Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
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: 257-036-7 | CAS number: 51181-50-1
- 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
An in vitro skin (OECD 439) and an in vitro eye (OECD 437) irritation test were available.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin irritation / corrosion
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- skin irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- August-September 2012
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Well performed and reported GLP study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 439 (In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Species:
- other: in vitro
- Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
- Test system: EPISKIN Small ModelTM (EPISKIN-SMTM, 0.38 cm2, Batch no.: 12-EKIN-031).
This model is a three-dimensional human epidermis model, which consists of adult human-derived epidermal keratinocytes which have been seeded on a dermal substitute consisting of a collagen type I matrix coated with type IV collagen. The keratinocytes were cultured for 13 days, which results in a highly differentiated and stratified epidermis model comprising the main basal, supra basal, spinous and granular layers and a functional stratum corneum.
Rationale: In the interest of sound science and animal welfare, a sequential testing strategy is recommended to minimise the need of in vivo testing. One of the validated in vitro skin irritation tests is the EPISKIN test, which is recommended in international guidelines (e.g. OECD and EC).
Source: SkinEthic Laboratories, Lyon, France. - Type of coverage:
- other: not applicable
- Preparation of test site:
- other: not applicable
- Vehicle:
- unchanged (no vehicle)
- Controls:
- no
- Amount / concentration applied:
- The solid test substance (10.8 to 14.7 mg) was applied directly on top of the skin tissue. HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was spread to match the size of the tissue.
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- See below
- Observation period:
- Not applicable
- Number of animals:
- Not applicable
- Details on study design:
- See below
- Irritant / corrosive response data:
- HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was checked for possible direct MTT reduction by adding the test substance to MTT medium. Because no colour change was observed it was concluded that HEDTA-Fe(III)Na did not interact with MTT.
The mean absorption at 570 nm measured after treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na and controls are presented in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the mean tissue viability obtained after 15 minutes treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na compared to the negative control tissues. Skin irritation is expressed as the remaining cell viability after exposure to the test substance. The relative mean tissue viability obtained after 15 minutes treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na compared to the negative control tissues was 107%. Since the mean relative tissue viability for HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was above 50% HEDTA-Fe(III)Na is considered to be non-irritant.
The positive control had a mean cell viability after 15 minutes exposure of 4%. The absolute mean OD570 of the negative control tissues was within the laboratory historical control data range (See APPENDIX 3). The standard deviation value of the percentage viability of three tissues treated identically was less than 17%, indicating that the test system functioned properly. - Other effects:
- No
- Interpretation of results:
- not irritating
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The test substance is not irritating in an in vitro test (OECD 439).
- Executive summary:
This report describes the ability of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na to induce skin irritation on a human three dimensional epidermal model (EPISKIN Small Model (EPISKIN-SMTM)). The possible skin irritation potential of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was tested through topical application for 15 minutes.
The study procedures described in this report were based on the most recent OECD and EC guidelines.
Batch CFC-10340 (308H0351) of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was a red brown powder with a purity of ~81%. Skin tissue was moistened with 5 µl of Milli-Q water and 10.8 to 14.7 mg of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was applied directly on top of the skin tissue for 15 minutes. After a 42 hour post-incubation period, determination of the cytotoxic (irritancy) effect was performed. Cytotoxicity is expressed as the reduction of mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity measured by formazan production from MTT at the end of the treatment.
Skin irritation is expressed as the remaining cell viability after exposure to the test substance. The relative mean tissue viability obtained after 15 minutes treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na compared to the negative control tissues was 107%. Since the mean relative tissue viability for HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was above 50% after 15 minutes treatment HEDTA-Fe(III)Na is considered to be non-irritant.
The positive control had a mean cell viability of 4% after 15 minutes exposure. The absolute mean OD570(optical density at 570 nm) of the negative control tissues was within the laboratory historical control data range. The standard deviation value of the percentage viability of three tissues treated identically was less than 17%, indicating that the test system functioned properly.
Finally, it is concluded that this test is valid and that HEDTA-Fe(III)Na is non-irritant in thein vitroskin irritation test under the experimental conditions described in this report.
Reference
Table1 Mean absorption in the in vitro skin irritation test with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na
|
A (OD570) |
B (OD570) |
C (OD570) |
Mean (OD570) |
|
SD |
Negative control |
0.883 |
1.018 |
0.969 |
0.957 |
± |
0.069 |
HEDTA-Fe(III)Na |
1.177 |
1.033 |
0.868 |
1.026 |
± |
0.154 |
Positive control |
0.029 |
0.035 |
0.044 |
0.036 |
± |
0.007 |
OD = optical density
SD = Standard deviation
Triplicate exposures are indicated by A, B and C.
In this table the values are corrected for background absorption (0.042). Isopropanol was used to measure the background absorption.
