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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Endpoint:
sensitisation data (humans)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles. Data gap : data on patients (occupational status, age, clinical history)

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Allergic contact dermatitis from methylisothiocyanate in soil disinfectants.
Author:
Richter G.
Year:
1980
Bibliographic source:
Contact dermatitis, 6 : 183-186.

Materials and methods

Type of sensitisation studied:
skin
Study type:
study with volunteers
Test guideline
Qualifier:
no guideline followed
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Patch test
GLP compliance:
not specified

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Methyl isothiocyanate
EC Number:
209-132-5
EC Name:
Methyl isothiocyanate
Cas Number:
556-61-6
Molecular formula:
C2H3NS
IUPAC Name:
isothiocyanatomethane
Details on test material:
Vapam or Nematin 10% in water.
Vapam contains 29.5% MITC and Nematin contains 32.7% MITC.

Method

Type of population:
occupational
Subjects:
Nine patients exposed to vapam or Nematin, with occupational dermatitis.
Clinical history:
no data
Controls:
no
Route of administration:
dermal
Details on study design:
Patch test to Vapam in a nonirritant concentration of 0.05 % in water was tested.

Results and discussion

Results of examinations:
Though all persons had contact with the soil disinfectants for a few days only; and one woman only a few hours, eight of the nine patients showed ++ or +++ positive patch test reaction to Vapam, and these results could be elicited again 1 year later.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
The author concluded that MITC must be a very strong contact sensitizer.
Executive summary:

The author recounted a number of dermatitis patients that showed positive patch test reaction to Vapam (metam sodium), concluding that the initial effector must have been MITC. One patient, exposed to dazomet throught rubber boots, developed burns and a bullous eruption agin one year later A further complication, "hypersensitivity-hepatitis of nonspecific type" was disgnosed after liver biopsy. While conditioning exposure to oral contraceptives was implicated in this response, Richter concluded that MITC absorption through the skin was also involved. Indeed, "such side effects must be considered if large areas of skin have been affected".