Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
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: 906-170-0 | CAS number: -
- 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
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- March 09 to June 06, 2005
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Study according to OECD Guideline 429; Study under GLP Regulation;
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Type of study:
- mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)
- Species:
- mouse
- Strain:
- CBA
- Sex:
- female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Harlan, NL-5960 AD Horst, The Netherlands
- Age at study initiation: 8-12 weeks
- Weight at study initiation: 16-24 g
- Housing:cage
- Diet (e.g. ad libitum): ad libitum
- Water (e.g. ad libitum):ad libitum
- Acclimation period:under test conditions - Vehicle:
- acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)
- Concentration:
- 0.0% (Control), 5, 10, 25, 50, 100% (w/v)
- No. of animals per dose:
- 4 female animals per dose
- Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
- Lymph node proliferation response: at 10, 25,50 and 100% (w/v) - Positive control substance(s):
- hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)
- Positive control results:
- As positive control for the current LLNA test, three groups each of four female mice were treated daily with alpha-hexylcinnamaldehyde at concentrations of 5 %, 10 % and 25 % (w/v) in acetone:olive oil, 4:1 (v/v) by topical application to the dorsum of each ear lobe (left and right) for three consecutive days. A control group of four mice was treated with the vehicle (acetone:olive oil, 4:1 (v/v).
The results obtained (STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.) for this positive test are reported as follows:.
Group 2 5* % (w/v) 2.4 * (S.I.)
Group 3 10 * % (w/v) 3.6 * (S.I.)
Group 4 25 % (w/v) 11.2 (S.I.)
A clear dose-response relationship was observed. * This value was used in calculation of EC3. The estimated concentration of test item required to produce a S.I. of 3 is referred to as the EC3 value and found to be EC3 = 7.5 % (w/v), - Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- Group 2 (5%)
- Remarks on result:
- other:
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- Group 3 (10%)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 1
- Test group / Remarks:
- Group 4 (25%)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.6
- Test group / Remarks:
- Group 5 (50%)
- Key result
- Parameter:
- SI
- Value:
- 0.5
- Test group / Remarks:
- Group 6 (100%)
- Interpretation of results:
- not sensitising
- Remarks:
- Migrated information
- Conclusions:
- A test item is regarded as a sensitizer in the LLNA if the exposure to one or more test concentrations resulted in 3-fold or greater increase in incorporation of 3HTdR compared with concurrent controls, as indicated by the STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.).
RHODIASOLV RPDE was found to be a non-sensitizer when tested at up to the concentration of 100 % (undiluted). - Executive summary:
In order to study a possible contact allergenic potential of RHODIASOLV RPDE, a local lymph node assay (LLNA) was performed according to the OECD Guideline 429 and und GLP Regulations. Five groups each of four female mice were treated daily with the test item at concentrations of 5 %, 10 %, 25 %, 50 % (w/v) in acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v) and 100 % (undiluted) by topical application to the dorsum of each ear lobe (left and right) for three consecutive days. A control group of four mice was treated with the vehicle (acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v)) only. Five days after the first topical application the mice were injected intravenously into a tail vein with radio-labelled thymidine 3H-methyl thymidine. Approximately five hours after intravenous injection, the mice were sacrificed, the draining auricular lymph nodes excised and pooled per group. Single cell suspensions of lymph node cells were prepared from pooled lymph nodes which were subsequently washed and incubated with trichloroacetic acid overnight. The proliferative capacity of pooled lymph node cells was determined by the incorporation of 3H-methyl thymidine measured. All treated animals survived the scheduled study period. No clinical signs were observed in any animals of the control group, Group 2 (5 %), Group 3 (10 %) or Group 4 (25 %). On the second application day, a slight to moderate ear erythema was observed at both dosing sites in all mice of Group 5 (50 %) and Group 6 (100 %, undiluted), persisting for a total of two days.
The results obtained (Stimulation Index (S.I.)) for each group of animals and exposure were as follows: group 2 (5% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 3 (10% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 4 (25% (w/v)), S.I. 1.0; group 5 (50% (w/v)), S.I. 0.6; group 6 (100% (w/v)), S.I. 0.5.
A test item is regarded as a sensitizer in the LLNA if the exposure to one or more test concentrations resulted in 3-fold or greater increase in incorporation of 3HTdR compared with concurrent controls, as indicated by the stimulation index (S.I.). In this study S.I. of 0.6, 0.6, 1.0, 0.6 and 0.5 were determined with the test item at concentrations of 5 %, 10 %, 25 %, 50 % (w/v) in acetone/olive oil (4/1, v/v) and 100 % (undiluted), respectively.
