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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Toxicological information

Skin sensitisation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
2010
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP guideline study

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2010
Report date:
2010

Materials and methods

Test guidelineopen allclose all
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
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes (incl. QA statement)
Type of study:
guinea pig maximisation test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
The OECD Test Guideline for LLNA was not available at time of study implementation. Existing data from GPMT study scientifically adequate.

Test material

Constituent 1
Reference substance name:
1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. residues
EC Number:
271-832-1
EC Name:
1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. residues
Cas Number:
68609-68-7
Molecular formula:
UVCB, not applicable, see section 1.2 for information on constituents
IUPAC Name:
2,4-diethyl-3-propylpentane-1,5-diol; 2,4-diethyloctan-1-ol; 2-ethylhexan-1-ol; 2-ethylhexane-1,3-diol

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Hartley
Sex:
male
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles River Deutschland GmbH, Stolzenseeweg 32, 88353 Kissleg, Germany
- Age at study initiation: young adult
- Weight at study initiation: 345-366 g
- Housing: Macrolon type-III cages with 2-3 animals/cage
- Diet: Purina Base - Lap gr diet for rabbit (Agribrands Europe Hungary PLC, H-5300 Karcag, Madarasi Road, Hungary), ad libitum; suitable for guinea pigs and also used by the breeder
- Water: tap water with ascorbic acid 0.5 mg/mL, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 14 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature: 20 ± 3 °C
- Humidity: 30-70 %
- Air changes: 15-20 air changes/hour
- Photoperiod: 12 hours dark / 12 hours light

IN-LIFE DATES: From: 30-Sep-2009 To: 25-Oct-2009

Study design: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Inductionopen allclose all
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
other: Sesame oil
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction exposure: 5 %
Dermal induction exposure: 100 %
Challenge exposure: 25 % (with 12.5 % applied on the other flank of each animal as safeguard dose)
Challengeopen allclose all
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
other: Sesame oil
Concentration / amount:
Intradermal induction exposure: 5 %
Dermal induction exposure: 100 %
Challenge exposure: 25 % (with 12.5 % applied on the other flank of each animal as safeguard dose)
No. of animals per dose:
10 test animals, 5 control animals
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
For the intra-dermal application, 0.1 mL of formulated test item was injected at concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, 5.0, 10 and 25 % (all w/v) into the hair free skin. The treated areas were covered for 24 hours with porous gauze fastened with "Clinipore-silk". For the dermal application, animals pre-treated with Freund’s Adjuvant were used. On day 1, each animal received 2 injections of 0.1 mL Freund's Adjuvant mixed with physiological saline (1:1 v/v). On day 8, 0.5 mL per concentration (25, 50, 75 (all w/v) and 100 %) was applied onto hair free skin of the animals. A closed patch exposure was applied by means of an occlusive bandage

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
Intradermal
- No. of exposures: 1
- Exposure time: day 1 (6 injections/animal)
- Test groups: 1
- Control group: 1
- Site: dorsal, flank
- Frequency of applications: single application
- Concentration: 5 % (w/v)

Dermal
- No. of exposures: 1
- Exposure time and duration: day 8 (closed patch), for 48 hours
- Site: dorsal, flank
- Frequency of applications: single application
- Concentration: 100 %

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day of challenge: day 22
- Exposure period: 24 hours
- Test groups: 1
- Control group: 1
- Site: dorsal, flank
- Concentration: 25 % (with 12.5 % applied on the other flank of each test animal as safeguard dose)
- Evaluation: Magnusson and Kligman grading scale

The sensitivity and reliability of the experimental procedure was assessed by use of the reference item 2 -Mercaptobenzothiazole under LAB Research Ltd. study number 09/141 -104T (29-Jun-2009 to 24-Jul-2009).
Challenge controls:
Control animals were treated similarly to test animals, except that during the induction phase the test item was omitted.
Positive control substance(s):
not required

Results and discussion

In vivo (non-LLNA)

Resultsopen allclose all
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
25 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
25 %
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25 %
No. with + reactions:
7
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Remarks:
See "Any other information on results incl. tables"
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25 %
No. with + reactions:
2
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
peeling of the skin in 6/10 animals
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Remarks:
See "Any other information on results incl. tables"
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
12.5 % (safeguard dose)
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
12.5 % (safeguard dose)
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
5
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
12.5 % (safeguard dose)
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
12.5 % (safeguard dose)
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
none
Remarks on result:
no indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
positive indication of skin sensitisation
Key result
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
positive control
Dose level:
50%
No. with + reactions:
5
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
positive indication of skin sensitisation

Any other information on results incl. tables

Challenge with a concentration of 25 % resulted in barely perceptible erythema in 7/10 test animals at 24 hours, which persisted to 48 hours in 2/10 animals only. The mean of the scores were 0.70 (70 % responders) and 0.20 (20 % responders) according to the 24 and 48 hour observations. No signs of skin reaction were noted in control animals (0/5) or in test animals following treatment with the safeguard concentration of 12.5 % (0/10).


Since for an immune response it would be expected that under the conditions of this study


(i) many animals treated with the challenge dose would have a reaction persisting to 48 hours,


(ii) there would be at least some animals with a grade 2 or 3 response at 24 hours after treatment with the challenge dose, and


(iii) treatment with the safeguard dose (corresponding to 50 % of the challenge dose) would give some response


the observed transient biological response (barely perceptible erythema in 70 % of the animals at 24 hours) was considered not to represent an immune reaction.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information
Conclusions:
In conclusion, under the conditions of the present assay the test item was considered not to have a sensitisation potential and classified as a non-sensitiser, based on this guinea pig maximisation test and according to current EU-regulations.
Executive summary:

In a dermal sensitisation study (Török-Batho, 2010) with 1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. Residues (≥98 %) in sesame oil, young adult Hartley guinea pigs (test group: 10 males, control group: 5 males) were tested using the guinea pig maximisation test of Magnusson and Kligman. Challenge with the test item resulted in a mean score of 0.70 (7/10) and 0.20 (2/10) at the 48 and 72 hour observations (24 and 48 hours after patch removal), respectively. The net response value was 70 %, as barely perceptible erythema at the first observation. However, the net response value at the second observation was only 20 %. No signs of skin reaction were noted following treatment with the safeguard concentration (corresponding to 50 % of the challenge concentration). Since for an immune response it would be expected that under the conditions of this study many animals treated with the challenge dose would have a reaction persisting to the second observation, there would be at least some animals with a grade 2 or 3 response at the first observation after challenge, and treatment with the safeguard dose would give some response, the observed transient biological response (barely perceptible erythema in 70 % of the animals at 48 hours) was considered not to represent an immune reaction.

In this study, 1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-, manuf. of, by-products from, distn. Residues was not a skin sensitiser.