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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Administrative data

Description of key information

In a guiena pig maximisation test conducted in accordance with OECD TG 406 and GLP using the split adjuvant protocol the source substance did not show a positive skin sensitization reaction at challenge concentrations of 1, 5, or 25%. The maximum non-irritant concentrations were determined in a pre-test. The results are considered relevant for the target substance and supported by a negative prediction for skin sensitization of the target substance with OECD Toolbox.

According to the criteria of EU Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 the substance does not have to be classified as sensitising by skin exposure.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Skin sensitisation

Link to relevant study records

Referenceopen allclose all

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation: in vivo (non-LLNA)
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: GLP guideline study with acceptable restrictions. Split Adjuvant Test due to limited solubility, but no positive control included.
Qualifier:
according to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 406 (Skin Sensitisation)
Deviations:
yes
Remarks:
no positive control substance included
GLP compliance:
yes
Type of study:
split adjuvant test
Justification for non-LLNA method:
Study was undertaken prior to the acceptance and development of the LLNA test.
Species:
guinea pig
Strain:
Dunkin-Hartley
Sex:
female
Details on test animals and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Olac, Great Britain
- Age at study initiation: 2 months
- Weight at study initiation: 320-412 g
- Housing: 4 per cage in metal cages with wire-mesh floors (RUCO, Valkenswaard). Distal parts of both rear feet were wrapped with adhesive tape (Sleek, Smith and Nephew, England) to prevent skin injuries.
- Diet: Standard guinea pig diet including ascorbic acid (1600 mg/kg), obtained from Hope Farms, Woerden (LC 23-B, pellet diameter 4 mm), availability not specified. In addition, once a week hay was provided.
- Water: Not specified.
- Acclimation period: 11 days

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
- Temperature (°C): 19.5-21.0
- Humidity (%): 50-80
- Photoperiod (hrs dark / hrs light): 12/12
Route:
intradermal and epicutaneous
Vehicle:
corn oil
Remarks:
SAT: test substance in corn oil only applied epicutaneously, not injected
Concentration / amount:
Induction: 0.2 mL of 25% (w/v) on day 0 and 2; 5% (w/v) on day 4 and 7
Challenge: 50 µL of 25, 5, 1 and 0% (w/v) on day 21
Route:
epicutaneous, occlusive
Vehicle:
corn oil
Remarks:
SAT: test substance in corn oil only applied epicutaneously, not injected
Concentration / amount:
Induction: 0.2 mL of 25% (w/v) on day 0 and 2; 5% (w/v) on day 4 and 7
Challenge: 50 µL of 25, 5, 1 and 0% (w/v) on day 21
No. of animals per dose:
20 females in test group, 10 in control group
Details on study design:
RANGE FINDING TESTS:
Before challenge phase a primary irritation test was carried out with 4 guinea pigs in order to find a concentration for challenge not inducing substantial irritation. Four guinea pigs were shaved and their left flank was exposed for 24 hours to 25, 10, 2.5 and 1% (w/v) of the test substance in corn oil under occlusive conditions; application was done in plastic Square chambers (v.d. Bend, Brielle, The Netherlands) provided with aluminium foil to avoid contact with the compound. Two animals died from bandage-induced stress, but the remaining animals showed no skin response to any of the tested concentrations.

MAIN STUDY
A. INDUCTION EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 4
- Test groups: test substance in corn oil epicutaneously under occlusive conditions on day 0, 2, 4 and 7 (on day 0 treatment of skin with dry ice for 5 seconds prior to application); additionally 2 i.d. injections of 0.1 mL FCA on day 4 on either side of sensitisation area.
- Control group: 2 i.d. injections of 0.1 mL FCA on day 4 on either side of sensitisation area.
- Site: Shaved area of 2x2 cm on the back just behind the right shoulder girdle, injections were done on either side of the sensitisation area. The animals were wrapped in a "window dressing" consisting of Lenkelast elastic bandage (Lohmann, Neuwied, FRG) into which a 2x2 cm opening had previously been cut. This opening was placed over the sensitisation site. After applications the site was covered with a Metalline-patch (Lohmann), which was held in place by covering with water-impermeable tape (Sleek, Smith and Nephew, England).
- Frequency of applications: 2 days
- Duration: 8 days
- Concentrations: Test group: 0.2 mL of 25% (w/v) on day 0 and 2, and 5 % (w/v) on day 4 and 7

