Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 944-753-1 | CAS number: -
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data

Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
Skin sensitisation: Not sensitising based on read across from Orange flower ether, which was up to 100% not skin sensitising in a Buehler test (OECD TG 406).
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 10 June 2005 - 13 July 2005
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- guideline study with acceptable restrictions
- Justification for type of information:
- Information from a reliable, Buehler test is available being performed before the change in the Reach regulation, preferring the in vitro tests. The information is used for read across to Oxaspirane-819.
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 1992, Buehler
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- EPA OPPTS 870.2600 (Skin Sensitisation)
- Version / remarks:
- 2003
- GLP compliance:
- yes
- Type of study:
- Buehler test
- Justification for non-LLNA method:
- This study is available and is sufficient to determine the skin sensitizing potential of the substance.
- Species:
- guinea pig
- Strain:
- Hartley
- Remarks:
- Albino
- Sex:
- male/female
- Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
- TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Elm Hill Breeding Laboratories, Chelmsford, MA
- Females nulliparous and non-pregnant: yes
- Age at study initiation: young adults
- Weight at study initiation:357 – 455 g
- Housing: in suspended stainless steel caging with mesh floors which confirm to the size recommendations of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals DHEW. Litter paper was placed beneath the cage and was changed at least three times per week.
- Diet: Pelleted Purina Guinea Pig Chow #5025
- Water: filtered tap water, ad libitum
- Acclimation period: 12 to 14 days
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 17 - 23
- Humidity (%): 40 - 66
- Air changes (per hr):
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12 - Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.4 mL
- Day(s)/duration:
- 6 hours
- Adequacy of induction:
- highest technically applicable concentration used
- No.:
- #1
- Route:
- epicutaneous, occlusive
- Vehicle:
- other: mineral oil
- Concentration / amount:
- 0.4 mL of a 50% w/w mixture
- Day(s)/duration:
- 6 hours
- Adequacy of challenge:
- highest non-irritant concentration
- No. of animals per dose:
- - Preliminary irritation study: 4
- Test group: 20
- Control group: 10 - Details on study design:
- RANGE FINDING TESTS:
A group of 4 animals was used to determine the highest non-irritating concentration (HNIC) of the test substance. The fur was removed by clipping the dorsal area and flanks of each animal. This area was divided in four test sites (two sites on each side of the midline) on each animal. The test substance was applied neat (100%) and also diluted with mineral oil to yield w/w concentrations of 75%, 50% and 25%. Each concentration was applied (0.4 mL) to a test site using an occlusive 25 mm Hilltop Chamber. The sites were wrapped with non-allergic Durapore adhesive tape. After 6 hours of exposure, the chambers were removed and the test sites were cleansed of any residual test substance. Approximately 24 hours after application, each site was evaluated for local reactions (erythema). From these results, the HNIC selected for the challenge phase was a 50% w/w mixture in mineral oil.
MAIN STUDY
A. PREPARATION AND SELECTION OF ANIMALS
Prior to initiation, the fur of a group of animals was removed by clipping the dorsal area and flanks. Animals were weighed and the skin checked to make sure no pre-existing skin irritation was present.
B. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
3 times each week for 3 weeks, 0.4 mL of the undiluted test substance was applied to the left side of each animal using an occlusive 25 mm Hilltop Chamber. The chambers were secured in place and wrapped with non-allergic Durapore adhesive tape to avoid dislocation of the chambers and to minimize loss of the test substance. After an exposure period of 6 hours, the chambers were removed and the test sites were cleansed of any residual test substance. Approximately 24 and 48 hours after each induction application, readings were made of local reactions (erythema).
C. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
28 days after the first induction dose, 0.4 mL of a 50% w/w mixture of the test substance in mineral oil (HNIC) was applied to a naïve site on the right side of each animals as a challenge dose, under the same occlusive conditions as the induction exposure. Following the 6 hour exposure period, the chambers were removed and the test site were cleansed of residual test substance. These sites were evaluated for sensitization response at approximately 24 and 48 hours after the challenged. - Challenge controls:
- 10 animals were maintained under identical environmental conditions and treated with the HNIC of the test substance only.
- Positive control substance(s):
- yes
- Remarks:
- 75% w/w alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde in mineral oil
- Positive control results:
- 4 of 9 positive control animals exhibited signs of sensitization response 24 and 48 hours after challenge. Very faint erythema (0.5) was noted for 4 other sites after challenge.
