1-O-β-(2 ,3-di-O-alka(e)noyl-6 -O-acetyl-D-mannopyranosyl)-D-erythritol

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Weight-of-Evidence:

Acute Toxicity: Oral: LD50 => 2,000 mg/kg bw; OECD 423; K. Oba, BS., 2001

Acute Toxicity: Oral: LD50 (predicted; range for all constituents) 5,458.83 - 19,771.90mg/kg; REACH guidance on QSARs R.6; Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. (2008)

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Acute toxicity: via oral route

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Study period:

26 Feb - 05 April 2007

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

significant methodological deficiencies

Remarks:

Non-GLP study conducted to a method similar to OECD 423 but with methodological deficiencies.

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 423 (Acute Oral toxicity - Acute Toxic Class Method)

Version / remarks:

2001

Deviations:

yes

Remarks:

only 7 days observations

GLP compliance:

no

Remarks:

The experiment was performed in 2007, therefore pre-dating 1st June 2008 cut off after which GLP compliance is necessary for toxicological tests. The report is dated 2019, because this is when the report itself was finalised.

Test type:

other: Method similar to acute toxicity classic

Limit test:

no

Species:

rat

Strain:

other: Slc:Wistar [SPF]

Sex:

female

Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Japan SLC , Inc.
- Females (if applicable) nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Age at study initiation: 5-6 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 103 - 107 g
- Fasting period before study: yes (17 hour)
- Housing: Animals were individually housed in wire mesh cage, 19.7W×26.3D×18.0H (cm), One animal/cage (during the study).
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): CRF-1
(Oriental Yeast, Lot No. 061108) sterilized by irradiated ad libitum (except when fasted).
- Water (e.g. ad libitum): tap water from automated water supply system ad libitum. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 20.0−26.0°C
- Humidity (%): 35.0−75.0%
- Air changes (per hr): 12 or more times air changes per hour
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12 : 12
IN-LIFE DATES: 26/2/ 2007 – 15/3/2007

Route of administration:

oral: gavage

Vehicle:

corn oil

Details on oral exposure:

The test item was administered to animals fasted for 17 hrs by a single gavage using a stomach tube. The dose volume was 0.5 mL per 100g body weight and the individual volume was calculated from each body weight value obtained before the administration.

Doses:

2000 mg/kg

No. of animals per sex per dose:

3

Control animals:

no

Details on study design:

A dose of 2,000 mg/kg was administered to three females, this is followed by observation within 30 minutes, once each at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 hours after dosing. From the next day after dosing (from day 1 – 7), the animals were observed once daily.

Statistics:

No statistical analysis was conducted

Preliminary study:

No preliminary study conducted.

Key result

Sex:

female

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

>= 2 000 mg/kg bw

Based on:

test mat.

Remarks on result:

other: No adverse effects observed

Mortality:

No deaths reported

Clinical signs:

other: No effects observed

Gross pathology:

No grossly visible abnormalities were observed in any animal at 2,000 mg/kg.

Other findings:

None

Table 2. Results and observations after dosing

Dose level (mg/kg) 2000	Animal I.D No.	Body weight (g) days after dosing		Anatomical Finding (days after dosing)	Mortality (days after dosing)	Clinical Observation (days after dosing)
		0*	7	7	7	7
	1	103	137	No abnormality observed	None observed	None observed
	2	105	136	No abnormality observed	None observed	None observed
	3	107	128	No abnormality observed	None observed	None observed

*Just before administration

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) of the test item in the female Wistar strain rat was estimated to be greater than 2000 mg/kg body weight (Globally Harmonized Classification System Unclassified).

Executive summary:

Methodology similar to OECD 423 (2001) - In an acute oral toxicity study, three group of female Wistar rats (5 -6 week old) were given a single oral dose of the test item using a gavage at dose rate of 2000 mg/kg bw followed by 7 days observation.

No mortality was noted during the observation period, no effects on body weight and no overt toxicological changes were noted. The oral LD50 was estimated to be greater than 2000 mg/kg bw.

