Search

New forms of organization development are moving from a classical diagnostic perspective to a dialogic perspective. This move includes a focus on exploring positive states of organizing, shared aspirations, and the design of preferred futures as key outcomes of a strategic change process. Training and development that applies the elements of the strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results (SOAR) framework allows for stakeholders to engage in a dialogue that represents the whole system, and builds trust and environmental management systems that can positively impact supplier performance. In this study, we examined the interrelationship between the SOAR framework, trust, environmental management systems, and supplier performance in respect of 71 program managers and customers from the Hass TCM Group, the largest chemical management services provider in North America. Hypothesis testing was carried out using correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, correlation analysis and Sobel's test for mediation. Our results support a combined framework in which the SOAR framework can be used to build trust and pro-environmental behaviors to train suppliers to develop collaborative relationships with customers. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.)

4-Hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, photoirritation/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- is not 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 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from read-across analog 3-methylbut-3-en-1-ol (CAS # 763-32-6) show that there are no safety concerns for 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The photoirritation/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- is not expected to be photoirritating/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)- 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 (VoU) in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1. • 4-Hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-; 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]

Shortly after their production ban PBDE environmental levels retreated from their peak (circa 2000), but rates of decrease appear to be slowing. Therefore, to update environmental PBDE trends, this study re-examined a U.S. riverine system found in 1999 to have the highest PBDE fish tissue (fillet) burdens in the world. Archived 2018–2020 fish tissues were analyzed for PBDEs and results compared to 1999–2000 and 2007 levels. On a positive note, levels decreased by >75% over 20 years. However, PBDEs were still detectable at each collection site (n = 16) and in 93% of the samples. The highest PBDE level (16,300 ng g−1 lipid weight) was observed in fish from the Dan R., downstream from the Hyco R. (where the world's highest level was previously reported). Levels within Hyco R. fish have declined at an annual rate of 30% through 2007. However, reductions during the subsequent 12 years have diminished to only 1.2%. Fillet levels since 2007 actually increased at an estimated annual rate of 8% immediately downstream from the Hyco R. Congener profiles varied between species, likely due to hepatic enzyme debromination, indicating single congener-based health risk evaluations may not be sufficiently protective. Within North America, PBDE fish levels in this freshwater system were twice those of North America's Great Lakes and exceeded by 10-fold those in carp examined from Illinois, USA., another historical hotspot. Average fish PBDE levels also exceed maxima observed in European and Asian riverine systems and were 1000's of times higher than the environmental quality standard (EQS) set by European Parliament (0.0085 ng g−1 wet weight, aquatic biota). Therefore, to protect human health and the environment, PBDE monitoring should remain a priority for regulatory agencies with the goal to identify and eliminate their source and to consider their potential health impacts in the context of other co-existing (emerging and legacy) contaminants. [Display omitted] • PBDE fish tissue levels have decreased by >75% over the past 20-years. • Rates of decrease now appear to be slowing and levels at some sites increased from 2007 levels. • Levels exceed those of other US rivers and 1000 times > than Europe's aquatic biota quality standard. • PBDEs were still detected at each site (n = 16) and in 93% of the samples, max. 16,300 ng g−1 lipid weight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

4H-4a,9-Methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) (CAS # 211299-54-6) was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from 4H-4a,9-methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) show that it is not genotoxic, and that there are no safety concerns for skin sensitization under the current, declared levels of use. Data from 4H-4a,9-methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) 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 III material, and the exposure to 4H-4a,9-methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; 4H-4a,9-methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the environmental endpoints, 4H-4a,9-methanoazuleno[5,6-d]-1,3-dioxole, octahydro-2,2,5,8,8,9a-hexamethyl-, (4aR,5R,7aS,9R) is not PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients (i.e., PEC/PNEC) for the aquatic environment based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America are <1. • 2-Ethyl-5-methoxybicyclo[2.2.1]heptane; 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. This material has not been fully evaluated for photoallergenic potential. 2,4,6-Cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, photoirritation/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2,4,6-cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- is not 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 2,4,6-cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- 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 reactive materials (64 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. Based on data, 2,4,6-cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- is a photoirritant but is not a concern under the current declared use levels. 2,4,6-Cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- was not evaluated for photoallergenicity. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; for the hazard assessment based on the screening data, 2,4,6-cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)- 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 (VoU) in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1. • 2,4,6-Cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)-; 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. 2-Tridecanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, photoirritation/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that 2-tridecanone is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that there are no safety concerns for 2-tridecanone for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The photoirritation/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 2-tridecanone is not expected to be photoirritating/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 2-tridecanone is below the TTC (0.47 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-Tridecanone 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. • 2-Tridecanone; 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]

l -Carvone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that l-carvone is not genotoxic and provided a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 2600 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. Data on l -carvone provided a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on data and ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; l -carvone is not phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material (0.47 mg/day); the exposure to l -carvone is below the TTC. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; l -carvone 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. • l -Carvone; 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]

