Advanced

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-butanol, CAS Registry Number 97-95-0

Api, A. M.; Belsito, D.; Bhatia, S.; Bruze, M. LU ; Calow, P.; Dagli, M. L.; Dekant, W.; Fryer, A. D.; Kromidas, L. and La Cava, S., et al. (2016) In Food and Chemical Toxicology 97. p.157-167
Abstract

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 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isopropyl alcohol (CAS # 67-63-0) show that this material does not 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... (More)

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 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isopropyl alcohol (CAS # 67-63-0) show that this material does not 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 2-ethylhexanol (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 and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and isobutyl alcohol (CAS # 78-83-1) 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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Developmental and reproductive, Environmental safety, Genotoxicity, Local respiratory toxicity, Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, Repeated dose, Skin sensitization, Toxicity
in
Food and Chemical Toxicology
volume
97
pages
157 - 167
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:84992745900
ISSN
0278-6915
DOI
10.1016/j.fct.2016.09.022
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
c55fd487-7861-411c-93af-47f0e9040239
date added to LUP
2016-12-12 11:53:55
date last changed
2017-05-05 13:44:28
@article{c55fd487-7861-411c-93af-47f0e9040239,
  abstract     = {<p>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 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isopropyl alcohol (CAS # 67-63-0) show that this material does not 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 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE &gt; 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and isobutyl alcohol (CAS # 78-83-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE &gt; 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.</p>},
  author       = {Api, A. M. and Belsito, D. and Bhatia, S. and Bruze, M. and Calow, P. and Dagli, M. L. and Dekant, W. and Fryer, A. D. and Kromidas, L. and La Cava, S. and Lalko, J. F. and Lapczynski, A. and Liebler, D. C. and Miyachi, Y. and Politano, V. T. and Ritacco, G. and Salvito, D. and Schultz, T. W. and Shen, J. and Sipes, I. G. and Wall, B. and Wilcox, D. K.},
  issn         = {0278-6915},
  keyword      = {Developmental and reproductive,Environmental safety,Genotoxicity,Local respiratory toxicity,Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity,Repeated dose,Skin sensitization,Toxicity},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {11},
  pages        = {157--167},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Food and Chemical Toxicology},
  title        = {RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-butanol, CAS Registry Number 97-95-0},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.09.022},
  volume       = {97},
  year         = {2016},
}