Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

RIFM low-exposure fragrance ingredients safety assessment

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 149.
Abstract

The existing information supports the use of these materials as described in this safety assessment. The 167 materials identified in this assessment were evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Target data, read-across analogs and TTC show that these materials are not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for their respective Cramer Classes (see Fig. 1 below) and the exposure to these materials is below the TTC. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the DST for non-reactive and reactive... (More)

The existing information supports the use of these materials as described in this safety assessment. The 167 materials identified in this assessment were evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Target data, read-across analogs and TTC show that these materials are not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for their respective Cramer Classes (see Fig. 1 below) and the exposure to these materials is below the TTC. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the DST for non-reactive and reactive materials (900 μg/cm2 and 64 μg/cm2, respectively); exposures are below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; these materials are not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; the materials were found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and their risk quotients, based on their current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., 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
Environmental safety, Genotoxicity, Local respiratory toxicity, Low exposure fragrance materials, Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, Repeated dose, developmental, and reproductive toxicity, Skin sensitization
in
Food and Chemical Toxicology
volume
149
article number
111981
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • pmid:33577945
  • scopus:85100966006
ISSN
0278-6915
DOI
10.1016/j.fct.2021.111981
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
dea06dbf-4510-4b5e-9bb7-e1b8a92dc521
date added to LUP
2021-03-05 07:40:42
date last changed
2024-04-18 03:28:09
@article{dea06dbf-4510-4b5e-9bb7-e1b8a92dc521,
  abstract     = {{<p>The existing information supports the use of these materials as described in this safety assessment. The 167 materials identified in this assessment were evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Target data, read-across analogs and TTC show that these materials are not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for their respective Cramer Classes (see Fig. 1 below) and the exposure to these materials is below the TTC. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the DST for non-reactive and reactive materials (900 μg/cm<sup>2</sup> and 64 μg/cm<sup>2</sup>, respectively); exposures are below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; these materials are not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; the materials were found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and their risk quotients, based on their current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., 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 Lapczynski, A. and Lavelle, M. and Liebler, D. C. and Na, M. and O'Brien, D. and Patel, A. and Penning, T. M. and Ritacco, G. and Rodriguez-Ropero, F. and Romine, J. and Sadekar, N. and Salvito, D. and Schultz, T. W. and Siddiqi, F. and Sipes, I. G. and Sullivan, G. and Thakkar, Y. and Tokura, Y. and Tsang, S.}},
  issn         = {{0278-6915}},
  keywords     = {{Environmental safety; Genotoxicity; Local respiratory toxicity; Low exposure fragrance materials; Phototoxicity/photoallergenicity; Repeated dose, developmental, and reproductive toxicity; Skin sensitization}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{02}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Food and Chemical Toxicology}},
  title        = {{RIFM low-exposure fragrance ingredients safety assessment}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2021.111981}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.fct.2021.111981}},
  volume       = {{149}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}