During the past 40 years or so, the U.S. and most other countries with advanced economies have transformed their awareness and understanding of and approach to environmental issues. Prior to 1969, there were virtually no nationally uniform, consistent, or effective legal restraints on the discharge of pollutants to the environment, the uncontrolled disposal of wastes, or the alteration and use of land and other natural resources. Since then, an extensive legal and regulatory structure has been developed that arguably addresses most of these acute concerns. Remaining environmental concerns have much less to do with point source pollutant discharges, and much more to do with more subtle, larger scale, and longer term phenomena such as climate change, effects of multiple chemical compounds from chronic exposure (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals), and non-point source runoff (e.g., from agriculture). Accordingly, many both inside and outside of government have become skeptical of the wisdom and effectiveness of instituting further regulatory controls and "command and control" strategies for stimulating further environmental performance improvements. As an alternative (and indeed, an adjunct) to regulation, there has been steadily increasing interest in and use of non-traditional, non-regulatory approaches. Prominent among these is the use of consensus voluntary standards. Such standards have found particular favor in industries with trade flows that span international boundaries and that involve activities for which existing regulatory authority may be limited. Thisarticle examines one such collection of voluntary standards, those that have been developed to ensure sustainable forestry practices. These standards are interesting for several reasons. First, there are several different and competing standards addressing forest management and related products that continue to evolve and are rapidly finding acceptance in the market place. Second, the ways in which these competing standards have been developed and what they require differ in some important ways. Finally, the continued evolution and application of these programs provide some interesting examples of the interplay between regulation and voluntary action, and the importance of context in determining the appropriate mix of public and private sector interests and activities in pursuing an agreed-upon goal, in this case sustainable forests over the long term. The article describes what these different sustainable forestry programs are, how they have been developed, what they require, and the ways in which they are similar and different, as well as how they compare, at a general level, with other consensus-based environmental standards. It also provides an assessment of the degree of market acceptance that each has received, and present recent trends in certifications in North America and other geographies. Finally, the article examines supply and demand conditions in North America, and assesses whether and to what extent calls for greater use of certified wood products are realistic and, indeed, sustainable. The article shows, among other things, that as they have evolved, the competing sustainable forest management programs have many more important similarities than differences. The article also explores how these programs both employ and extend well beyond existing regulatory controls to form comprehensive forest management approaches. All share an extensive set of core requirements and expectations, and all employ common approaches to several basic components of any certification program. There also are some important differences among these programs, which to a significant extent can be explained by the context in which each has developed. Over time, however, the differences between these programs have diminished, and substantial convergence over the past ten years is apparent. These findings have implications for voluntary environmental program developers, both in and out of government, as well as for those interested in the increasingly volatile and public debate over which program provides the best assurance that the world's forests will remain healthy, productive, and sustainable in the long term. Given the aggressive, and at times effective, public campaign tactics being pursued by opponents of paper use (e.g., "do not mail" coalitions), the issues raised in this article also will be of interest to decision makers in the forestry and forest products industries, as well as in firms making extensive use of wood, paper, and other forest-related products. At a more general level, the case of sustainable forest management standards as described herein, may have some interesting implications for policy makers, particularly as they consider how best to fill legal/regulatory gaps in environmental protection programs and extend their reach during a time of severely constrained public resources, at all levels of government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nanometals are manufactured to particle sizes with diameters in the nanometer range and are included in a variety of consumer and health products. There is a lack of information regarding potential effects of these materials on aquatic organisms. Amphibians are regarded as environmental sentinels and demonstrate an exquisite sensitivity to thyroid hormone action, a hormone that is essential for human health. This present study assessed the effect of exposure to nanometals on stress and thyroid hormone signaling in frog tissue using a cultured tail fin biopsy (C-fin) assay derived from Rana catesbeiana tadpoles. The C-fin assay maintains tissue complexity and biological replication while multiple chemical responses can be assessed from the same individual. We tested the ability of nanosilver (0.06 μg/L-5.5 mg/L), quantum dots (0.25 μg/L-22 mg/L), and nanozinc oxide (0.19-10 mg/L) to alter gene expression in the presence or absence of 3,3',5'-triiodothyronine (T3) using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results were compared to exposure to micrometer-silver, silver nitrate, and micrometer-cadmium telluride. Nanosilver (≥2.75 mg/L) and quantum dots (≥0.22 mg/L) altered the expression of transcripts linked to T3- and stress-mediated pathways, while nanozinc oxide had no effect. Lower concentrations of nanosilver (0.6 to 550 μg/L) perturbed T3-mediated signaling while not inducing cell stress. The observed effects were orders of magnitude below acute toxicity levels and occurred at or below the current North American water quality guidelines for metals, underscoring the need for evaluating nanoparticles separately from their constituent chemicals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 5-Hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across material tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one (CAS # 32764-98-0) show that 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone 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 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data show that there are no safety concerns for 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 5-Hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone 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. • 5-Hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone; 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. Tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one is below the TTC (0.009 mg/kg/day, 0.009 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data and read-across to 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone (CAS # 25,524-95-2) show that there are no safety concerns for tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one 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. • Tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one; 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. 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. • Phenethyl phenylacetate; 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. In addition, the total systemic exposure to phenethyl phenylacetate (3.1 μg/kg/day) is below the TTC (30 μg/kg/day; Kroes et al., 2007) for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint for a Cramer Class I material at the current level of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. β-Caryophyllene was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that β-caryophyllene is not genotoxic. Data on β-caryophyllene provided a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and fertility endpoints. The developmental and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to β-caryophyllene is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively. Data show that there are no safety concerns for β-caryophyllene for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; β-caryophyllene is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; β-caryophyllene 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. • β-Caryophyllene; 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. 5,8-Methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one, 6- ethylideneoctahydro- (CAS # 69486-14-2) show that 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data provided 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- a NESIL of 8200 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on human study data and UV/Vis spectra; 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel- 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. • 5,8-Methano-2H-1-benzopyran, 6(or 7)-ethylideneoctahydro-, [4aR,5S,8S,8aS(or 4aR,5R,8S,8aR)]-rel-; 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]

