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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Eye irritation

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Study period:
18 August 2016 (Study Plan dated) to 30 January 2017 (Final Report dated)
Reliability:
1 (reliable without restriction)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
guideline study

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
study report
Title:
Unnamed
Year:
2017
Report date:
2017

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 437 (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)
Version / remarks:
26 July 2013
Deviations:
no
GLP compliance:
yes

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
2,2'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy)]bis(ethanethiol)
EC Number:
239-044-2
EC Name:
2,2'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy)]bis(ethanethiol)
Cas Number:
14970-87-7
Molecular formula:
C6H14O2S2
IUPAC Name:
2,2'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy)]bis(ethanethiol)
Test material form:
liquid

Test animals / tissue source

Species:
other: Bos primigenius taurus
Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:
Isolated corneas from the eyes of freshly slaughtered bovine (age of animal: 12-60 months)

Test system

Vehicle:
unchanged (no vehicle)
Controls:
yes, concurrent positive control
yes, concurrent negative control
Amount / concentration applied:
750 microliter
Duration of treatment / exposure:
10 minutes at 32°C +/- 1°C
Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):
1 hour and 55 minutes at 32°C +/- 1°C
Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
3 fresh bovine corneas
Details on study design:
REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Washing
- Time after start of exposure:10 minutes

SCORING SYSTEM: Final opacity value of each cornea
Fluorescein permeability after 85 minutes of incubation at 32 +/- 1°C

TOOL USED TO ASSESS SCORE: opacitometer (opacity), spectrophotometer at 492 nm (permeability)

Results and discussion

In vitro

Results
Irritation parameter:
in vitro irritation score
Value:
ca. 4.75
Vehicle controls validity:
not applicable
Negative controls validity:
valid
Remarks:
IVIS = 0.12
Positive controls validity:
valid
Remarks:
IVIS = 82.08

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:
other: Not classified eye damage category 1
Conclusions:
The test item DMDO induces effects on the cornea, that cannot be classified in an UN GHS Category for eye damage
Executive summary:

The study was performed to assess corneal damage potential of DMDO by quantitative measurements of changes in opacity and permeability in a bovine cornea. DMDO was brought onto the cornea of a bovine eye which previously had been incubated with cMEM without phenol red at 32 +/- 1°C for 1 hour and whose opacity had been determined. DMDO was incubated on the cornea for 10 minutes at 32 +/- 1°C. After removal of the test item and 1 hour and 55 minutes post-incubation, opacity and permeability values were measured. The negative control (HBSS-solution) and the positive control (undiluted dimethylformamide) have met the validity criteria. No observations were made which might cause doubts concerning the validity of the study outcome. The test is considered valid. DMDO was tested as pure. Under the condition of this test , DMDO showed effects on the cornea of the bovine eye. The calculated IVIS (in vitro irritancy score) is 4.75. According to the OECD Guideline no. 437 (July 2013), a substance with an IVIS >3 and <= 55 induces effects on the cornea, that cannot be classified in an UN GHS Category for eye damage. Nevertheless, the result did not warrant a classifiucation as eye damage category 1.