Threshold Of Toxicological Concern Research Articles

Tolerability of risk: A commentary on the nitrosamine contamination issue.

For decades, regulators have grappled with different approaches to address the issue of control of impurities. Safety-based limits, such as permissible daily exposure (PDE), acceptable intake (AI), threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and less than lifetime limits (LTL) have all been used. For many years these safety-based limits have been recognized as virtually safe doses (VSDs). Recently, however, many regulatory agencies are seeking to impose limits for N-nitrosamine impurities, which are significantly below the VSD. This commentary will discuss the evolution of safety-based limits for impurities, provide an overview of the valsartan N-nitrosamine contamination issue and review the toxicology of N-nitrosamines. The outcome of a lessons-learned exercise on sartan medications undertaken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will also be discussed. The review will also highlight the many analytical challenges inherent with controlling impurities to ppb-based limits. The use of highly sensitive, low ppb limits, methods may lead to future issues of batch rejection, based on false positives. Regulators initially viewed the N-nitrosamine risk as being insufficient to prompt immediate product discontinuation and patients were specifically advised to continue using their affected medication. Patients were also informed that exposure to N-nitrosamines is extremely common via food and drinking water.

Analysis of 13 Alternaria mycotoxins including modified forms in beer

A multi-mycotoxin LC-MS/MS method was developed to quantify 13 free and modified Alternaria toxins in different beer types by applying a combination of stable-isotope dilution assays (SIDAs) and matrix-matched calibration. With limits of detection (LODs) between 0.03 µg/L (alternariol monomethyl ether, AME) and 5.48 µg/L (altenuene, ALT), limits of quantitation (LOQs) between 0.09 µg/L (AME) and 16.24 µg/L (ALT), and recoveries between 72 and 113%, we obtained a sensitive and reliable method, which also covers the emerging toxins alternariol-3-glucoside (AOH-3-G), alternariol-9-glucoside (AOH-9-G), alternariol monomethyl ether-3-glucoside (AME-3-G) and alternariol-3-sulfate (AOH-3-S) and alternariol monomethylether-3-sulfate (AME-3-S). Furthermore, 50 different beer samples were analyzed, showing no contamination with Alternaria toxins apart from tenuazonic acid (TeA) in concentrations between 0.69 µg/L and 16.5 µg/L. According to this study, the exposure towards TeA through beer consumption can be considered as relatively low, as the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) value of 1500 ng/kg body weight per day might not be reached when consuming reasonable amounts of beer.

Selective quantitation of B2Pin2 and B2(OH)4 in active pharmaceutical ingredients by gas chromatography- mass spectrometry

This paper describes a sensitive and selective method for the simultaneous determination of bispinacolato diboron (B2Pin2) and tetrahydroxy diboron (B2(OH)4) in a small molecule Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) by gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC-MS). These reagents are commonly used in the Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reaction and analytical methods are typically required to monitor these reagents at the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) level since they are Class II impurities based on ICH M7 guideline. In this study, hexylene glycol was added to derivatize B2(OH)4 before direct injection to the GC-MS, and B2Pin2 is analyzed in the same analysis without derivatization. Under the optimal conditions, the limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) were 65 ng/mL and 130 ng/mL respectively. Average recoveries of the analytes spiked in the drug substance at the 13 ppm (LOQ) and 104 ppm (TTC) levels were in the range of 77.9 %–85.3 % with relative standard deviations (RSDs) of 2.8 %–6.8 %. The linearity for both analytes was established in the range of 0.130–2.080 μg/mL with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.9998 and the derivatization reaction is very rapid and complete within 15 minutes.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, cyclohexanol, CAS Registry Number 108-93-0

SummaryThe existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.Cyclohexanol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that cyclohexanol is not genotoxic. Data on cyclohexanol provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data show that there are no safety concerns for cyclohexanol for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; cyclohexanol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to cyclohexanol is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; cyclohexanol 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 <1.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 67, Revision 3 (FGE.67Rev3): consideration of 23 furan-substituted compounds evaluated by JECFA at the 55th, 65th, 69th and 86th meetings.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2‐pentylfuran [FL‐no: 13.059] and 2‐acetylfuran [FL‐no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL‐no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI‐B [FL‐no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL‐no: 13.054] and [FL‐no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B‐side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2‐acetylfuran and 2‐pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL‐no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, p-tolyl isobutyrate, CAS Registry Number 103-93-5