In conclusion, the test item did not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the majority of predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in this record. The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 1 representative name: Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14
Constituent 1a: O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCCCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO
Constituent 1b is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

9 580.53 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 1a.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 1a	Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	22,478.18	4,755.20 ≤ Tox ≤ 106,256.00	2,973.94	731.56 ≤ Tox ≤ 12,089.78	13,154.50	9,580.53

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 1a would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 1a is presented here. Two predictions were run for the constituent: saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14, in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 1b is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in this record. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀ data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀ (mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 1a was 9,580.53 mg/kg.

Reference 3

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the majority of predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 1 representative name: Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14
Constituent 1b: O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCCCCCCCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO
Constituent 1a is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

5 458.83 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 1b.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 1b	Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	14,871.70	4,609.59 ≤ Tox ≤ 47,979.86	761.12	174.99 ≤ Tox ≤ 3,310.53	14,371.01	5,458.83

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 1b would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 1b is presented here. Two predictions were run for the constituent: saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14, in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 1a is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀ data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀ (mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 1b was 5,458.83 mg/kg.

Reference 4

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the majority of predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

The following representative structure was used to make the prediction for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 2 representative name: Saturated odd and even numbered fatty acids C8 and C13:
O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCCCCCCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

9 448.11 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 2.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 2	Saturated odd and even numbered fatty acids C8 and C13	22,470.35	7,359.42 ≤ Tox ≤ 68,608.18	2,668.26	657.51 ≤ Tox ≤ 10,828.09	14,066.88	9,448.11

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 2 would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 2 is presented here.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 2 was 9,448.11 mg/kg.

Reference 5

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the predictions for this constituent.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 3 representative name: Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14
Constituent 3a: O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CC/C=C/CCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO
Constituent 3b is presented in a separate IUCID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

12 055.9 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 3a.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 3a	Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	83,173.20	11,462.52 ≤ Tox ≤ 603,512.98	1,606.90	577.71 ≤ Tox ≤ 4,469.58	13,110.71	12,055.90

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 3a would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 3a is presented here. Two predictions were run for the constituent (unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14), in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 3b is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity for constituent 3a (Consensus method) was 12,055.90 mg/kg.

Reference 6

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the majority of predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 3 representative name: Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14
Constituent 3b: O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCC/C=C/CCCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO
Constituent 3a is presented in a separate IUCID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

5 611.78 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 3b.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 3b	Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	17,877.80	4,960.78 ≤ Tox ≤ 64,428.57	689.96	158.78 ≤ Tox ≤ 2,998.13	14,327.22	5,611.78

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 3b would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 3b is presented here. Two predictions were run for the constituent (unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14) in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 3a is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 3b was 5,611.78 mg/kg.

Reference 7

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the predictions for this constituent.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

The following representative structure was used to make the prediction for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 4 representative name: Unsaturated (1 double bond) odd and even numbered fatty acids C8 and C13:
O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCC/C=C/CCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

7 204.73 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 4.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 4	Unsaturated (1 double bond) odd and even numbers fatty acids C8 and C13	16,936.19	2,627.16 ≤ Tox ≤ 109,180.60	1,574.68	467.42 ≤ Tox ≤ 5,304.96	14,023.09	7,204.73

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 4 would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 4 is presented here.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in this record. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 4 was 7,204.73 mg/kg.

Reference 8

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the of predictions of this constituent.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

The following representative structure was used to make the prediction for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 5 representative name: Unsaturated (2 double bonds) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14:
O=C(CCCCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCC/C=C/CC/C=C/CCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

9 363.49 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 5.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 5	Unsaturated (2 double bonds) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	99,028.87	14,392.37 ≤ Tox ≤ 681,383.35	580.39	186.40 ≤ Tox ≤ 1,807.09	14,283.44	9,363.49

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 5 would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 5 is presented here.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀ data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 5 was 9,363.49 mg/kg.