This article presents the results of an empirical study that investigated coordination and control within multinational companies over six key aspects of their environmental strategy. Specifically, it first examines the level of centralization of these key issues. Second, it investigates whether there is a positive relation between three variables associated with organizational complexity and the level of centralization of the environmental issues. Statistical analyses of the data obtained from a sample of 98 North American multinationals were conducted. The study's results revealed that most companies have adopted a global environmental standard to govern their worldwide business activities that is supported by strong central controls over both environmental performance evaluation of facilities and decisions regarding the development of environmental programs. Results also revealed that there are limited links between organizational complexity and most aspects of the environmental strategy. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. cis- 3-Hexenyl tiglate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analogs 2-methyl- trans- 2-butenoic acid (CAS # 80-59-1) and cis- 3-hexenol (CAS # 928-96-1) show that cis- 3-hexenyl tiglate is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold for Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure to cis- 3-hexenyl tiglate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from analog 2-hexenoic acid, 2-methyl-, methyl ester, (2E)- (CAS # 16493-96-2) provided cis- 3-hexenyl tiglate a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1100 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; cis- 3-hexenyl tiglate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; cis- 3-hexenyl tiglate 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. • cis -3-Hexenyl tiglate; 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]

1-Heptanethiol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 1-octanethiol (CAS # 111-88-6) show that 1-heptanethiol is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog dodecanethiol (CAS # 112-55-0) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data show that there are no safety concerns for 1-heptanethiol for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV/Vis spectra for read-across analog methyl mercaptan (CAS # 74-93-1); 1-heptanethiol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 1-heptanethiol 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. • 1-Heptanethiol; 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. Butyl lactate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog ethyl (L)-lactate (CAS # 687-47-8) show that butyl lactate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across materials butyl alcohol (CAS # 71-36-3) and lactic acid (CAS # 50-21-5) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. 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 (UV) spectra; butyl lactate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. Data on butyl lactate provide a calculated MOE >100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; butyl lactate 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. • Butyl lactate; 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. Hexadeca-1,5-lactone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from the target material and read-across analog hydroxynonanoic acid, δ-lactone (CAS # 3301-94-8) show that hexadeca-1,5-lactone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from analog δ-decalactone (CAS # 705-86-2) provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from analog δ-octalactone (CAS # 698-76-0) show that there are no safety concerns for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; hexadeca-1,5-lactone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). For the hazard assessment based on the screening data, hexadeca-1,5-lactone is not Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. Hexadeca-1,5-lactone could not be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey. • Hexadeca-1,5-lactone; 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. 6-Nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 3-(cis-3-hexenyloxy)propanenitrile (CAS # 142653-61-0) show that 6-nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) 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 III material, and the exposure to 6-nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data from read-across analog 3-(cis-3-hexenyloxy)propanenitrile (CAS # 142653-61-0) show that there are no safety concerns for 6-nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 6-nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 6-nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI) 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. • 6-Nonenenitrile, (Z)- (9CI); 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 5- and 6-Decenoic acid was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog oleic acid (CAS # 112-80-1) show that 5- and 6-decenoic acid 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 5- and 6-decenoic acid 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; 5- and 6-decenoic acid is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 5- and 6-decenoic acid 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. • 5- and 6-Decenoic acid; 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. 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. • Ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate; 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 article discusses developments in carbon and climate law and policy matters in North America. Topics discussed include the proposal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on carbon dioxide (CO2) emission regulations, the denial of industry petitions by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) of California, and the federal permit issued for the geologic sequestration of CO2 from long-term from a coal-fired power plant.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Cyclohexanol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that cyclohexanol is not genotoxic. Data on cyclohexanol provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data show that there are no safety concerns for cyclohexanol for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; cyclohexanol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to cyclohexanol is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; cyclohexanol 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. • Cyclohexanol; 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. 2-Mercaptopropionic acid was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not 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 2-mercaptopropionic acid 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 reactive materials (64 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the hazard assessment based on the screening data, 2-mercaptopropionic acid is not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, 2-mercaptopropionic acid was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey. • 2-Mercaptopropionic acid; 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. p -Tolyl isobutyrate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analogs ethyl p -tolyl carbonate (CAS # 22,719-81-9) and p -tolyl acetate (CAS # 140-39-6) show that p -tolyl isobutyrate 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 p -tolyl isobutyrate 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 reactive materials (64 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; p -tolyl isobutyrate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p -tolyl isobutyrate 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. • p -Tolyl isobutyrate; 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. 