RHODIASOLV RPDE was therefore found to be a non-sensitizer when tested at up to the concentration of 100 % (i.e., undiluted).
Reference
Results
Calculation and results of individual data
The proliferative capacity of pooled lymph node cells was determined by the incorporation of 3H-methyl thymidine measured on a 13-scintillation counter See in text table below for stimulation index (S.I.).
Test item concentration % (w/v) |
S.I. |
|
Group 2 |
5 |
0.6 |
Group 3 |
10 |
0.6 |
Group 4 |
25 |
1.0 |
Group 5 |
50 |
0.6 |
Group 6 |
100 (undiluted) |
0.5 |
No dose-response relationship was observed. |
||
Calculation of the EC 3 value was not performed because no test concentrations produced a STIMULATION INDEX (S.I.) of 3 or higher. |
The radioactive disintegration values for the individual treatment groups are included in Table 1 below.
Viability / Mortality
No deaths occurred during the study period.
Clinical Signs
No clinical signs were observed in any animals of the control group, Group 2 (5 %), Group 3 (10 %) or Group 4 (25 %). On the second application day, a slight to moderate ear erythema was observed at both dosing sites in all mice of Group 5 (50 %) and Group 6 (100 %, undiluted), persisting for a total of two days. The individual clinical were graded in severity of the symptoms into four grades: slight (1), moderate (2), severe (3) and very severe (4),.
Body weights
The body weight of the animals, recorded prior to the first application and prior to necropsy, was within the range commonly recorded for animals of the strain and age.
Table 1
Test item |
Measurement |
Calculation |
Result |
|||
concentration |
dpm |
dpm - |
number of |
dpm per |
S.I. |
|
% (w/v) |
BGa) |
lymph nodes |
lymph nodeb) |
|||
-- |
BG I |
10 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
BGII |
14 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
CG 1 |
4902 |
4890 |
8 |
611 |
-- |
5 |
TG 2 |
2978 |
2966 |
8 |
371 |
0.6 |
10 |
TG 3 |
2898 |
2886 |
8 |
361 |
0.6 |
25 |
TG4 |
4846 |
4834 |
8 |
604 |
1.0 |
50 |
TG5 |
2726 |
2714 |
8 ** |
339 |
0.6 |
100 * |
TG6 |
2601 |
2589 |
8 ** |
324 |
0.5 |
*, undiluted as delivered by sponsor;
**, the size of the draining lymph nodes of this group was obviously small compared to those of the control group;
BG, background (1 ml 5% trichloroacetic acid) in duplicate;
CG, control group;
TG, test group;
S.I., simulation index
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The skin sensitization potential of dibasic esters was assessed in two in vivo assays. A mouse Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), of reliability 1 according to Klimisch cotation criteria, was selected as a key study based on its high reliability and as it is the reference method endorsed by REACH. Several concentration of dibasic esters blend were tested up to 100%, and no increase in the stimulation indices occurred, illustrating the absence of skin sensitization. This is confirmed by a Guinea-Pig Maximisation Test (GPMT), of reliability 2 according to Klimisch cotation criteria and therefore selected as a supporting study, where the concentrations of 10% and 100% were tested. No cutaneous reactions were observed following challenge, corroborating the absence of skin sensitization potential.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
No indication of skin sensitization potential in a Local Lymph Node Assay and a Guinea Pig Maximisation Test.
Justification for selection of skin sensitisation endpoint:
The LLNA was selected as a key study based on its high reliability and as it is the reference method endorsed by REACH
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
The respiratory sensitization potential of dibasic esters was not formally assessed in a dedicated study, but there was no indication of specific immunotoxicity in rats exposed by inhalation for up to 90 days (see "7.5. Repeated dose toxicity" section for details).
Therefore dibasic ester blend is not considered to be a respiratory sensitizer.
Migrated from Short description of key information:
Not formally assessed but no indication of specific immunotoxicity in 90-day inhalation toxicity studies in rats.
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the classification criteria of Annex VI Directive 67/548/EEC or EU Regulation 1272/2008 (CLP), and given the absence of positive reactions in a LLNA and a GPMT, or signs of specific immunotoxicity in a rat 90 -day toxicity study by inhalation, dibasic ester blend is not classified as a skin or 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.