[No public or meaningful name is available]

Endpoint summary

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Genetic toxicity in vitro

Description of key information

Based on the available data, it can be concluded that the available data on genotoxicity from the source substances MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., and MDIPA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. can be applied to the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. There is no evidence of mutagenic potential.

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria

Type of information:

read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)

Adequacy of study:

key study

Justification for type of information:

REPORTING FORMAT FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH

1. HYPOTHESIS FOR THE ANALOGUE APPROACH
This read-across is based on the hypothesis that source and target substances have similar toxicological and ecotoxicological properties because they share structural similarities with common functional groups: quaternary amines, esters, and fatty acid chains varying in their length and degree of (un)saturation. Moreover, the fatty acid chains are chemically simple structures which have no structural alerts for toxicity, and which are closely related to substances of known low toxicity (i.e. stearic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid). Furthermore, the substances can be expected to have comparable breakdown products (MDEA or MDIPA and long chain fatty acids).

This read-across hypothesis corresponds to scenario 2 - different compounds have qualitatively and quantitatively the same type of effects - of the read-across assessment framework i.e. properties of the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. are predicted to be similar to those of the source substances MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd., MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. and MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd.

Therefore, read-across from the available physicochemistry, toxicity and ecotoxicity studies with the source substances MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd., MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. and MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. are considered as an appropriate adaptation to the standard information requirements of the REACH Regulation for the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd., in accordance with the provisions of Annex XI, 1.5 of the REACH Regulation.


2. SOURCE AND TARGET CHEMICAL(S) (INCLUDING INFORMATION ON PURITY AND IMPURITIES)
please refer to read-across justification attached to Iuclid section 13

3. ANALOGUE APPROACH JUSTIFICATION
please refer to read-across justification attached to Iuclid section 13

4. DATA MATRIX
please refer to read-across justification attached to Iuclid section 13

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across source

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across source

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across source

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

read-across: supporting information

Species / strain:

S. typhimurium TA 1535

Metabolic activation:

with and without

Genotoxicity:

negative

Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:

cytotoxicity

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

not applicable

Species / strain:

S. typhimurium TA 1537

Metabolic activation:

with and without

Genotoxicity:

negative

Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:

cytotoxicity

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

not applicable

Species / strain:

S. typhimurium TA 98

Metabolic activation:

with and without

Genotoxicity:

negative

Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:

cytotoxicity

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

not applicable

Species / strain:

S. typhimurium TA 100

Metabolic activation:

with and without

Genotoxicity:

negative

Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:

cytotoxicity

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

not applicable

Species / strain:

E. coli WP2 uvr A

Metabolic activation:

with and without

Genotoxicity:

negative

Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:

cytotoxicity

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

not applicable

Conclusions:

negative

Based on read-across from the source substances MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd., MDIPA Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. and MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. is not mutagenic in the bacterial reverse mutation assay.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no adverse effect observed (negative)

Genetic toxicity in vivo

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Additional information

No experimental data are available for the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. However, bacterial reverse mutation assays are available for the structurally related source substances MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., and MDIPA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. 

A justification for read-across is attached to Iuclid section 13.

 

The mutagenic potential of MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. was evaluated in the Bacterial Mutation Test (GLP Ames). The test substance was tested in the bacterial reverse mutation assay using Salmonella typhimurium tester strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and Escherichia coli tester strain WP2 uvrA (pKM101) in the presence and absence of Aroclor-induced rat liver S9. The assay was performed in two phases, using the plate incorporation method. The first phase, the initial mutagenicity assay, was used to establish the dose-range for the confirmatory mutagenicity assay and to provide a preliminary mutagenicity evaluation. The second phase, the confirmatory mutagenicity assay, was used to evaluate and confirm the mutagenic potential of the test substance.

In the initial mutagenicity assay, the maximum dose tested was 5000 ug/plate; this dose was achieved using a concentration of 50 mg/ml and a 100 ul plating aliquot. In the initial mutagenicity assay, the dose levels tested were 1.5, 5.0, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500, and 5000 ug/plate. No positive mutagenic responses were observed. Precipitate was observed beginning at 1500 or at 5000 ug/plate. Toxicity was observed in the absence of S9 activation beginning at 1500 or at 5000 ug/plate with tester strains TA98, TA100 and TA1537.

In the confirmatory mutagenicity assay, no positive mutagenic responses were observed with any of the tester strains in the presence or absence of S9 activation. The dose levels tested were 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500 and 5000 ug/plate. Precipitate was observed beginning at 1500 or at 5000 ug/plate. Toxicity was observed beginning at 1500 or at 5000 ug/plate with tester strains TA98, TA100, TA1537 and WP2 uvrA (pKM101) in the absence of S9 and with tester stains TA100 and TA1535 in the presence of S9 activation.

Under the conditions of this study, the test substance was concluded to be negative with Salmonella typhimurium tester strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 and Escherichia coli tester strain WP2 uvrA (pKM101) in the presence and absence of Aroclor-induced rat liver S9.

 

In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria according to OECD guideline 471, strains TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98, TA 100 of S. typhimurium and E. coli WP2 were exposed to MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. (100% a.i.) in ethanol at concentrations of 0, 3, 10, 33, 100, 333, 1000, 3330 and 5000 μg/plate in the first experiment and 0, 10, 33, 100, 333 and 1000 µg/plate (Salmonella strains) and 0, 100, 333, 1000, 3330 and 5000 µg/plate (E. coli strain) in the second experiment in the presence and absence of mammalian metabolic activation (S9 mix).  

MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd. was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations. There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background.

 

In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria according to OECD guideline 471, strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli WP2 uvrA were exposed to MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd. (100% a.i.) in acetone at concentrations of 0 (control), 62, 185, 556, 1667 and 5000 µg/plate in the first experiment and 0 (control), 22, 67, 200, 600 and 1800 µg/plate in the second experiment in the presence and absence of mammalian metabolic activation (rat liver S9 mix). The assay was performed using the plate incorporation method.

MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd. was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations. Cytotoxic effects were noted starting at 1667 µg/plate in strains TA 1535 without metabolic activation, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 100 with and without metabolic activation and at 5000 µg/plate in TA 1535 with metabolic activation; no cytotoxic effects were seen in E. coli WP 2 uvrA.

Precipitation was observed when the test substance was pipetted into the top agar and later on the agar plates beginning at 556 µg/plate with and without metabolic activation.

There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background. Under the conditions of the study, the test substance was negative for mutagenic potential.

 

Conclusion

Based on the available data, it can be concluded that the available data on genotoxicity from the source substances MDEA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., MDIPA-Esterquat C16-18 and C18 unsatd., and MDIPA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. can be applied to the target substance MDEA-Esterquat C18 unsatd. There is no evidence of mutagenic potential.

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on relevant, reliable and adequate data MDIPA Esterquat C18 unsatd. does not need to be classified and labelled according to the CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 with respect to mutagenicity.