Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
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: 904-153-2 | CAS number: -
- 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
There are no reliable studies available for the assessment of the skin sensitisation endpoint with the target substance,Polyol TD. Therefore, data from suitable read-across partners, 2-ethylpropane1,3-diol (DMP) and 5-Ethyl-1,3-dioxane-5-methanol (CTF)was used to assess the skin sensitisation potential of the target substance. For details and justification of read-across please refer to the report attached in section 13 of IUCLID.
The results of local lymph node assays performed according to OECD Guideline 429 with both source substances did not indicate a skin sensitising potential of DMP and CTF. It is therefore concluded that the target substance Polyol TD is not a skin sensitiser.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- For details and justification of read-across please refer to the report attached in section 13 of IUCLID.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Positive control results:
- The stimulation indices in a recent positive control study were 1.7, 2.4 and 5.0 for 5%, 10% and 25% hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, respectively.
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- low dose (25% test substance)
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.8
- Test group / Remarks:
- mid dose (50% test substance)
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.7
- Test group / Remarks:
- high dose (100% test substance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 3 136
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0% (vehicle control)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 2 763
- Test group / Remarks:
- low dose (25% test substance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 2 642
- Test group / Remarks:
- mid dose (50% test susbtance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 5 471
- Test group / Remarks:
- high dose (100% test substance)
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- Preliminary study: No systemic signs and no signs of local irritation were noted in either animal receiving undiluted DMP tech. Body weights were considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. Based on these findings, a 100% concentration of DMP tech (i.e. undiluted DMP tech) was selected as the highest concentration for the main study.
Main study: No systemic signs were noted in any animal during the observation period. Body weight gains were considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. - Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of the study, since treatment with Dimethylolpropane Tech at concentrations of up to 100% (i.e. undiluted Dimethylolpropane tech) did not achieve a stimulation index of ≥3, it was considered that the test item does not have the potential to cause sensitisation.
- Executive summary:
In a dermal sensitisation study (according to OECD Guideline 429) with Dimethylolpropane Tech (DMP tech) in dimethylformamide at concentrations of 25%, 50% and 100%, 5 female CBA/Ca mice per dose were tested for 3 consecutive days in the Local Lymph Node Assay. Hexy cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No. 101-86-0) served as a postive control and induced the appropriate response. Dimethylformamide was included as a vehicle control in one group of 5 females.
There were no systemic signs noted in any animal during the observation period and body weight changes were considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. The stimulation index (SI) values for mice treated with DMP tech at concentrations of 25%, 50% or 100%, when compared with the control group, were 0.9, 0.8 and 1.7, respectively. Under the conditions of the study, treatment with Dimethylolpropane Tech at concentrations of up to 100% (i.e. undiluted Dimethylolpropane Tech) did not achieve a stimulation index of ≥3, therefore it was considered that the test item is not a dermal sensitiser.
This information is used in a read-across approach in the assessment of the target substance. For details and justification of read-across please refer to the attached read-across report (see IUCLID section 13).
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- weight of evidence
- Justification for type of information:
- For details and justification of read-across please refer to the report attached in section 13 of IUCLID.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Positive control results:
- The stimulation indices in a recent positive control study were 1.7, 2.4 and 5.0 for 5%, 10% and 25% hexylcinnamicaldehyde, respectively.
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- low dose (25% test substance)
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.9
- Test group / Remarks:
- mid dose (50% test substance)
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1.2
- Test group / Remarks:
- high dose (100% test substance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 1 750
- Test group / Remarks:
- 0% (vehicle control)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 1 580
- Test group / Remarks:
- low dose (25% test substance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 1 536
- Test group / Remarks:
- mid dose (50% test substance)
- Parameter:
- other: disintegrations per minute (DPM)
- Value:
- 2 157
- Test group / Remarks:
- high dose (100% test substance)
- Cellular proliferation data / Observations:
- Preliminary test: No systemic signs and no signs of local irritation were noted in either animal receiving undiluted CTF. Body weight gain was considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. Based on these findings, a 100% concentration of CTF (i.e. undiluted CTF) was selected as the highest concentration for the main study.
Main study: No systemic signs were noted in any animal during the observation period. Body weight gains were considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. - Interpretation of results:
- GHS criteria not met
- Conclusions:
- Under the conditions of the study, since treatment with cyclic trimethylolpropane formal (CTF) at concentrations of up to 100% (i.e. undiluted cyclic trimethylolpropane formal) did not achieve a stimulation index of ≥3, it was considered that the test item does not have the potential to cause sensitisation.