7,9-Dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is below the TTC (0.009 mg/kg/day, 0.009 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Based on the existing data and readacross material spiro[5.5]undec-8-en-1-one, 2,2,7,9-tetramethyl- (CAS # 502847-01-0), 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one presents no concern for skin sensitization under the current, declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one is not phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 7,9-dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one 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. • 7,9-Dimethylspiro[5.5]undecan-3-one; 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. Glyceryl monooleate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that glyceryl monooleate is not genotoxic. Data on glyceryl monooleate provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for reactive materials (64 μg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; glyceryl monooleate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to glyceryl monooleate is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; glyceryl monooleate 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 (VoU) in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1. • Glyceryl monooleate; 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. 3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene and read-across analog myrcene (β-myrcene; CAS # 123-35-3) show that 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm 2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6- octatriene is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3,7-dimethyl-1,3,6- octatriene 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 oncentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1. • 3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene; 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. p -Tolualdehyde was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog benzaldehyde (CAS # 100-52-7) show that p- tolualdehyde is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from read-across analog cuminaldehyde (CAS # 122-03-2) provided p- tolualdehyde a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1100 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to p- tolualdehyde is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data from read-across analog 4-ethylbenzaldehyde (CAS # 4748-78-1); p- tolualdehyde is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p -tolualdehyde 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. • p -Tolualdehyde; 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. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-Decahydrocyclododecaoxazole was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 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 (UV) spectra; 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-decahydrocyclododecaoxazole 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. • 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-Decahydrocyclododecaoxazole; 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 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. • A safety assessment of 167 low-exposure fragrance ingredients based on RIFM's criteria. • A safety assessment based on 7 human health endpoints plus environmental. • All endpoints were cleared using TTC, except for genotoxicity, which also uses target data and read-across analogs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is not genotoxic. Data on methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. The 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 methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data show that there are no safety concerns for methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-yclohexanecarboxylate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate 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. • Methyl-2,2-dimethyl-6-methylene-1-cyclohexanecarboxylate; 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. 3,4,4a,5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a,7,8,8a)-Hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 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 (UV) spectra; 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a,7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3,4,4a, 5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran 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. • 3,4,4a,5,8,8a (Or 3,4,4a, 7,8,8a)-Hexahydro-3,3,6,7-tetramethyl-1H-2-benzopyran; 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Cyclohexylcyclohexanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data and read-across to 2 -tert- butylcyclohexanone (CAS # 1728-46-7) show that 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across material 2-sec - butylcyclohexanone (CAS # 14765-30-1) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. 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 UV spectra; 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone is below the TTC (0.47 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-cyclohexylcyclohexanone 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. • 2-Cyclohexylcyclohexanone; 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 3-Octanol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 3-hexanol (CAS # 623-37-0) show that 3-octanol is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on 3-octanol provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog 2-octanol (CAS # 123-96-6) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint and show that there are no safety concerns for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3-octanol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3-octanol 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. • 3-Octanol; 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. 2-Thiophenecarboxylic acid, ethyl ester was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid, ethyl ester is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid, ethyl ester is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 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 UV spectra; 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid, ethyl ester is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid, ethyl ester 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl lactate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data on ethyl lactate show that ethyl lactate is not genotoxic and provided a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory endpoints. Data from ethyl lactate and additional material ethyl (L)-lactate (CAS # 687-47-8) show that there are no safety concerns for ethyl lactate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; ethyl lactate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl lactate 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. • Ethyl lactate; 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. 2-Benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2-benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile is not genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 2-benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day, 0.0015 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data show that there are no safety concerns for 2-benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile 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. • 2-Benzyl-2-methylbut-3-enenitrile; 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Propyl propionate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that propyl propionate is not genotoxic. Data on propyl propionate provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints. Data from read-across analog pentyl propionate (CAS # 624-54-4) show that there are no safety concerns for propyl propionate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; propyl propionate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the hazard assessment based on the screening data, propyl propionate is not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, propyl propionate was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey. • Propyl propionate; 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]

