Registration Dossier
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: 203-639-5 | CAS number: 109-01-3
- 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 two literature reports of skin sensitisation testing of2-piperazin-1-ylethylamine (aminoethyl piperazine) which do lack some details but are sufficient to come to a conclusion on the skin sensitising potential of 1-methyl piperazine. Reading across to this source substance is considered to be acceptable as they are suitably structurally similar.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- 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:
- Not applicable
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: 2e: Meets generally accepted scientific standards, well-documented and acceptable for assessment
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to same study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Qualifier:
- equivalent or similar to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Deviations:
- yes
- Remarks:
- study examined sensitization capability of structurally similar amines
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Magnusson, B. and Kligman, A.M.: The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J. Invest. Dermatol. 52:268, 1969
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- At the time of registration adequate data for sensitisation where already available.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- Dunkin Hartley Haz:(DH)fBR albino guinea pigs (5-7 weeks old, 278-444 gr) were obtained from HRP Inc. (Denver, PA).
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 5%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 0
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 50%
- Day(s)/duration:
- on Day 14, 24 hour
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 10/sex
- Details on study design:
- A range-finding study was conducted to select appropriate concentrations for the intradermal and epicutaneous procedures. Animals were inspected 24 and 48 hr after dosing for signs of necrosis and ulceration.
In the definitive sensitization test, groups of 10 male and 10 female guinea pigs each received 0.1 ml intradermal induction injections into 2 sites of the clipped shoulder skin as follows: 50% (v/v) Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA) water emulsion, the test material or vehicle, and the test material in FCA/water emulsion or FCA/water emulsion. Epicutaneous inductions were conducted 7 days later. The test material was applied to saturation ((0.2 ml) to a 2 x 4 cm filter paper, which was then placed on the test site and secured with tape. The patches were left in place for 48 hr, after which they were removed and the skin wiped free of any excess test material. Epicutaneous challenge was undertaken by applying 2 x 2 cm filter paper squares soaked in the appropriate concentration of the test material to a previously untreated site (right flank) 14 days after epicutaneous induction (i.e., 21 days from the start of the study). Patches were left in place for 24 hr, and the sites inspected for signs of irritation 24-48 hr after removal of the occlusive dressings.
Seven days after the challenge exposure(i.e., 28 days from the start of the study), the cross-challenge treatment was administered. Test materials were administered to the clipped skin in a similar manner as in the challenge phase but at previously untreated sites (left flank). Smaller patches (0.825 in2 adhesive bandages) were used in order to allow all of the test materials to fit on the test site. Materials were applied to saturation (0.03 ml per patch). Patches were left in place for 24 hr and the sites inspected for signs of irritation 24-48 hr after removal of the occlusive dressings. - Challenge controls:
- Irritation control animals, five male and five female guinea pigs, received the same challenge procedures as in the definitive sensitization study, but did not have preceding intradermal and/or epicutaneous induction procedures. This allowed differentiation between primary skin irritation due to the test material, and those produced by a hypersensitivity reaction.
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 5% intradermal, 50% epicutaneous induction, 25% challenge
- No. with + reactions:
- 5
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 0
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- Not included
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 0
- Interpretation of results:
- sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- Positive in guinea pig maximization test.
Positive results were also obtained in a cross challenge with several structurally similar alkyleneamines. - Executive summary:
The dermal sensitization potential was examined in the Guinea Pig Maximization Assay with aminoethylpiperazine (AEP). Cross-reactivity was also examined with structurally similar ethyleneamines. In this assay, AEP was positive and was shown to produce positive results when cross challenged with several structurally similar alkyleneamines.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- migrated information: read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- supporting study
- Study period:
- Not applicable
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to same study
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- reference to other study
- Principles of method if other than guideline:
- Magnusson, B. and Kligman, A.M.: The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J. Invest. Dermatol. 52:268, 1969
- GLP compliance:
- not specified
- Type of study:
- guinea pig maximisation test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- At the time of registration adequate data for sensitisation where already available.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- not specified
- Sex:
- not specified
- Route:
- intradermal
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.5%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 0
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.5%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 7, 48 hour
- Adequacy of induction:
- not specified
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- water
- Concentration / amount:
- 2%
- Day(s)/duration:
- 21, 24hour
- Adequacy of challenge:
- not specified
- No. of animals per dose:
- 15
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 15
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 2%
- No. with + reactions:
- 15
- Total no. in group:
- 15
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- AEP was classified as a sensitiser.
