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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Exposure related observations in humans: other data

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
exposure-related observations in humans: other data
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Scientifically acceptable

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Occupational contact allergy to glyoxal.
Author:
Aalto-Korte K, Mäkelä EA, Huttunen M, Suuronen K, Jolanki R
Year:
2005
Bibliographic source:
Contact Dermatitis 52(5): 276-281

Materials and methods

Type of study / information:
Type of experience: other: occupational contact allergy

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
Glyoxal
EC Number:
203-474-9
EC Name:
Glyoxal
Cas Number:
107-22-2
Molecular formula:
C2H2O2
IUPAC Name:
oxalaldehyde
Test material form:
liquid

Results and discussion

Any other information on results incl. tables

Irritation and doubful skin reactions: In the group of 614 patients, 91 cases (i.e 14.9%) of irritation or doubtful reactions were noticed, with a reation index of -0.78. In the 1% aqueous glyoxal solution and the 1% glyoxal trimer solution in pet., reation indices of -0.5 and 0 were calculated, respectively.   Allergic reactions: Twenty patients (i.e. 2.2%) were found to be allergic to glyoxal. Nine of these patients (i.e. 45%) also were allergic to formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde. Occupational background: Five of the positive patients worked in dentistry and 4 of them had present exposure to glyoxal. Nine patients were machinists without obvious exposure to glyoxal. One patient was a grinder with work-related facial dermatitis. The remaining 6 patients worked in miscellaneous occupations and had no present exposure to glyoxal.  Diagnosis: The diagnosis was occupational allergic or irritant contact hand dermatitis.

Applicant's summary and conclusion