Table2 Mean tissue viability in thein vitroskin irritation test with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na
|
Mean tissue viability (percentage of control) |
Negative control |
100 |
HEDTA-Fe(III)Na |
107 |
Positive control |
4 |
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Eye irritation
Link to relevant study records
- Endpoint:
- eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo
- Type of information:
- experimental study
- Adequacy of study:
- key study
- Study period:
- August 2012
- Reliability:
- 1 (reliable without restriction)
- Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
- other: Well performed and reported GLP study
- Qualifier:
- according to guideline
- Guideline:
- OECD Guideline 437 (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test Method for Identifying Ocular Corrosives and Severe Irritants)
- Deviations:
- no
- GLP compliance:
- yes (incl. QA statement)
- Species:
- other: in vitro
- Vehicle:
- physiological saline
- Controls:
- no
- Amount / concentration applied:
- A 20% (w/w) solution of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was prepared in physiological saline (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany).
- Duration of treatment / exposure:
- See below
- Observation period (in vivo):
- See below
- Number of animals or in vitro replicates:
- Not applicable
- Details on study design:
- Negative control: a negative control, physiological saline (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was included to detect non-specific changes in the test system and to provide a baseline for the assay endpoints.
Positive control: 20% (w/v) Imidazole (Merck Schuchardt DHG, Germany) [CAS Number 288-32-4] solution prepared in physiological saline.
Test System: bovine eyes were used as soon as possible after slaughter on the same day.
Rationale: in the interest of sound science and animal welfare, a sequential testing strategy is recommended to minimise the need of in vivo testing (1-6). As a consequence a validated and accepted in vitro test for eye irritation should be performed before in vivo tests are conducted. One of the proposed validated in vitro eye irritation tests is the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test.
Source: bovine eyes from young cattle were obtained from the slaughterhouse (Vitelco, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands), where the eyes were excised by a slaughterhouse employee as soon as possible after slaughter.
Transport: eyes were collected and transported in physiological saline in a suitable container.
All eyes were carefully examined for defects by holding the eyes submersed in physiological saline. Those exhibiting unacceptable defects, such as opacity, scratches, pigmentation and neovascularization were discarded.
The isolated corneas were stored at 32 +/- 1 degrees C in a petri dish with cMEM (Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium (Invitrogen Corporation, Breda, The Netherlands) containing 1% (v/v) L-glutamine (Invitrogen Corporation) and 1% (v/v) Foetal Bovine Serum (Invitrogen Corporation)). The isolated corneas were mounted in a corneal holder (one cornea per holder) of MC2 (Clermont, France) with the endothelial side against the O-ring of the posterior half of the holder. The anterior half of the holder was positioned on top of the cornea and tightened with screws. The compartments of the corneal holder were filled with cMEM of 32 +/- 1 degrees C. The corneas were incubated for the minimum of 1 hour at 32 +/- 1 degrees C.
After the incubation period, the medium was removed from both compartments and replaced with fresh cMEM. Opacity determinations were performed on each of the corneas using an opacitometer (OP-KIT, MC2, Clermont, France). The opacity of each cornea was read against an air filled chamber, and the initial opacity reading thus determined was recorded. Corneas that had an initial opacity reading higher than 7 were not used. Three corneas were selected at random for each treatment group.
The medium from the anterior compartment was removed and 750 uL of the negative control, 20% (w/v) Imidazole solution (positive control) or 20% (w/w) test substance solution were introduced onto the epithelium of the cornea. The holder was slightly rotated, with the corneas maintained in a horizontal position, to ensure uniform distribution of the solutions over the entire cornea. Corneas were incubated in a horizontal position for 240 +/- 10 minutes at 32 +/- 1 degrees C. After the incubation the solutions were removed and the epithelium was washed at least three times with MEM with phenol red (Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium, Invitrogen Corporation). Possible pH effects of the test substance on the corneas were recorded. The anterior and the posterior compartment were refilled with fresh cMEM and an opacity determination was performed without any further incubation. After the completion of the incubation period each cornea were inspected visually for dissimilar opacity patterns and the opacity determination was performed.
The opacitometer determined the difference in the light transmission between each control or treated cornea and an air filled chamber. The numerical opacity value (arbitrary unit) was displayed and recorded. The change in opacity for each individual cornea (including the negative control) was calculated by subtracting the initial opacity reading from the final post-treatment reading. The corrected opacity for each positive control or test substance treated cornea was calculated by subtracting the average change in opacity of the negative control corneas from the change in opacity of each positive control or test substance treated cornea. The mean opacity value of each treatment group was calculated by averaging the corrected opacity values of the treated corneas for each treatment group.
Following the final opacity measurement, permeability of the cornea to Na-fluorescein (Merck) was evaluated.
