.016
Harneet Marwah, Tarun Garg, Amit K. Goyal & Goutam Rath (2016), Permeation enhancer strategies in transdermal drug delivery, Drug Delivery, 23:2, 564-578, DOI: 10.3109/10717544.2014.935532
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
The available data on sensitisation of the test substance do not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008, and are therefore conclusive but not sufficient for classification.
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.