Referenceopen allclose all
Based on the probe study, the maximum concentrations used were 5% for the intradermal induction, 50% for epicutaneous induction and 25% for epicutaneous challenge phases.
In the definitive study, five of 20 guinea pigs had a positive response.
In the cross-reaction phase, animals induced with 50% demonstrated a greater response with diethylenetriamine (55%), hydroxyethylethylenediamine (75%), triethylenetetramine (45%) and piperazine (30%). Less of a response was observed in animals treated with ethylenediamine and tetraethylenepentamine (0 and 5% responded positive, respectively).
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- adverse effect observed (sensitising)
- Additional information:
We have no skin sensitization test for 1-methyl piperazine and due to the corrosive properties to the skin, it not considered ethical to perform a skin sensitization test in animals. It is therefore considered appropriate to use read across to Aminoethyl piperazine CAS No 140-31-8.
There are two skin sensitization studies available in the published literature a relatively modern study form 1997 and an older study from 1978, both studies are Klimisch 2. Both studies show skin sensitization potential for aminoethyl piperazine , the study from 1997 is considered more reliable.
The main study for Aminoethyl piperazine is a Klimisch 2 rated study from the publish literature, K.S. Leung 1997: Sensitisation guinea pig RA using the OECD406 Magnusson and Kligman. In this study several alkyeneamines were tested for their skin sensitising potential following the OECD 406, Magnusson and Kligman guinea pig maximization assay. Aminoethyl piperazine was shown to be skin sensitizing, using 5% for the intradermal induction, 50% for the epicutaneous induction and 25% for the challenge doses, with a response seen in 5 out of 20 guinea pigs or 25%. There is another older Klimisch 2 rated supporting study on aminoethyl piperazine also from the published scientific literature, SS Thorgeirssen 1978: Sensitisation, guinea pig RA. In this publication the test substance was identified by its IUPAC name of 2-piperazin-1-ylethanamine, CAS No 140-31-8, again following the Magnusson and Kligman test protocol, but using lower concentration of 0.5% for induction and 2% for the challenge, a 100% response was reported. There is a limitation in this study that no information on the purity of the test sample was provided. There is no clear explanation for the apparent difference in the potency of aminoethyl piperazine between the two studies, it is possible that the sample in the older study may have contained contaminates that contributed to the sensitization as no information on the purity was provided.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
- Additional information:
There is no standard validated animal test available to detect respiratory sensitisers. All respiratory sensitisers of human significance are also skin sensitisers, however not all skin sensitisers are respiratory sensitisers. There is no known evidence that aminoethyl piperazine is a respiratory sensitizer, therefore 1-methyl piperazine which has only a single reactive amine group is considered even less likely to have respiratory sensitizing potential.
Justification for classification or non-classification
We have no skin sensitization test for 1-methyl piperazine and due to the corrosive properties to the skin, it not considered ethical to perform a skin sensitization test in animals. It is therefore considered appropriate to use read across to Aminoethyl piperazine CAS No 140-31-8.
Based on the two available studies it is clear that aminoethyl piperazine is a skin sensitizer, the more modern and therefore more reliable study showed a 25% response, the EU CLP (GHS) guidelines require 30% or greater to less than 60% response for at the 5% intradermal induction dose used classification of 1B for skin sensitization . While the older 1978 study which used a 0.2% intradermal induction dose and showed 100% response would require a classification of category 1A. AS this study has no information to confirm the purity of the test substance and in view of 1-methyl piperazine being expected to be less reactive as it only has one amine group, the weight of evidence support a classification of Category 1B for skin sensitization based on the EU CLP (GHS) criteria.
There is no evidence that Aminoethyl piperazine is respiratory sensitisers and as the 1-methyl piperazine is expected to less reactive the aminoethyl piperazine due to the single amine group and therefore less likely to be sensitizing, it is concluded that 1-methyl piperazine is not classified as a respiratory sensitizer.
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.

Route: .live2