The medium of both compartments (anterior compartment first) was removed. The posterior compartment was refilled with fresh cMEM. The anterior compartment was filled with 1 ml of 5 mg Na-fluorescein/ml cMEM solution. The holders were slightly rotated, with the corneas maintained in a horizontal position, to ensure uniform distribution of the sodium-fluorescein solution over the entire cornea. Corneas were incubated in a horizontal position for 90 +/- 5 minutes at 32 +/- 1 degrees C.
After the incubation period, the medium in the posterior compartment of each holder was removed and placed into a sampling tube labelled according to holder number. 360 uL of the medium from each sampling tube was transferred to a 96-well plate. The optical density at 490 nm (OD490) of each sampling tube was measured in triplicate using a microplate reader (TECAN Infinite® M200 Pro Plate Reader). Any OD490 that was 1.500 or higher was diluted to bring the OD490 into the acceptable range (linearity up to OD490 of 1.500 was verified before the start of the experiment). OD490 values of less than 1.500 were used in the permeability calculation.
The mean OD490 for each treatment was calculated using cMEM corrected OD490 values. If a dilution was performed, the OD490 of each reading was corrected for the mean negative control OD490 before the dilution factor was applied to the readings. - Irritant / corrosive response data:
- HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was tested in a 20% (w/w) solution. Table 1 summarizes the opacity, permeability and in vitro irritancy scores of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na and the controls. The individual in vitro irritancy scores for the negative controls ranged from -2.0 to 2.0. The individual positive control in vitro irritancy scores ranged from 124 to 134. The corneas treated with the positive control were turbid after the 240 minutes of treatment.
The corneas treated with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na showed opacity values ranging from 1 to 3 and permeability values ranging from -0.007 to 0.028. The corneas were clear after the 240 minutes of treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na, only a little light spot was observed in the middle of the corneas. No pH effect of the test substance was observed on the rinsing medium. Hence, the in vitro irritancy scores ranged from 1.4 to 2.9 after 240 minutes of treatment with HEDTA-Fe(III)Na. - Interpretation of results:
- not irritating
- Remarks:
- Migrated information Criteria used for interpretation of results: EU
- Conclusions:
- The test substances was not irritating in OECD test 437.
- Executive summary:
This report describes the ocular irritation properties of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na on an isolated bovine cornea. The possible ocular irritancy of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was tested through topical application for approximately 240 minutes.
The study procedures described in this report were based on the most recent OECD and EC guideline.
Batch CFC-10340 (308H0351) of HEDTA-Fe(III)Na was a red brown powderwith a purity of ~81%. The test substance was applied as a 20% (w/w) solution (750 µl) directly on top of the corneas.
The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range indicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas,except the response of one cornea. However since the opacity was just above the upper limit of the range and all other values were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range,this deviation in the opacity score had no effect on the results of the study.
The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (20% (w/v) Imidazole) was 131 and within the historical positive controldata range.It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly.
HEDTA-Fe(III)Na did not induce ocular irritation through both endpoints, resulting in a mean in vitro irritancy score of 2.1 after 240 minutes of treatment.
Finally, it is concluded that this test is valid and that HEDTA-Fe(III)Na is not severe irritant or corrosive in the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test under the experimental conditions described in this report.
Reference
Table1 Summary of opacity, permeability andin vitroscores
Treatment |
Mean Opacity1 |
Mean Permeability1 |
Mean In vitro Irritation Score1, 2 |
Negative control |
0 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
Positive control |
81 |
3.308 |
131 |
HEDTA-Fe(III)Na |
2 |
0.009 |
2.1 |
1 Calculated using the negative control mean opacity and mean permeability values.
2 In vitroirritancy score (IVIS) = mean opacity value + (15 x mean OD490value).
Table 2 Historical control data for the BCOP studies
|
Negative control |
Positive control |
||
|
Opacity |
Permeability |
In vitro Irritancy Score |
In vitro Irritancy Score |
Range |
-5 – 1 |
-0.03 – 0.059 |
-4.7 – 1.1 |
70 – 180 |
Mean |
-0.1 |
0 |
0 |
111 |
SD |
0.73 |
0.01 |
0.71 |
20 |
n |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
SD = Standard deviation
n = Number of observations
The above mentioned historical control data range of the controls were obtained by collecting all data over the period of January 2009 to January 2012.
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not irritating)
Respiratory irritation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Additional information
Test results showed that HEDTA-FeNa is not irritating to skin and eyes. Based on read across with comparable metal-chelates like EDTA-FeNa and DTPA-FeHNa no further testing was performed (see also section 13 for read across).
Justification for selection of skin irritation / corrosion endpoint:
Well performed and reported GLP study
Justification for selection of eye irritation endpoint:
Well performed and reported GLP study
Justification for classification or non-classification
Based on the test results, no classification for skin and eye irritation is needed.
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.