Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. RIFM staff are employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM). The Expert Panel receives a small honorarium for time spent reviewing the subject work.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Phenethyl phenylacetate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that phenethyl phenylacetate is not genotoxic. Data provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog benzyl benzoate (CAS # 120-51-4) provide an MOE >100 for the developmental toxicity endpoint. The fertility and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to phenethyl phenylacetate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from analog benzyl phenylacetate (CAS # 102-16-9) show that there are no safety concerns for phenethyl phenylacetate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV/Vis spectra; phenethyl phenylacetate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; phenethyl phenylacetate was found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., PEC/PNEC), are <1., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

• Lauryl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Piperonyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 3-Phenyl-3-buten-1-yl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Menthyl acetate (isomer unspecified); a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 10-Undecen-1-yl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 9-Decenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 2-Methyl-4-phenyl-2-butyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Anisyl acetate (isomer unspecified); a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Terpinyl acetate (isomer mixture); a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 3-Acetylmercaptohexyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• (E)-2-Phenylpropenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Ocimenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 1,7,7-Trimethylbicyclo[4.4.0]dec-3-yl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 3-Mercaptohexyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Allyl (3-methylbutoxy)acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Decahydro-β-naphthyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 1,1-Dimethyl-2-phenylethyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• (Z)-Non-6-enyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Myrcenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 3-Phenylpropyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. Therefore, the phenethyl formate MOE for the fertility endpoint can be calculated by dividing the phenethyl alcohol NOAEL in mg/kg/day by the total systemic exposure to phenethyl formate, 1000/0.00062 or 1612903. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Dihydromyrcenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Isoeugenyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Farnesyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Phenethyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Hex-3-enyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Citronellyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Cinnamyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Dihydrocarvyl acetate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analogs dihydrocarveol (isomer unspecified) (CAS # 619-01-2) and acetic acid (CAS # 64-19-7) show that dihydrocarvyl acetate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across analogs isopulegol (CAS # 89-79-2) and acetic acid (CAS # 64-19-7 provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to dihydrocarvyl acetate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from read-across analog 4-methyl-8-methylenetricyclo [3.3.1.(3,7)]decan-2-yl acetate (CAS # 122,760-85-4) provided dihydrocarvyl acetate a NESIL of 2500 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV/Vis spectra; dihydrocarvyl acetate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; dihydrocarvyl acetate was found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., PEC/PNEC), are <1. • Dihydrocarvyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Isopulegyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Pinocarvyl acetate; a safety assessment based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using target data, read-across, and/or TTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]