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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole, CAS Registry Number 38303-23-0

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-Decahydrocyclododecaoxazole was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the Dermal Sensitization Threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole 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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one, CAS Registry Number 83863-64-3

SummaryThe existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 7,9-Dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is below the TTC (0.009 mg/kg/day, 0.009 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Based on the existing data and readacross material spiro[5.5]undec-8-en-1-one, 2,2,7,9-tetramethyl- (CAS # 502847-01-0), 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one presents no concern for skin sensitization under the current, declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is not phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one 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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene, CAS registry number 13877-91-3

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene and read-across analog myrcene (β-myrcene; CAS # 123-35-3) show that 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm 2 ); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6- octatriene is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6- octatriene 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 oncentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1.

Internal Threshold of Toxicological Concern (iTTC): Where We Are Today and What Is Possible in the Near Future.

The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a risk assessment tool for evaluating low-level exposure to chemicals with limited toxicological data. A next step in the ongoing development of TTC is to extend this concept further so that it can be applied to internal exposures. This refinement of TTC based on plasma concentrations, referred to as internal TTC (iTTC), attempts to convert the chemical-specific external NOAELs (in mg/kg/day) in the TTC database to an estimated internal exposure. A multi-stakeholder collaboration formed, with the aim of establishing an iTTC suitable for human safety risk assessment. Here, we discuss the advances and future directions for the iTTC project, including: (1) results from the systematic literature search for metabolism and pharmacokinetic data for the 1,251 chemicals in the iTTC database; (2) selection of ~350 chemicals that will be included in the final iTTC; (3) an overview of the in vitro caco-2 and in vitro hepatic metabolism studies currently being generated for the iTTC chemicals; (4) demonstrate how PBPK modeling is being utilized to convert a chemical-specific external NOAEL to an internal exposure; (5) perspective on the next steps in the iTTC project.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, glyceryl monooleate, CAS Registry Number 111-03-5

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.Glyceryl monooleate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that glyceryl monooleate is not genotoxic. Data on glyceryl monooleate provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. 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; glyceryl monooleate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to glyceryl monooleate is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; glyceryl monooleate 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 (VoU) in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-mercaptopropionic acid, CAS Registry Number 79-42-5

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Mercaptopropionic acid was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not 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 2-mercaptopropionic acid 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; 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the hazard assessment based on the screening data, 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, 2-mercaptopropionic acid was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, p-tolualdehyde, CAS Registry Number 104-87-0

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.p-Tolualdehyde was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog benzaldehyde (CAS # 100-52-7) show that p-tolualdehyde is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from read-across analog cuminaldehyde (CAS # 122-03-2) provided p-tolualdehyde a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1100 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to p-tolualdehyde is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data from read-across analog 4-ethylbenzaldehyde (CAS # 4748-78-1); p-tolualdehyde is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p-tolualdehyde 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 <1.

SpheraCosmolife: a new tool for the risk assessment of cosmetic products.

A new, freely available software for cosmetic products has been designed that considers the regulatory framework for cosmetics. The software allows an overall toxicological evaluation of cosmetic ingredients without the need for additional testing and, depending on the product type, it applies defined exposure scenarios to derive risk for consumers. It takes regulatory thresholds into account and uses either experimental values, if available, or predictions. Based on the exper­imental or predicted no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), the software can define a point of departure (POD), which is used to calculate the margin of safety (MoS) of the query chemicals. The software also provides other toxico­logical properties, such as mutagenicity, skin sensitization, and the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) to provide an overall evaluation of the potential chemical hazard. Predictions are calculated using in silico models implemented within the VEGA software. The full list of ingredients of a cosmetic product can be processed at the same time, at the effective concentrations in the product as given by the user. SpheraCosmolife is designed as a support tool for safety assessors of cosmetic products and can be used to prioritize the cosmetic ingredients or formulations according to their potential risk to consumers. The major novelty of the tool is that it wraps a series of models (some of them new) into a single, user-friendly software system.