Dodecane was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog nonane (CAS # 111-84-2) show that dodecane is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across analog undecane (CAS # 1120-21-4) provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. 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; dodecane is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to dodecane is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; dodecane 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment.2-Propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from the target material and read-across analog 1,1',1''-nitrilotripropan-2-ol (CAS # 122-20-3) show that 2-propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on 2-propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints and show that there are no safety concerns for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class III material, and the exposure to 2-propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- is below the TTC (0.47 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-propanol, 1,1',1',1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis- 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. • 2-Propanol, 1,1′,1′,1'-(1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis-; 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. 2-Decanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that 2-decanone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. 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 (UV) spectra; 2-decanone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the local respiratory endpoint, a calculated MOE >100 was provided by the read-across analog 4-methyl-2-pentanone (CAS # 108-10-1). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; for the hazard assessment based on the screening data, 2-decanone is not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, 2-decanone was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey. • 2-Decanone; 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. 2-Methylpropyl pentanoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog ethyl 2-methylbutyrate (CAS # 7452-79-1) show that 2-methylpropyl pentanoate is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from read-across analog isoamyl acetate (CAS # 123-92-2) show that there are no safety concerns for 2-methylpropyl pentanoate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-methylpropyl pentanoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-methylpropyl pentanoate 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. • 2-Methylpropyl pentanoate; 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog citral (CAS # 5392-40-5) show that 3,7-dimethyl-3,6-octadienal is not expected to be genotoxic and provided a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and developmental and reproductive endpoints. Data from the read-across analog citronellal (CAS # 106-23-0) provided 3,7-dimethyl-3,6-octadienal a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 7000 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 3,7-dimethyl-3,6-octadienal is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to 3,7-dimethyl-3,6-octadienal is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3,7-dimethyl-3,6-octadienal 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. • 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal; 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]

Summary: The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data on read-across analogs 3-phenylbutanal (CAS # 16251-77-7) and isopropylphenylbutanal (CAS # 125109-85-5) show that this material is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from the target material provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint and a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 380 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The developmental and reproductive toxicity and the local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-phenylpropionaldehyde is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-phenylpropionaldehyde 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. • 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde; 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. 1-Nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate and read-across analog isotridecyl acetate (CAS # 69103-23-7) show that this material is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across material 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl acetate (CAS # 58430-94-7) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Based on the existing data and the additional material acetic acid, C11-14-isoalkyl esters, C13-rich (CAS # 84712-50-5), 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate does not present a concern for skin sensitization under the current, declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and UV spectra; 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material and the exposure to 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,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. • 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,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. The material (phenylacetaldehyde) was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that phenylacetaldehyde is not genotoxic and provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from phenylacetaldehyde provided a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 590 μg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to phenylacetaldehyde was below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on data and ultraviolet (UV) spectra; phenylacetaldehyde is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; phenylacetaldehyde was not found 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. • Phenylacetaldehyde; 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. Hexyl hexanoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog hexyl isobutyrate (CAS # 2349-07-7) show that hexyl hexanoate 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 hexyl hexanoate 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 (UV) spectra; hexyl hexanoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; hexyl hexanoate 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. • Hexyl hexanoate; 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]