Nonan-1-ol

Carcinogenicity

Description of key information

Although no specific data could be identified for nonanol, weight of evidence across the category suggests that nonanol is unlikely to be carcinogenic.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Carcinogenicity: via oral route

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Carcinogenicity: via inhalation route

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Carcinogenicity: via dermal route

Endpoint conclusion

Endpoint conclusion:

no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

Based on the weight of evidence, the data is waived as testing is not a scientifically necessary option for this endpoint.

Additional information

Although Column 2 of REACH Annex X requires a carcinogenicity study (required in Section 8.9.1) if the substance has a wide dispersive use, the weight of evidence across the category suggests that nonanol is unlikely to be carcinogenic. This is based on a large set of various types of repeated dose studies across the category which do not offer any evidence of treatment-related induction of hyperplasia / pre-neoplastic lesions for structurally related alcohols (though reporting is limited in many cases). In addition, nonanol does not have any genotoxic effects.

Discussion of trends in the Category of C6-24 linear and essentially-linear aliphatic alcohols:

Several members of the category of the LCAAs have been tested as control substances in skin painting studies. Even taking into account the limitations of these experiments, the data show that none of aliphatic alcohols tested have a potential to induce local skin tumours upon repeated dermal application at or above the maximum tolerated (irritant) dose. However, these data are unsuitable to assess properties such as co-carcinogenicity or tumour promotion for this category. Most of the study protocols considered here have almost certainly induced considerable local effects, however details of the irritation responses are limited and were reported only in a few cases. Irrespective of the causative agent, irritation at the site of application is a significant confounder in skin painting studies and its role in the tumour development of non-genotoxic chemicals has been well established (for examples see Nessel et al., 1998, 1999; Argyris, 1985).

LCAAs are non-genotoxic and lack structural elements of concern for interaction with DNA (Ashby and Tenant, 1991). Together with the lack of response upon repeated application the skin painting studies LCAAs are regarded to be of little concern regarding carcinogenicity. The large set of various types of repeated dose studies across the category which do not offer any evidence of treatment-related induction of hyperplasia/pre-neoplastic lesions for any of the structurally related alcohols (though reporting is limited in many cases), and the lack of genotoxic effects demonstrated across the category, suggest that none of the category members are likely to be carcinogenic.

Argyris T.S. 1985, Regeneration and the mechanism of epidermal tumor promotion. Crit Rev Toxicol: 14(3):211-58.

Nessel, C.S., Freeman, J.L et al. 1999. The role of dermal irritation in the skin tumor promoting activity of petroleum middle distillates. Toxicological Sciences 49: 48-55.

Nessel, C.S.; Priston, R.A.J.; et al. 1998 A comprehensive evaluation of the mechanism of skin tumorigenesis by straight-run and cracked petroleum middle distillate. Toxicological Sciences 44: 22-31.