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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2009-08-18 to 2009-09-16; day of application: 2009-08-27
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Study according to current generally accepted scientific standards, comparable to guideline study; study with GLP.

Data source

Reference Type:
study report
Report date:

Materials and methods

Test guideline
no guideline available
other: HETCAM
in vitro HETCAM
Principles of method if other than guideline:
There are no official guidelines for the HET-CAM Test; however, the study was conducted according to the following publications:
- Lüpke NP (1985). Hen’s Egg Chorio allantoic Membrane Test for Irritation Potential. Fd Chem Toxic 23: 287–291.
- Spielmann H (1995). HET-CAM Test. In: Methods in Molecular Biology 43 (eds.: O’Hare S and Atterwill CK): 199–204.
- Spielmann H et al (1996): Results of a Validation Study in Germany on Two In Vitro Alternatives to the Draize Eye Irritation Test the HET-CAM Test and the 3T3 NRU Cytotoxicity Test. ATLA 24: pp. 741–858.
In addition the study follows the testing strategy for determination of eye irritation/corrosion as given in the following guideline:
- OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 405, April 24, 2002 (“Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion”).
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
ethyl (2R,3R)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2R,3S)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2S,3R)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2S,3S)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate
EC Number:
Cas Number:
Molecular formula:
C7 H12 Br2 O2
ethyl (2R,3R)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2R,3S)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2S,3R)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate; ethyl (2S,3S)-3,4-dibromo-2-methylbutanoate
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): 2-Methyl-3,4-dibrombuttersäureethylester
- Physical state: liquid
- Analytical purity: 98.1 wt% (according to the supplier)
- Lot/batch No.: 35684-12-5
- Stability under test conditions: The stability under storage conditions over the study period was guaranteed by the manufacturer.
- Other: pH value: ca. 4.5 (undiluted test substance)
No further data.

Test animals / tissue source

other: hen egg

Test system

other: unchanged (no vehicle) or olive oil
Amount / concentration applied:
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): 0.3 ml per egg of the undiluted test substance or of a 10% (w/w) solution
- Concentration (if solution): undiluted or 10% (w/w)
Duration of treatment / exposure:
single dose, observation for 160 seconds
Observation period (in vivo):
160 sec
Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
3 eggs per concentration

Results and discussion

In vivo

Irritation parameter:
other: effect on chorioallantoic membrane
other: haemorrharia, coagulation
Time point:
other: 90 -160 sec
Max. score:
fully reversible
Remarks on result:
other: No effects on chorioallantoic membrane were observed.
Irritant / corrosive response data:
The chorioallantoic membrane of all eggs did not show any irritation effects.
Historical control values of positive controls, gathered over an appropriate time period, demonstrate the reproducibility of results and robustness of the procedures.
For details, see attached files.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
Migrated information not corrosive
Based on the results of this study and applying the evaluation criteria, it is concluded that 2-Methyl-3,4-dibrombuttersäureethylester does not produce changes indicative for serious eye damage in the HET-CAM Test under the test conditions chosen.
The test method does not yet allow for the evaluation of eye irritation. The result does not exclude an irritation potential of the test item. For final assignment of a risk phrase at present, results from an in vivo study would be needed.