Reference 9

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the half of the predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 6 representative name: Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains
Constituent 6a: O=C(CCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCCCCCC/C=C/CCCCCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@]([H])(O)[C@]([H])(O)CO
Constituent 6b is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

19 771.9 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 6a.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 6a	Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains   R1 = C18; R2 = C4; 1 double bond)	35,844.75	10,124.03 ≤ Tox ≤ 126,910.49	14,437.78	566.46 ≤ Tox ≤ 367,985.49	14,935.48	19,771.90

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 6a would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 6a is presented here. Two predictions were run for the constituent: mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains, in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 6b is presented in a seperate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 6a was 19,771.90 mg/kg.

Reference 10

Endpoint:

acute toxicity: oral

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

3 (not reliable)

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

Remarks:

A reliability of 3 is assigned for this QSAR due to the statistical results for the mean absolute error, which evaluates the prediction accuracy (please refer to the QMRFs and QPRF for further details). The prediction accuracy was judged not to be satisfactory for the majority of predictions.

Justification for type of information:

Please see the QPRF and QMRFs attached in the IUCLID record for constituent 1a (these are relevant for all constituent predictions). The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) programme was used. Please note that the Consensus method predictions are used to fulfil the endpoint for the QSAR aspect of the weight-of-evidence. The other three reported methods (FDA, Hierarchical and Nearest Neighbor) all feature in the Consensus method - an average of these first three methods is taken for the Consensus method result.

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

(Q)SAR model reporting (QMRF)

Remarks:

and (Q)SAR prediction reporting format (QPRF)

Guideline:

other:

Version / remarks:

REACH Guidance on QSARs R.6

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Martin, T., Harten, P., Venkatapathy R. and Young, D. U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool. 2008.

Specific details on test material used for the study:

In order to achieve a sufficiently representative result, two representative structures were used to make predictions for this constituent. The SMILES used for input in the model are as follows:

Constituent 6 representative name: Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains
Constituent 6b: O=C(CCCC/C=C/CCCCC)O[C@H]1C(OC(CCCC/C=C/CCCCC)=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COC(C)=O)O[C@H]1OC[C@@](O)([H])[C@@](O)([H])CO
Constituent 6a is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

Key result

Dose descriptor:

LD50

Effect level:

13 050.08 other: mg/kg

Based on:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR prediction

Remarks on result:

other:

Remarks:

QSAR predicted value, Consensus Method

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for constituent 6b.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 6b	Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains   R1 = C11; R2 = C11; 2 double bonds)	17,729.02	2,120.99 ≤ Tox ≤ 148,194.35	8,418.03	2,725.73≤ Tox ≤ 25,997.94	14,891.69	13,050.08

*One is 90 % confident that the predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

According to the Consensus method (Q)SAR run using the EPA T.E.S.T. software, constituent 6b would not be classified as acutely toxic via the oral route in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

Executive summary:

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. The result for constituent 6b is presented here.

Two predictions were run for the constituent: mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains, in order to obtain representative prediction results. Constituent 6a is presented in a separate IUCLID record.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in the record for constituent 1a. The Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also achieved the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg). The predicted acute oral toxicity (Consensus method) for constituent 6b was 13,050.08 mg/kg.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed

Quality of whole database:

A weight-of-evidence approach has been taken to fulfill the endpoint, utilising an in vivo experimental study and (Q)SAR predictions.

Acute toxicity: via inhalation route

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Acute toxicity: via dermal route

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

A weight-of-evidence approach has been used to fulfil the acute toxicity oral endpoint. An in vivo study conducted using a method similar to an OECD 423 is described below. The test animals were only observed for 7 days post-exposure, instead of 14 days as stipulated by the guideline. Due to the defiency of the in vivo study, a QSAR approach has also been used in order to form the weight-of-evidence. A summary of this is also provided below.

Methodology similar to OECD 423 (2018)

In an acute oral toxicity study, three group of  5-6 week old female Wistar rats were given a single oral dose of the test item using a gavage at dose rate of 2000 mg/kg bw and observed for 7 days.

No mortality was noted during the observation period, no effects on body weight and no overt toxicological changes were noted. The oral LD50 was estimated to be greater than 2000 mg/kg bw.

In conclusion, the test item did not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.

(Q)SAR (2019)

A (Q)SAR approach has been used as part of a weight-of-evidence for supporting the acute toxicity oral endpoint.

