Registration Dossier

Diss Factsheets

Administrative data

Description of key information

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Additional information:

Acute toxicity, irritation and sensitisation data for copper dichloride have been read across from the closely analogous substance copper chloride. These substances are chemically similar; copper dichloride contains only cupric copper and ionic chlorine, whereas copper chloride contains cuprous copper and ionic chlorine. Available data on (cuprous) dicopper oxide and (cupric) copper oxide show that cuprous copper is inherently more acutely toxic and irritant than the cupric form (neither compound is a skin sensitiser). The results of an acute oral toxicity test available in the public literature (Singh and Junnarkar, 1991) confirm that this principle can also be applied to the cuprous and cupric chlorides. On this basis, and in order to minimise animal testing, a worst-case approach has been adopted in which data generated using copper choride has been directly read across to copper dichloride.

A GLP-compliant guinea-pig maximisation test was carried out in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines (Mallaun, 2010). 20% of the test animals showed skin reactions 24 hours after the challenge treatment with the analogous compound copper chloride at 0.5% (w/w), but no reactions were observed 48 hours after treatment. No local skin effects were observed in any animals of the control group. On this basis it is concluded that copper dichloride is not a sensitiser.

These classification criteria are applicable to anhydrous and hydrated forms of the compound.

Justification for classification or non-classification