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- very faint erythema (0.5) was observed in 5 animals
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Irriation persisted in one animal
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- very faint erythema (0.5) was noted in 6 animals
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 75%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 75%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Not a skin sensitiser.
- Remarks:
- according to EU CLP EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments)
- Conclusions:
- The substance is not a skin sensitiser In a Buehler test (OECD 406 and GLP).
- Executive summary:
The substance was tested in a Buehler test (OECDTG 406, Rel. 1). The undiluted test substance was topically applied to 20 Hartley Guinea pigs, 2 times each week for a 3 week induction period. 28 days after the first induction dose, a challenge of the test substance at the highest non-irritating concentration (50% w/w in mineral oil) was applied to a naïve site on each animals. A naïve control groups (10 animals) received the challenge alone. Approximately 24 and 48 hours after each induction and challenge dose, the animals were scored for erythema. No sensitizing effects were observed in both the test animals and controls animals. The validity of these results was confirmed by a historical positive control validation study with alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde 75% w/w in mineral oil. Based on the results of this study the test substance is not considered to be a skin sensitizer.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
- Type of information:
- read-across from supporting substance (structural analogue or surrogate)
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- 2018
- Reliability:
- 2 (reliable with restrictions)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Read-across information.
- Justification for type of information:
- The information is derived from read across, the read across rationale is presented in the Endpoint summary and the accompanying files are also attached there.
- Reason / purpose for cross-reference:
- read-across source
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- very faint erythema (0.5) was observed in 5 animals
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- test chemical
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 20
- Clinical observations:
- Irriation persisted in one animal
- Key result
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Clinical observations:
- very faint erythema (0.5) was noted in 6 animals
- Key result
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- negative control
- Dose level:
- 50% w/w
- No. with + reactions:
- 0
- Total no. in group:
- 10
- Reading:
- 1st reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 24
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 75%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Reading:
- 2nd reading
- Hours after challenge:
- 48
- Group:
- positive control
- Dose level:
- 75%
- No. with + reactions:
- 4
- Total no. in group:
- 9
- Remarks on result:
- positive indication of skin sensitisation
- Interpretation of results:
- other: Not a skin sensitser
- Remarks:
- According to EU CLP (EC No. 1272/2008 and its amendments).
- Conclusions:
- The test substance is considered not a skin sensitiser, based on read across from Orange flower ether, which is tested in an OECD TG 406, Buehler test.
- Endpoint:
- skin sensitisation: in vitro
- Data waiving:
- study scientifically not necessary / other information available
- Justification for data waiving:
- an in vitro skin sensitisation study does not need to be conducted because adequate data from an in vivo skin sensitisation study are available
Referenceopen allclose all
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
Skin sensitisation potential of Oxaspirane is derived from Orange flower ether using read across. First the executive summary of Orange flower ether is presened below followed by the read-across rationale.
Orange flower ether and its skin sensitisation potential
The substance was tested in a Buehler test (OECDTG 406, Rel. 1). The undiluted test substance was topically applied to 20 Hartley Guinea pigs, 2 times each week for a 3 week induction period. 28 days after the first induction dose, a challenge of the test substance at the highest non-irritating concentration (50% w/w in mineral oil) was applied to a naïve site on each animals. A naïve control groups (10 animals) received the challenge alone. Approximately 24 and 48 hours after each induction and challenge dose, the animals were scored for erythema. No sensitizing effects were observed in both the test animals and controls animals. The validity of these results was confirmed by a historical positive control validation study with alpha-Hexylcinnamaldehyde 75% w/w in mineral oil. Based on the results of this study the test substance is not considered to be a skin sensitizer.
The skin sensitizing potential of Oxaspirane-819 using read across from Orange flower ether (CAS 14576-08-0)
Introduction and hypothesis for the analogue approach
Oxaspirane-819 consists of 3 main constituents. All three have a 2 hexyl rings touching each other at one spot. One ring contains an ether bond. All constituents have a double bond and a methyl group opposite the ether bond. The two major constituents have an internal double bond conjugated with the methyl group, while the minor one has an external double bond. For Oxaspirane-819 there are no experimental skin sensitisation data. In accordance with Article 13 of REACH, lacking information can generated by other means i.e. applying alternative methods such as QSARs, grouping and read-across. For assessing the skin sensitisation of Oxaspirane-819 the analogue approach is selected because for a related analogue, Orang Flower Ether skin sensitisation information is available which can be used for read across.
