Search

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog linalyl phenylacetate (CAS # 7143-69-3) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-37-5) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8), benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) and sodium benzoate (CAS # 532-32-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) and benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data from the suitable read across analog linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-375).

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and provided a MOE >100 for the repeated dose endpoint. The developmental and reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra along with data on the target material. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. p-Tolyl isobutyrate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analogs ethyl p-tolyl carbonate (CAS # 22,719-81-9) and p-tolyl acetate (CAS # 140-39-6) show that p-tolyl isobutyrate is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to p-tolyl isobutyrate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the Dermal Sensitization Threshold (DST) for reactive materials (64 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; p-tolyl isobutyrate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p-tolyl isobutyrate was found not to be Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 37.5 mg/kg/day. A gavage 13-week subchronic toxicity study conducted in mice resulted in a MOE of 5769 while considering 38.4% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

Please cite this article as: A.M. Api, D. Belsito, S. Bhatia, M. Bruze, P. Calow, M.L. Dagli, W. Dekant, A.D. Fryer, L. Kromidas, S. La Cava, J.F. Lalko, A. Lapczynski, D.C. Liebler, Y. Miyachi, V.T. Politano, G. Ritacco, D. Salvito, J. Shen, T.W. Schultz, I.G. Sipes, B. Wall, D.K. Wilcox, RIFM FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT, Linalyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 115-95-7, Food and Chemical Toxicology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.01.010.

The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a pragmatic approach in risk assessment. In the absence of data, it sets up levels of human exposure that are considered to have no appreciable risk to human health. The Cramer decision tree is used extensively to determine these exposure thresholds by categorizing non-carcinogenic chemicals into three different structural classes. Therefore, assigning an accurate Cramer class to a material is a crucial step to preserve the integrity of the risk assessment. In this study the Cramer class of over 1000 fragrance materials across diverse chemical classes were determined by using Toxtree (TT), the OECD QSAR Toolbox (TB), and expert judgment. Disconcordance was observed between TT and the TB. A total of 165 materials (16%) showed different results from the two programs. The overall concordance for Cramer classification between TT and expert judgment is 83%, while the concordance between the TB and expert judgment is 77%. Amines, lactones and heterocycles have the lowest percent agreement with expert judgment for TT and the TB. For amines, the expert judgment agreement is 45% for TT and 55% for the TB. For heterocycles, the expert judgment agreement is 55% for TT and the TB. For lactones, the expert judgment agreement is 56% for TT and 50% for the TB. Additional analyses were conducted to determine the concordance within various chemical classes. Critical checkpoints in the decision tree are identified. Strategies and guidance on determining the Cramer class for various chemical classes are discussed.

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog isobornyl acetate (CAS # 125-12-2) show that this material is not genotoxic, provided a MOE > 100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive endpoints, and does not have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.47 mg/day). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

• Methyl hexyl oxo cyclopentanone carboxylate safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints were completed using nerolidol (isomer unspecified, CAS # 7212-44-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

Summary : The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using ethylene dodecanedioate (CAS # 54982-83-1) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra along with data on the target material. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data on the suitable read across analog oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2).

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental and repeat dose toxicity endpoints were completed data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the target material and the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) provided a MOE > 100 for the repeat dose and developmental toxicity endpoints. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.009 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data on the target material showed that this material is below the non-reactive DST for skin sensitization and did not have the potential for phototoxicity or photoallergenicity. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Developmental toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 100 mg/kg/day. A gavage developmental toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in aMOE of 3571 while considering 78.7% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 10 mg/kg/day. A dietary 90-day subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats resulted in a MOE of 182 while assuming 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analogs 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100 The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information.This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog, benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4), show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework. (Less)

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined using a suitable read across analog to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 36 mg/kg/day. A dermal 90-day subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats resulted in a MOE of 2250 while considering 14.4% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of 3-phenylpropyl isobutyrate when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented. 3-Phenylpropyl isobutyrate is a member of the fragrance structural group cinnamyl phenylpropyl compounds. The common characteristic structural element of cinnamyl phenylpropyl materials is an aryl substituted primary alcohol/aldehyde/ester. They are simple aromatic compounds with saturated propyl or unsaturated propenyl side chains containing a primary oxygenated functional group which has little toxic potential. 3-Phenyl-1-propyl derivatives participate in the same beta oxidation pathways as do their parent cinnamic acid derivatives. This review contains a detailed summary of all available toxicology and dermatology papers that are related to this individual fragrance ingredient and is not intended as a stand-alone document. Available data for 3-phenylpropyl isobutyrate was evaluated then summarized and includes physical properties, acute toxicity, skin irritation and skin sensitization. A safety assessment of all cinnamyl phenyl propyl compounds will be published simultaneously with this document. Please refer to Belsito et al. (2011) for an overall assessment of the safe use of this material and all cinnamyl phenylpropyl materials in fragrances. Belsito, D., Bickers, D., Bruze, M., Dagli, M.L., Fryer, A., Greim, H., Miyachi, Y., Saurat, J.H., Sipes, I.G., 2011. A toxicologic and dermatologic assessment of cinnamyl phenylpropyl compounds when used as fragrance ingredients.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of 7-octen-2-ol, 2-methyl-6-methylene-, dihydro derivative when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of (3aalpha,4alpha,6alpha,7alpha,7aalpha)-3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-3-methyl-5-methylene-4,7-methano-1H-inden-6-yl acetate when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of 1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[4.4.0]dec-3-yl acetate when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of tricyclodecenyl acetate when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of d-cyclocitronellene acetate when used as a fragrance material is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of 2-(1-methylpropyl)-1-vinylcyclohexyl acetate when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of vetiverol when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of sclareol when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of santalol when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of myrtenol when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of menthol racemic when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.

A toxicologic and dermatologic review of geraniol when used as a fragrance ingredient is presented.