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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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: 619-057-3 | CAS number: 94667-33-1
- 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
Bardap 26 was not a skin sensitiser in the Buehler guinea-pig test.
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:
- 25 August to 30 September 1994
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EU Method B.6 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- no
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Not applicable.
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- In the year 1994 the Buehler Test was a common valid test system for testing of sensitising potential.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Dunkin-Hartley
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- The test animals were female Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs obtained from David Hall Limited, Staffordshire, UK. The guinea pigs were 8-12 weeks old at study initiation and weighed 330 - 440 g. The animals were acclimatised for at least 5 days. They were housed in groups of up to 2 in solid-floor polypropylene cages furnished with woodflakes. The animal room was maintained at a temperature of 19-24°C and relative humidity of 58-67%. There were approximately 15 air changes per hour and lighting was provided on a 12 hour light/dark cycle.
In-life dates: 25 August to 30 September 1994. - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- distilled
- Concentration / amount:
- 1% v/v in distilled water
- Day(s)/duration:
- 1
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Remarks:
- distilled
- Concentration / amount:
- 1% and 0.5% v/v in distilled water
- Day(s)/duration:
- 1, 2
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- Treatment group: 20 guinea pigs
Controls: 10 guinea pigs
Positive controls: 20 - Details on study design:
- Range finding - topical induction
Two previously untreated guinea pigs were treated with 0.5 ml of the undiluted test material and three concentrations in distilled water (75%, 50% and 25% v/v). These animals were killed for humane reasons immediately after dressing removal due to severe dermal necrosis. Two more guinea pigs were treated with the test substance in distilled water at 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% v/v. The highest concentration of the test substance producing only mild irritation after a 6 hour occlusive dermal exposure was selected for the topical induction stage of the main study.
Range finding - topical challenge
Two guinea pigs were treated with 0.5 ml of each of four concentrations of the test material in distilled water (2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.2% v/v). The highest concentration of the test substance which produced no evidence of dermal irritation 24 or 48 hours after a 6 hour occlusive dermal exposure and one lower concentration were selected for the topical change stage of the main study.
Main study - Induction
The hair was clipped from an area of the left flank of each animal. 0.5 ml of the test substance (1% v/v in distilled water) was applied topically on absorbent lint, which was was held in place under a strip of surgical adhesive tape and covered with an overlapping length of aluminium foil. The patch and foil were further secured with Elastoplast wound in a double layer around the torso. The occlusive dressing was kept in place for 6 hours. The induction procedure was repeated on the same site on Day 7 and 14 for a total of three 6 hour exposures. Approximately 24 hours after each induction application (days 1, 8 and 15) the sites were assessed for erythema and oedema formation. Controls were exposed in an identical manner, but with vehicle alone.
Main study - Challenge
Prior to treatment on day 28, the fur was clipped from the right flank of each animals. 0.5 ml of the test substance (1% v/v in distilled water) was applied to the shorn right flank on absorbent lint which was held in place by a strip of surgical adhesive tape. To ensure that the maximum non-irritant concentration was used at challenge, the test material at 0.5% v/v in distilled water was also similarly applied to a separate skin site on the right shorn flank. The patches were occluded as above. After 6 hours, the dressings were removed. The treatment sites were rinsed with distilled water and treatment sites marked using indelible marker. On Day 29 the flanks were clipped free of hair. Erythema and oedema formation was assessed approximately 24 and 48 hours after dressing removal. - Challenge controls:
- Yes - controls were induced and challenged with the vehicle alone (distilled water).
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB)
- Positive control results:
- 11 out of 20 animals (55%) affected, indicative of a satisfactory skin sensitisation response.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 0.5%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0.5% v/v. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1.0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Slight erythema in two test animals
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 1.0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1.0% v/v. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- eading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 24.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0% (distilled water). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0% (distilled water). No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
- Remarks on result:
- no indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 0%
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Remarks on result:
- other: no positive control used
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The test substance was not sensitising to guinea pigs, and therefore does not require classification as a skin sensitiser.
- Executive summary:
The skin sensitising properties of Bardap 26 were evaluated in a guinea pig Buehler test. Twenty guinea pigs were given 3 topical (occlusive) induction applications of the test substance at a concentration of 1.0% v/v (Days 0, 7 and 14), followed by a single topical (occlusive) challenge (of 0.5 and 1.0% v/v) two weeks after the last induction (Day 28). Ten guinea pigs were exposed to the vehicle (distilled water) only at both induction and challenge.
There were no mortalities during the study, and mean body weight gain was comparable between treated and control groups. There was no evidence of skin sensitisation in any test animal. Very slight to well-defined erythema with or without very slight to slight oedema was seen in two test animals at 24 hours after challenge with 1.0% v/v. No reactions were seen after 48 hours therefore the responses at 24 hours were considered to be due to irritation. No reactions were seen after challenge with 0.5% v/v. It was concluded that the test substance is not a skin sensitiser. No classification is required.
Reference
Table 1. Mean body weight (g)
Day of study |
Test animals |
Control animals |
0 |
380.5 |
392.8 |
30 |
628.25 |
651.9 |
Mean increase |
247.75 |
259.1 |
Table 2. Skin responses at induction
Day of study |
Erythema |
Oedema |
||
Test animals |
Controls |
Test animals |
Controls |
|
1 |
0 (1) |
0 (10) |
0 (1) |
0 (10) |
8 |
1 (11) |
0 (10) |
0 (1) |
0 (10) |
15 |
0 (3) |
0 (10) |
0 (15) |
0 (10) |
Grade (number of animals affected)
Table 3. Skin responses at challenge
|
Test animals |
Control animals |
||||||||||
Test material conc. |
1.0% v/v |
0.5% v/v |
0% (distilled water) |
|||||||||
Observation time (hours) |
24 |
48 |
24 |
48 |
24 |
48 |
||||||
Parameter# |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
E |
O |
Scores (incidence) |
0 (18) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (20) |
0 (10) |
0 (10) |
0 (10) |
0 (10) |
#E = erythema; O = oedema
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Bardap 26 was not a skin sensitiser in the Buehler guinea-pig test (Allen, 1994).
Migrated from Short description of key information:
A high quality, guideline- and GLP-compliant study is available.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Only one study is available for this endpoint.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
Bardap 26 was not a skin sensitiser in the Buehler guinea-pig test (Allen, 1994).
Justification for classification or non-classification
The substance was not a skin sensitiser in the Buehler guinea-pig test (Allen, 1994), and therefore classification is not required according to CLP criteria.
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.