Hypothesis: Oxaspirane-819 has the same skin sensitisation potential as Orange flower ether.
Available information: Orange flower ether was negative up to 100% in a Buehler test (OECD TG 406, Rel. 2).
Target chemical and source chemical(s)
Chemical structures of the target chemical and the source chemicals are shown in the data matrix, including physico-chemical properties and toxicological information, thought relevant for skin sensitisation.
Purity / Impurities
The purity and impurities of the target chemical do not indicate skin sensitizing potential. Orange flower ether does not contain any impurities that are considered to impact the assessment of read across.
Analogue approach justification
According to Annex XI 1.5 read across can be used to replace testing when the similarity can be based on a common backbone and a common functional group. When using read across the result derived should be applicable for C&L and/or risk assessment and it should be presented with adequate and reliable documentation, which is presented below.
Analogue selection:Orange flower ether was selected as an analogue because it shares a similar backbone and functional group with Oxaspirane-819 and it has reliable skin sensitisation information.
Structural similarities and differences: Oxaspirane-819‘s constituents and Orange flower ether contain a hydrocarbon backbone with at least one hexyl ring. This contains a double bond to which a methyl group is attached. Both substances have an ether bond too. The difference is that in Oxaspirane-819 part of the hydrocarbon backbone is an additional hexyl ring, while Orange flower ether has the other carbons external of the hexyl ring. Another difference is that Oxaspirane-819 has the ether bond in the ring, while Orange flower ether has it outside the ring. These differences are not considered to influence the skin sensitisation potential.
Dermal absorption: Oxaspirane-819 and Orange flower ether have a similar dermal absorption based on a very similar molecular weight and log Kow.
Skin sensitisation reactivity:The reactivity of Oxaspirane-819 and Orange flower ether both have ether as a functional group and therefore are expected to have the same reactivity.
Information on other endpoints: Oxaspirane-819 and Orange flower ether have the same skin and eye irritation potential supporting the similarity in reactivity.
Uncertainty of the prediction: There are no other uncertainties, which are not already covered above.
Data matrix
The relevant information on physico-chemical properties and toxicological characteristics are presented in Table 2.
Conclusions for hazard and risk assessment
For Oxaspirane-819 experimental skin sensitisation information is not available and therefore Orange flower ether information is used for read across.When using read across the result derived should be applicable for C&L and/or risk assessment and be presented with adequate and reliable documentation, which is presented in the current document. For Orange flower ether is tested up to 100% in a Buehler test (OECD TG 406, Rel. 2) and was negative. This result can be used also for Oxaspirane-819.
Final conclusion on hazard and risk assessment: Oxaspriane-819 is not a skin sensitizer.
Data matrix to support the read across for skin sensitisation to Oxaspirane-819 from Orange flower ether
Common names
Oxaspirane-819
Orange flower ether
Target
Source
Constituent
1 and 2
3
Constituent name
4-methyl-1-oxaspiro[5.5]undec-4-ene
4-methylidene-1- oxaspiro[5.5]undecane
4-(1-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-1-methylcyclohexene
Chemical structures
Typical concentration (%)
30-50 and 25-45
15-35
CAS no
62062-89-9
62062-84-4
14576-08-0
Smiles:
CC2=CC1(CCCCC1)OCC2
C=C2CC1(CCCCC1)OCC2
COC©©C1CCC©=CC1
EC no
944-753-1
238-620-0
REACH registration
2018
Registered
Empirical formula
C11H18O
C11H18O
C11H20O
Molecular weight
166
166
168
Physico-chemical data
Water solubility, mg/l
24.95* (6300, measured)
21.38*
22.61*(83, measured)
Log Kow
3.99* (4.3, measured)
4.07* (4.4, measured)
4.03* (4.5, measured)
pKa
4.47
4.47
4.76
Human health
Skin irritation
Skin irritant Cat 2
(OECD TG 439)
Skin irritant Cat 2
(OECD TG 439)
Eye irritation
Not an eye irritant
(OECD TG 438)
Not an eye irritant
(OECD TG 405)
Skin sensitisation
Not a skin sensitiser
(Read across)
Not a skin sensitiser
(OECD TG 406, Buehler)
* Episuite v4.11
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the results, the substance does not need to be classified and labelled for skin sensitisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 and its amendments.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.
