Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate, CAS registry number 26553-46-8

Api, A. M. ; Belsito, D. ; Botelho, D. ; Bruze, M. LU ; Burton, G. A. ; Buschmann, J. ; Dagli, M. L. ; Date, M. ; Dekant, W. and Deodhar, C. , et al. (2020) In Food and Chemical Toxicology 144.
Abstract

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog methyl 3-hexenoate (CAS # 2396-78-3) show that ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The skin... (More)

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog methyl 3-hexenoate (CAS # 2396-78-3) show that ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 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; ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
And reproductive, Developmental, Environmental safety, Genotoxicity, Local, Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, Repeated dose, Respiratory toxicity, Skin sensitization, Toxicity
in
Food and Chemical Toxicology
volume
144
article number
111474
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • pmid:32640340
  • scopus:85087983866
ISSN
0278-6915
DOI
10.1016/j.fct.2020.111474
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
05e601be-34ed-4b62-b1ec-6ae718d4ed9e
date added to LUP
2020-07-30 13:40:08
date last changed
2024-04-03 12:26:14
@article{05e601be-34ed-4b62-b1ec-6ae718d4ed9e,
  abstract     = {{<p>The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog methyl 3-hexenoate (CAS # 2396-78-3) show that ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 Dermal Sensitization Threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm<sup>2</sup>); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate 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 &lt;1.</p>}},
  author       = {{Api, A. M. and Belsito, D. and Botelho, D. and Bruze, M. and Burton, G. A. and Buschmann, J. and Dagli, M. L. and Date, M. and Dekant, W. and Deodhar, C. and Francis, M. and Fryer, A. D. and Jones, L. and Joshi, K. and La Cava, S. and Lapczynski, A. and Liebler, D. C. and O'Brien, D. and Patel, A. and Penning, T. M. and Ritacco, G. and Romine, J. and Sadekar, N. and Salvito, D. and Schultz, T. W. and Sipes, I. G. and Sullivan, G. and Thakkar, Y. and Tokura, Y. and Tsang, S.}},
  issn         = {{0278-6915}},
  keywords     = {{And reproductive; Developmental; Environmental safety; Genotoxicity; Local; Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity; Repeated dose; Respiratory toxicity; Skin sensitization; Toxicity}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{07}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Food and Chemical Toxicology}},
  title        = {{RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl (E)hex-3-enoate, CAS registry number 26553-46-8}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111474}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.fct.2020.111474}},
  volume       = {{144}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}