Reaction mass of 3,7-bis(diethylamino)phenoxazin-5-ium chloride and 3,7-bis(diethylamino)phenoxazin-5-ium trichlorozincate

Endpoint summary

Description of key information

Sensitizer

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Reference

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)

Type of information:

other: read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study with acceptable restrictions

Justification for type of information:

see section 13

Qualifier:

equivalent or similar to guideline

Guideline:

other: Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals in Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, 1959, the US Association of Food and Drug Officials

GLP compliance:

no

Type of study:

guinea pig maximisation test

Justification for non-LLNA method:

An in vitro or in chemico skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted because adequate data from an in vivo skin sensitisation study are available

Species:

guinea pig

Strain:

Pirbright-Hartley

Sex:

male/female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

TEST ANIMALS
- Age: 10 weeks old
- Body weight: 270 - 360 g.
- Accommodation: individually in Macrolon type-3 cages
- Diet: pelleted standard NAFAG N. 830 (Gossau SG) ad libitum, supplemented with fresh carrots.
- Acclimatation: 10 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature: 20 ± 1 °C
- Relative humidity: 55 ± 5 %
- 14 hours light cycle day

Route:

intradermal

Vehicle:

physiological saline

Concentration / amount:

0.1 % solution of test substance in physiological saline (0.1 ml)

Day(s)/duration:

3 weeks

No.:

#1

Route:

intradermal

Vehicle:

physiological saline

Concentration / amount:

0.1 ml of freshly prepared 0.1 % solution of test substance in physiological saline

No.:

#2

Route:

epicutaneous, occlusive

Vehicle:

other: vaseline

Concentration / amount:

1 %

Day(s)/duration:

24 hours

No. of animals per dose:

10 males and 10 females

Details on study design:

During the induction period the animals received one injection every second day (except weekends) to a total of 10 intracutaneous injections. One control group was treated with the vehicle alone ("negative control"). On the first day, injections of 0.1 ml were administered into the shaven skin of the right flank and the back, while on the following days a single intracutaneous injection was given into the back.
During the second and third week of the induction period the test material was incorporated in a mixture of the normal vehicle with complete Bacto Adjuvant (vehicle : adjuvant = 1 : 1).
Fourteen days after the last sensitizing injection, a challenge injection of 0.1 ml of a freshly prepared 0.1 % solution was administered into the skin of the left flank.
Twenty-four hours after each injection during the first week of the induction period and 24 hours after the challenge injection the reactions were recorded. The two largest perpendicular diameters (in mm) and the increase in the skin-fold thickness (in mm) were measured and by multiplication of these values "reaction volume was obtained (in pi) for each reading from each animal.
The mean volume plus one standard deviation of the induction reactions observed in the individual animal in the first week was taken as representing the skin irritation "threshold" for each animal. Any challenge reaction greater than this threshold value in the induction period was graded as an allergic reaction and the animal termed "positive". The number of "positive" animals in the test group was compared with the number of animals in the control group (treated with thevehicle alone) that showed a non-specific reaction of at least the same magnitude ("negative control").Ten days after the intracutaneous challenge injection a subirritant dose of the test compound (1 % in vaseline) was applied epicutaneously under occlusive dressings which were left in place for 24 hours. The reactions were evaluated 24 h after removing of the bandages according the Draize scoring scale.

Key result

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

0.1 %

No. with + reactions:

10

Total no. in group:

20

Remarks on result:

positive indication of skin sensitisation

Reading:

rechallenge

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

test chemical

Dose level:

1 %

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

20

Remarks on result:

no indication of skin sensitisation

Reading:

1st reading

Hours after challenge:

48

Group:

negative control

Dose level:

0

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

20

Remarks on result:

no indication of skin sensitisation

Reading:

rechallenge

Hours after challenge:

24

Group:

negative control

Dose level:

0

No. with + reactions:

0

Total no. in group:

20

Remarks on result:

no indication of skin sensitisation

Group:

positive control

Remarks on result:

other: not reported

No animals gave positive reactions after occlusive epicutaneous application

Under the experimental conditions employed, significant differences between the test group and the vehicle treated controls were only seen after intradermal challenge application of test item, i.e. when the skin barrier was intentionally by-passed. No difference between the test and the control group was seen after epidermal challenge application. The negative results upon epidermal challenge demonstrate that, in artificially sensitized guinea-pigs, exposure of the intact skin to the test compound does not provoke contact dermatitis.

Interpretation of results:

other: skin sens 1A (H317), according to the CLP Regulation

Conclusions:

Under the experimental conditions, 50 % of the animals of the test group were sensitised after intradermal challenge injection. No animals gave positive reactions after occlusive epicutaneous application.

Executive summary:

The skin sensitisation potential was evaluated using an intracutaneous sensitization procedure similar to the method reccomended in the Appraisal of the safety of chemicals in Foods, Drug and Cosmetics (1959), the US Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO).

Under the experimental conditions, 50 % of the animals of the test group were sensitised after intradermal challenge injection.

Whereas, no animals gave positive reactions after occlusive epicutaneous application.

Therefore, according to the CLP Regulation (EC n. 1272/2008), the substance is classified as skin sensitiser, category 1A, since in the Guinea pig maximisation test the response in more than 30 % of the animals was positive, responding at ≤ 0,1 % intradermal induction dose.

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

adverse effect observed (sensitising)

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

In the CLP Regulation (EC n. 1272/2008), in the section 3.4 Respiratory or skin sensitisation, a skin sensitizer is defined as a substance that will lead to an allergic response following skin contact.

A substance shall be classified as skin sensitisers (Category 1) where data are not sufficient for sub- categorisation (1A and 1B) in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) if there is evidence in humans that the substance can lead to sensitisation by skin contact in a substantial number of persons; or

(b) if there are positive results from an appropriate animal test ( according to 3.4.2.2.4.1).

If, in order to evaluate skin sensitisation potential, a Guinea pig maximisation test is performed, a substance is classified as skin sensitiser when the response of at least 30 % responding at ≤ 0,1 % intradermal induction dose or at least 60 % responding at > 0,1 % to ≤ 1 % intradermal induction dose.

Thus, the substance should be classified as skin sensitizer sub-category 1A (H317), according to the CLP Regulation (EC 1272/2008).