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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
migrated information: read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
March - April 1979
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Non GLP; non guideline; minor restrictions in design but adequate for assessment
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
GLP compliance:
no
Remarks:
performed before GLP
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
Female albino guinea pigs (Dunkin-Hartley)
bw: 300 - 400 g
Housing: 5 per cage
standard diet of guinea pig pellets and tap water, ad libitum

in life phase: 16. March to 8. April 1979
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Induction
- intradermal: 1% (w/w)
- topical: 5% (w/w) in water
challenge: 2% (w/w) in water
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
water
Concentration / amount:
Induction
- intradermal: 1% (w/w)
- topical: 5% (w/w) in water
challenge: 2% (w/w) in water
No. of animals per dose:
treated group: 10
control group: 5
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS: 2 guinea pigs which were pre-treated with adjuvant only at the induction phase, test substance was applied at concentrations of 10, 5, 2 and 1%. A concentration of 2% was selected as the level to be used at the challenge stage.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
treated group: 3 injections: a) 0.1 ml Freund's adjuvant alone; b) 0.1 ml 2-ethylhexoic acid (1% w/w) alone; c) 0.05 ml 2-ethylhexoic acid (1% w/w) emulsified with 0.05 ml Freund's adjuvant; 6 days after the injection phase: treatment with sodium lauryl sulphate solution (10 % w/w), after 24 h: patch of Whatman No. 3 MM filter paper saturated with 2-ethylhexoic acid (5% w/w) covered by an overlapping patch of impermeable plastlc adhesive tape for48 h
control group: injection with Freund's adjuvant alone

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
treated and control group: two weeks after the topical induction: 2-ethylhexoic acid (2% w/w) was applied on a 2 x 2 cm piece of filter paper to the test site of the guinea pig. The patch was held in place for the topical induction and removed 24 h Iater.

The degree of response was determined by trained assessors 24 h after removal of the challenge patch. Positive response are rated
according to the percentage of animals sensitised (Kligman).
Positive control substance(s):
no
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
2% w/w
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
no data
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 2% w/w. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: no data.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
2% w/w
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
no data
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 2% w/w. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 5.0. Clinical observations: no data.
Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
Conclusions:
In a guinea pig maximization test 2-ethylhexanoic acid caused no allergic reaction. Therefore, 2-ethylhexanoic acid is not considered to be a skin sensitiser.
Based on a read-across approach, sodium 2-ethylhexanoate is not considered to be a skin sensitizer and is therefore not subjected for labelling and classification requirements according to regulatory requirements.
Executive summary:

A read across was performed from the source substance 2 -ethylhexanoic acid to the target substance sodium 2 -ethylhexanoate (for read across justification please refer to attached document, IUCLID Chapter 13).

Testing for sensitising properties of 2 -ethylhexanoic acid was performed in female guinea pigs according to the Guinea Pig Maximization Test. Intradermal induction was performed using 1 % 2-ethylhexanoic acid in water and topical induction using 5% 2 -ethylhexanoic acid in water. The challenge was carried out with 2% 2 -ethylhexanoic acid (epidermal) two weeks after topical induction.

2 -Ethylhexanoic acid induced no allergic reactions, and therefore, the test substance is not considered to have sensitising properties.

Based on a read-across approach, sodium 2-ethylhexanoate is not considered to be a skin sensitizer and is therefore not subjected for labelling and classification requirements according to regulatory requirements.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
Additional information:

A read across was performed from the source substance 2 -ethylhexanoic acid to the target substance sodium 2 -ethylhexanoate (for read across justification please refer to attached document, IUCLID Chapter 13).

A valid animal study concerning sensitizing properties are available for 2-ethylhexanoic acid.

In a guinea pig maximization assay (Inveresk Research, 1979), 0/10 female Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs exhibited a response 48 h after induction and challenge with 1% (intrdermal induction) / 5 % (topical induction) and 2 % (challenge) aqueous 2 -ethylhexanoic acid solution, respectively.

In summary, there is no evidence of a notable sensitization potential of 2 -ethylhexanoic acid.


Migrated from Short description of key information:
A guinea pig maximization assay gave no evidence of contact sensitization caused by 2-ethylhexanoic acid, the source substance of the read across approach (for read across justification please refer to the attached document, IUCLID Chapter 13).

Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
Study design equivalent to current OECD guideline with sufficient reporting.

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

2 -Ethylhexanoic acid exhibited no skin sensitising potential. Classification is not warranted according to EU Directive 67/548/EEC and EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP) Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.

Based on a read-across approach, sodium 2-ethylhexanoate is not considered to be a eye irritant and is therefore not subjected for labelling and classification requirements according to regulatory requirements.