- Executive summary:
In a dermal sensitisation study (according to OECD Guideline 429) with cyclic trimethylolpropane formal (CTF) in dimethylformamide at concentrations of 25%, 50% and 100%, 5 female CBA/Ca mice per dose were tested for 3 consecutive days in a Local Lymph Node Assay. Hexy cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No. 101-86-0) served as a postive control and induced the appropriate response. Dimethylformamide was included as a vehicle control in one group of 5 females. There were no systemic signs noted in any animal during the observation period and body weight changes were considered to be acceptable for mice of this age and strain. The stimulation index (SI) values for the mice treated with CTF at concentrations of 25%, 50% or 100%, when compared with the control group, were 0.9, 0.9 and 1.2, respectively.
Under the conditions of the study, treatment with cyclic trimethylolpropane formal at concentrations of up to 100% (i.e. undiluted cyclic trimethylolpropane formal) did not achieve a stimulation index of ≥3, therefore it was considered that the test item is not a dermal sensitiser.
This information is used in a read-across approach in the assessment of the target substance. For details and justification of read-across please refer to the attached read-across report (see IUCLID section 13).
Referenceopen allclose all
Table 1: Individual and Group Mean Scintillation Counts
Treatment |
Animal No. |
DPM |
Group Mean DPM |
Stimulation Index |
Vehicle control (dimethylformamide) |
1 |
3720 |
3136 |
1 |
2 |
2595 |
|||
3 |
2755 |
|||
4 |
3697 |
|||
5 |
2911 |
|||
DMP Tech 25% |
6 |
3086 |
2763 |
0.9 |
7 |
3375 |
|||
8 |
495 |
|||
9 |
2607 |
|||
10 |
4254 |
|||
DMP Tech 50% |
11 |
3367 |
2642 |
0.8 |
12 |
1394 |
|||
13 |
1891 |
|||
14 |
2210 |
|||
15 |
4349 |
|||
DMP Tech 100% |
16 |
6835 |
5471 |
1.7 |
17 |
5531 |
|||
18 |
7050 |
|||
19# |
902 |
|||
20 |
2468 |
DPM – disintegrations per minute
DMP Tech – Dimethylolpropane Tech
# DPM value excluded from mean owing to spillage
Table 1: Individual and Group Mean Scinitillation Counts (DPM)
Treatment |
Animal No. |
DPM |
Group Mean DPM |
Stimulation Index |
Vehicle control (dimethylformamide) |
1 |
1085 |
1750 |
1 |
2 |
2062 |
|||
3 |
2507 |
|||
4 |
1687 |
|||
5 |
1410 |
|||
CTF 25% |
6 |
688 |
1580 |
0.9 |
7 |
3134 |
|||
8 |
1221 |
|||
9 |
1616 |
|||
10 |
1243 |
|||
CTF 50% |
11 |
1588 |
1536 |
0.9 |
12 |
1407 |
|||
13 |
2341 |
|||
14 |
977 |
|||
15 |
1365 |
|||
CTF 100% |
16 |
1749 |
2157 |
1.2 |
17 |
1819 |
|||
18 |
1504# |
|||
19 |
1863 |
|||
20 |
3198 |
DPM – disintegrations per minute
CTF – cyclic trimethylolpropane formal
# Animal 18 excluded from group mean because only one lymph node was obtained
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Two GLP studies were conducted, to determine the skin sensitisation potential of Cyclic trimethylolpropane (CTF) and Dimethylolpropane Tech (DMP Tech) (Robinson, 2010) using the local lymph node assay (according to OECD Guideline 429). Under the conditions of the studies, since treatment with DMP Tech or CTF at concentrations of up to 100% did not achieve stimulation index values of ≥3, it was considered that the test items did not have the potential to cause sensitisation. Furthermore, other component TMP of the target substance is also not considered to be a skin sensitiser, based on read-across from DMP.
There is no evidence from experience of use that the target substance or its components has the potential to cause skin sensitisation in exposed workers.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
No animal data are available. There is no evidence from experience of use that the substance or its components has the potential to cause respiratory sensitisation in exposed workers.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the available data,classification for skin sensitisation according to the CLP Regulation 1272/2008 is not warranted.
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.
