Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate, CAS Registry Number 53399-81-8

Api, A. M. ; Belsito, D. ; Biserta, S. ; Botelho, D. ; Bruze, M. LU ; Burton, G. A. ; Buschmann, J. ; Cancellieri, M. A. ; Dagli, M. L. and Date, M. , et al. (2021) In Food and Chemical Toxicology 153.
Abstract

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 undec-10-enoate (CAS # 111-81-9) show that ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 2-methyl-4-pentenoate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day,... (More)

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 undec-10-enoate (CAS # 111-81-9) show that ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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:
@article{7ebd93e6-1f06-487c-8765-c8c12bb3e9a3,
  abstract     = {{<p>The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 undec-10-enoate (CAS # 111-81-9) show that ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm<sup>2</sup>); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 Biserta, S. and Botelho, D. and Bruze, M. and Burton, G. A. and Buschmann, J. and Cancellieri, M. A. and Dagli, M. L. and Date, M. and Dekant, W. and Deodhar, C. and Fryer, A. D. and Gadhia, S. and Jones, L. and Joshi, K. and Kumar, M. and Lapczynski, A. and Lavelle, M. and Lee, I. and Liebler, D. C. and Moustakas, H. and Na, M. and Penning, T. M. and Ritacco, G. and Romine, J. and Sadekar, N. and Schultz, T. W. and Selechnik, D. and Siddiqi, F. and Sipes, I. G. and Sullivan, G. and Thakkar, Y. and Tokura, Y.}},
  issn         = {{0278-6915}},
  keywords     = {{And Reproductive Toxicity; Developmental; Environmental Safety; Genotoxicity; Local Respiratory Toxicity; Phototoxicity/Photoallergenicity; Repeated Dose; Skin Sensitization}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Food and Chemical Toxicology}},
  title        = {{RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate, CAS Registry Number 53399-81-8}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2021.112170}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.fct.2021.112170}},
  volume       = {{153}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}