Supercritical Fluid Extraction Combined with Ultrahigh Performance Liquid Chromatography Quadrupole Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry for Determination of Extractables to Evaluate Compatibility of Drugs with Rubber Closures.

Biological activity and pharmacological efficacy of protein drugs may be affected by the compatibility between drug and packaging materials. The compatibility of rubber closures seal cap has become the focus of many studies due to its complicated formulation. Despite of the significance of the issue, currently, there is little available data about organic leachables in drugs which is also not comprehensive. Since the concentration of migrants in drug is usually low and the matrix is complicated, the establishment of overall profile of extractables is crucial for the characterization of leachables. Herein, the supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) method was used because of its great extraction capacity and efficiency for low to medium polar extractables in rubber stoppers. The SFE conditions were optimized by response surface methodology (RSM). Experimental results of the extract yield were close to the predicted values (R2 = 0.95). Then the extractables were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed with ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTOF MS). Finally, risk assessment was made by comparing predicted exposure with injection permitted daily exposure (pPDE) limit or threshold recommended by threshold of toxicological concern (TTC). The results showed that there are many extractables such as glyceride, fatty acids and derivatives, antioxidants, and degradation products. Among them degradation products were in the majority and content of 17 substances exceeded corresponding limits. Considering their unknown toxicology, more experiments are therefore needed to provide information on their toxicology and risk assessment. The study provides a reference for the compatibility of drugs, and quality supervision of pharmaceuticals packaging.

Do Similar Structures Have Similar No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) Values? Exploring Chemoinformatics Approaches for Estimating NOAEL Bounds and Uncertainties.

Determination of the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of a substance is an important step in safety and regulatory assessments. Application of conventional in silico strategies, for example, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, to predict NOAEL values is inherently problematic. Whereas QSAR models for well-defined toxicity endpoints such as Ames mutagenicity or skin sensitization can be developed from mechanistic knowledge of molecular initiating events and adverse outcome pathways, QSAR is not appropriate for predicting a NOAEL value, a concentration at which "no effect" is observed. This paper presents a chemoinformatics approach and explores how it can be further refined through the incorporation of toxicity endpoint-specific information to estimate confidence bounds for the NOAEL of a target substance, given experimentally determined NOAEL values for one or more suitable analogues. With a sufficiently large NOAEL database, we analyze how a difference in NOAEL values for pairs of structures depends on their pairwise similarity, where similarity takes both structural features and physicochemical properties into account. The width of the estimate NOAEL confidence interval is proportional to the uncertainty. Using the new threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) database enriched with antimicrobials, examples are presented to illustrate how uncertainty decreases with increasing analogue quality and also how NOAEL bounds estimation can be significantly improved by filtering the full database to include only substances that are in structure categories relevant to the target and analogue.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate, CAS Registry Number 81752-87-6

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is not genotoxic. Data on methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. The 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 methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data show that there are no safety concerns for methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-yclohexanecarboxylate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate 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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3,4,4a,5,8,8a(Or 3,4,4a,7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran, CAS Registry Number 72429-08-4

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 3,4,4a,5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a,7,8,8a)-Hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a,7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran 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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone, CAS Registry Number 90-42-6

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.2-Cyclohexylcyclohexanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data and read-across to 2-tert-butylcyclohexanone (CAS # 1728-46-7) show that 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across material 2-sec-butylcyclohexanone (CAS # 14765-30-1) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is below the TTC (0.47 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone 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 <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3-octanol, CAS Registry Number 589-98-0

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.3-Octanol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 3-hexanol (CAS # 623-37-0) show that 3-octanol is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on 3-octanol provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog 2-octanol (CAS # 123-96-6) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint and show that there are no safety concerns for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3-octanol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3-octanol 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 <1.