B. CHALLENGE EXPOSURE
- No. of exposures: 1
- Day(s) of challenge: 21
- Exposure period: 24 hours
- Test groups: test substance in corn oil under occlusive conditions
- Control group: test substance in corn oil under occlusive conditions
- Site: Application of test substance to the shaved left flank by patches consisting of 1 cm² filter paper (Schleicher & Schull), attached to a piece of aluminium foil with petrolatum, the aluminium foil being mounted on non-irritating Micropore tape (3M Co. St. Paul, USA). The animals were then wrapped in Coban elastic bandage (Smith and Nephew, England). The dressing was fixed in place for 24 hours.
- Concentrations: 50 µL of 25, 5, 1 and 0% (w/v)
- Evaluation (hr after challenge): 48 and 72 hours (24 and 48 hours after removal of the bandage and a close shave of the skin)
Challenge controls:
Control group also serves as challenge control, as injection of these animals with FCA alone on day 4 of the induction should not elicit any sensitivities.
Positive control substance(s):
no
Positive control results:
No positive control was included.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Key result
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
1
Total no. in group:
20
Clinical observations:
Moderate and diffuse reaction; two other animals demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction) which were not considered positive.
Remarks on result:
other: see Remark
Remarks:
Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 1.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0. Clinical observations: Moderate and diffuse reaction; two other animals demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction) which were not considered positive..
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
test chemical
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
20
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: test group. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 20.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Clinical observations:
Two animals demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction), which were not considered positive.
Remarks on result:
other: see Remark
Remarks:
Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0. Clinical observations: Two animals demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction), which were not considered positive..
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
9
Clinical observations:
One animal demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction) which were not considered positive. A second one could not be evaluated due to reddening from shaving
Remarks on result:
other: see Remark
Remarks:
Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 9.0. Clinical observations: One animal demonstrated red spots (scattered reaction) which were not considered positive. A second one could not be evaluated due to reddening from shaving.
Reading:
1st reading
Hours after challenge:
48
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
9
Clinical observations:
One animal could not be evaluated due to reddening from shaving.
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 1st reading. . Hours after challenge: 48.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 9.0. Clinical observations: One animal could not be evaluated due to reddening from shaving..
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
25%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 25%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
5%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 5%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
1%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 1%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Reading:
2nd reading
Hours after challenge:
72
Group:
negative control
Dose level:
0%
No. with + reactions:
0
Total no. in group:
10
Remarks on result:
other: Reading: 2nd reading. . Hours after challenge: 72.0. Group: negative control. Dose level: 0%. No with. + reactions: 0.0. Total no. in groups: 10.0.
Interpretation of results:
not sensitising
Remarks:
Migrated information
Conclusions:
According to the criteria of EU Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 oleyl palmitamide does not have to be classified as sensitising by skin exposure.
Executive summary:

In a guinea pig maximisation test conducted in accordance with OECD TG 406 and GLP using the split adjuvant protocol the source substance did not show a positive skin sensitization reaction at challenge concentrations of 1, 5, or 25%. The maximum non-irritant concentrations were determined in a pre-test. The results are considered relevant for the target substance and supported by a negative prediction for skin sensitization of the target substance with OECD Toolbox.

According to the criteria of EU Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 the substance does not have to be classified as sensitising by skin exposure.

Endpoint:
skin sensitisation, other
Type of information:
(Q)SAR
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model and falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification
GLP compliance:
no
Type of study:
other:
Interpretation of results:
GHS criteria not met
Conclusions:
The OECD QSAR Toolbox v4.2 prediction for skin sensitization is negative (p=0.0313).
Executive summary:

The OECD QSAR Toolbox v4.2 prediction for skin sensitization is negative (p=0.0313).

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)

Respiratory sensitisation

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no study available

Justification for classification or non-classification

In a guinea pig maximisation test conducted in accordance with OECD TG 406 and GLP using the split adjuvant protocol the source substance did not show a positive skin sensitization reaction at challenge concentrations of 1, 5, or 25%. The maximum non-irritant concentrations were determined in a pre-test. The results are considered relevant for the target substance and supported by a negative prediction for skin sensitization of the target substance with OECD Toolbox.

According to the criteria of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 the substance does not have to be classified as sensitising by skin exposure.