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) (2008) was used to predict the acute oral toxicity for each constituent of the test substance. Two predictions were run for each constituent (except one), with the SMILES for each reflecting the minimum and maximum carbon chain length. Therefore, the results are given as a range for each constituent.

The T.E.S.T. software offers four methods for predicting acute oral toxicity.

These are:

-FDA

-Hierarchical

-Nearest Neighbor

-Consensus

These methods are discussed in individual QMRFs attached in Section 7.2.1 (see record for constituent 1a). The results are presented in a QPRF attached in Section 7.2.1 (see record for constituent 1a).

Of the methods described above, the Consensus method is considered to produce the most reliable results. It takes an average from the other three methods, thereby dampening errant predictions and this method also acheived the best results during external validation. All methods formulate predictions based on an acute oral rat LD₅₀data set formed of experimental values. The output from the model is -Log10 (LD₅₀mol/kg), converted to LD₅₀(mg/kg).

The U.S. EPA T.E.S.T. predictions using the Consensus method are presented below for all constituents.

Substance identifier	Substance name	FDA Method		Hierarchical Method		Nearest Neighbor Method	Consensus Method
		Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50interval (mg/kg)*	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)	Predicted LD50value (mg/kg)
Constituent 1a	Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	22,478.18	4,755.20 ≤ Tox ≤ 106,256.00	2,973.94	731.56 ≤ Tox ≤ 12,089.78	13,154.50	9,580.53
Constituent 1b	Saturated even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	14,871.70	4,609.59 ≤ Tox ≤ 47,979.86	761.12	174.99 ≤ Tox ≤ 3,310.53	14,371.01	5,458.83
Constituent 2	Saturated odd and even numbered fatty acids C8 and C13	22,470.35	7,359.42 ≤ Tox ≤ 68,608.18	2,668.26	657.51 ≤ Tox ≤ 10,828.09	14,066.88	9,448.11
Constituent 3a	Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	83,173.20	11,462.52 ≤ Tox ≤ 603,512.98	1,606.90	577.71 ≤ Tox ≤ 4,469.58	13,110.71	12,055.90
Constituent 3b	Unsaturated (1 double bond) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	17,877.80	4,960.78 ≤ Tox ≤ 64,428.57	689.96	158.78 ≤ Tox ≤ 2,998.13	14,327.22	5,611.78
Constituent 4	Unsaturated (1 double bond) odd and even numbered fatty acids C8 and C13	16,936.19	2,627.16 ≤ Tox ≤ 109,180.60	1,574.68	467.42 ≤ Tox ≤ 5,304.96	14,023.09	7,204.73
Constituent 5	Unsaturated (2 double bonds) even numbered fatty acids C8 to C14	99,028.87	14,392.37 ≤ Tox ≤ 681,383.35	580.39	186.40 ≤ Tox ≤ 1,807.09	14,283.44	9,363.49
Constituent 6a	Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains	35,844.75	10,124.03 ≤ Tox ≤ 126,910.49	14,437.78	566.46 ≤ Tox ≤ 367,985.49	14,935.48	19,771.90
Constituent 6b	Mixed unsaturated, total carbon number C24 fatty acid side chains	17,729.02	2,120.99 ≤ Tox ≤ 148,194.35	8,418.03	2,725.73≤ Tox ≤ 25,997.94	14,891.69	13,050.08

*One is 90 % confident that predicted value is between x and y according to the results x≤ Tox ≤y

The range for the predicted acute oral toxicity for all constituents is 5,458.83 - 19,771.90 mg/kg. Based on the individual constituent QSAR predictions, none of the constituents of the test substance met the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP). Using mixture toxicity principles, the calculated mixture toxicity value was calculated to be 8,330.67 mg/kg bw. This value exceeds the criteria for classification according to CLP.

It can be considered in the context of these QSAR constituent results, based on additive mixture toxicity principles, that the test substance as a whole would also not be acutely toxic via the oral route.

These predictions are corroborated by the in vivo study conclusion that the substance would not be classified for acute oral toxicity according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.

Justification for classification or non-classification

The test item did not meet the criteria for classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures.