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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Genetic toxicity in vitro

Description of key information
Zeiger et al (1992) reported that isopropyl acetate was negative in a Salmonella gene mutation assay (Ames Tester Strains TA97, TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537), with and without exogenous metabolic activation
Link to relevant study records
Reference
Endpoint:
in vitro gene mutation study in bacteria
Remarks:
Type of genotoxicity: gene mutation
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
key study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Study performed according to accepted scientific standards.
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 471 (Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay)
Deviations:
no
Principles of method if other than guideline:
Name of test material (as cited in study report): Isopropyl acetate
Analytical purity: >99%
GLP compliance:
not specified
Type of assay:
bacterial reverse mutation assay
Species / strain / cell type:
S. typhimurium TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 100
Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- Type and identity of media:
- Culture prepared at 37C overnight with shaking in Oxoid #2 broth or in defined minimal medium supplemented with biotin and histidine. Phenotype analysed at time of use.
Species / strain / cell type:
S. typhimurium TA 97
Details on mammalian cell type (if applicable):
- Type and identity of media:
- Culture prepared at 37C overnight with shaking in Oxoid #2 broth or in defined minimal medium supplemented with biotin and histidine. Phenotype analysed at time of use.
Metabolic activation:
with and without
Metabolic activation system:
Aroclor 1254 induced male SD rat and male Syrian hamster liver S9 fraction, each used at two concentrations (10% and 30%)
Test concentrations with justification for top dose:
0 ; 100 ; 333 ; 1000 ; 3333 ; 10000 µg/plate. Doses were prepared using dimethyl sulphoxide as the solvent; a maximum of 0.5 ml solvent was added to each plate. Each dose was tested in triplicate without activation, and with 10% rat and hamster liver S-9.
Untreated negative controls:
yes
Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
yes
True negative controls:
no
Positive controls:
yes
Positive control substance:
other: 2374 used for TA1535 and TA100 without metabolic activation
Untreated negative controls:
yes
Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
yes
True negative controls:
no
Positive controls:
yes
Positive control substance:
other: 28 used for TA97 without metabolic activation
Untreated negative controls:
yes
Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
yes
True negative controls:
no
Positive controls:
yes
Positive control substance:
other: 1342 4-nitro-o-phenylenediamine used for TA98 without metabolic activation
Untreated negative controls:
yes
Negative solvent / vehicle controls:
yes
True negative controls:
no
Positive controls:
yes
Positive control substance:
other: 1342 2-aminoanthracene for all strains with metabolic activation
Details on test system and experimental conditions:
METHOD OF APPLICATION: preincubation

DURATION
- Preincubation period: 20 mins at 37C
- Expression time (cells in growth medium): 2 days at 37C

NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS: 5 concentrations in triplicate without metabolic activation, and with 10% and 30% liver S-9 from rat and hamster. Replicate tests were performed after the initial trial to confirm these results.
Evaluation criteria:
A material was considered mutagenic if it produced a reproducible, dose-related increase in revertants over the solvent control, under a single metabolic activation condition, in replicate trials. A material was considered questionable if the positive response was elicited at only one concentration, or if the response could not be reproduced. A chemical was designated as non-mutagenic only after it was tested without metabolic activation, and with 10% and 30% rat and hamster S-9.
Species / strain:
S. typhimurium TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 100
Metabolic activation:
with and without
Genotoxicity:
negative
Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
no cytotoxicity
Remarks:
up to maximum dose tested (10000ug/ml)
Vehicle controls validity:
valid
Untreated negative controls validity:
not examined
Positive controls validity:
valid
Species / strain:
S. typhimurium TA 97
Metabolic activation:
with and without
Genotoxicity:
negative
Cytotoxicity / choice of top concentrations:
no cytotoxicity
Remarks:
up to maximum dose tested (10000ug/ml)
Vehicle controls validity:
valid
Untreated negative controls validity:
not examined
Positive controls validity:
valid
Remarks on result:
other: all strains/cell types tested
Remarks:
Migrated from field 'Test system'.

After a negative result was obtained, isopropyl acetate was retested without metabolic activation and with 30% S-9. Repeat experiments were performed at least one week following the initial trial.

Conclusions:
Interpretation of results (migrated information):
negative

Zeiger et al (1992) reported that isopropyl acetate was negative in a Salmonella gene mutation assay (Ames Tester Strains TA97, TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537), with and without exogenous metabolic activation.
Executive summary:

Isopropyl acetate was non-mutagenic when tested to a maximum concentration of 10 mg/plate, using the Salmonella typhimurium pre-incubation protocol. At least five doses were tested in triplicate, without metabolic activation, and with 10% and 30% liver S-9 from rat and hamster. Replicate tests were performed after the initial trial to confirm these results.

Endpoint conclusion
Endpoint conclusion:
no adverse effect observed (negative)

Additional information

Additional information from genetic toxicity in vitro:

Justification for selection of genetic toxicity endpoint
Best available data

Justification for classification or non-classification