Species-Specific (Hyalella azteca and Lymnea stagnalis) Dietary Accumulation of Gold Nano-particles Associated with Periphyton.

Ecological effects of gold nano-particles (AuNP) are examined due to growing use in consumer and industrial materials. This study investigated uptake and movement of AuNPs through an aquatic food chain. Simple (single-species) and diverse (multi-species) periphyton communities were exposed to AuNP (0, 100, 500 µg L-1 treatments). AuNP quickly aggregated and precipitated from the water column, suggesting it is an insignificant route of AuNP exposure even at elevated concentrations. Gold was measured in 100 and 500 µg L-1 periphyton treatments. Gold accumulation was similar between periphyton treatments, suggesting physical processes were important for AuNP basal accumulation. Hyalella azteca and Lymnea stagnalis whole body tissue analysis indicated gold accumulation may be attributed to different feeding mechanisms, general versus selective grazing, respectively. Results suggest trophic transfer of AuNP is organism specific and aggregation properties of AuNP are important when considering fate of nano-particles in the environment and movement through aquatic food webs.

Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to enhance restoration effectiveness.

With increasing pressure placed on natural systems by growing human populations, both scientists and resource managers need a better understanding of the relationships between cumulative stress from human activities and valued ecosystem services. Societies often seek to mitigate threats to these services through large-scale, costly restoration projects, such as the over one billion dollar Great Lakes Restoration Initiative currently underway. To help inform these efforts, we merged high-resolution spatial analyses of environmental stressors with mapping of ecosystem services for all five Great Lakes. Cumulative ecosystem stress is highest in near-shore habitats, but also extends offshore in Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Michigan. Variation in cumulative stress is driven largely by spatial concordance among multiple stressors, indicating the importance of considering all stressors when planning restoration activities. In addition, highly stressed areas reflect numerous different combinations of stressors rather than a single suite of problems, suggesting that a detailed understanding of the stressors needing alleviation could improve restoration planning. We also find that many important areas for fisheries and recreation are subject to high stress, indicating that ecosystem degradation could be threatening key services. Current restoration efforts have targeted high-stress sites almost exclusively, but generally without knowledge of the full range of stressors affecting these locations or differences among sites in service provisioning. Our results demonstrate that joint spatial analysis of stressors and ecosystem services can provide a critical foundation for maximizing social and ecological benefits from restoration investments.

Rating impacts in a multi-stressor world: a quantitative assessment of 50 stressors affecting the Great Lakes.

Ecosystems often experience multiple environmental stressors simultaneously that can differ widely in their pathways and strengths of impact. Differences in the relative impact of environmental stressors can guide restoration and management prioritization, but few studies have empirically assessed a comprehensive suite of stressors acting on a given ecosystem. To fill this gap in the Laurentian Great Lakes, where considerable restoration investments are currently underway, we used expert elicitation via a detailed online survey to develop ratings of the relative impacts of 50 potential stressors. Highlighting the multiplicity of stressors in this system, experts assessed all 50 stressors as having some impact on ecosystem condition, but ratings differed greatly among stressors. Individual stressors related to invasive and nuisance species (e.g., dreissenid mussels and ballast invasion risk) and climate change were assessed as having the greatest potential impacts. These results mark a shift away from the longstanding emphasis on nonpoint phosphorus and persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Differences in impact ratings among lakes and ecosystem zones were weak, and experts exhibited surprisingly high levels of agreement on the relative impacts of most stressors. Our results provide a basin-wide, quantitative summary of expert opinion on the present-day influence of all major Great Lakes stressors. The resulting ratings can facilitate prioritizing stressors to achieve management objectives in a given location, as well as providing a baseline for future stressor impact assessments in the Great Lakes and elsewhere.

Update to RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde, CAS Registry Number 40654-82-8.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, photoirritation/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog ß-methyl-benzenepentanal (CAS # 55,066-49-4) show that 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog phenylacetaldehyde (CAS # 122-78-1) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint. Data show that there are no safety concerns for 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The photoirritation/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde 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 I material, and the exposure to 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-methyl-4-phenylbutyraldehyde 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.

Update to RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-, CAS registry number 58461-27-1.

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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2,4,6-cycloheptatrien-1-one, 2-hydroxy-4-(1-methylethyl)-, CAS Registry Number 499-44-5.

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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl-, CAS Registry Number 1049017-63-1.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- is not genotoxic. Data on 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- 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 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl-is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data provided 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1000 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 1-ethenyl- 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, geraniol, CAS registry number 106-24-1.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Geraniol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that geraniol is not genotoxic. Data on geraniol provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data provided geraniol a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 11000 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; geraniol 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 geraniol is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; geraniol 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, (-)-(R)-α-phellandrene, CAS Registry Number 4221-98-1.

Therefore, the (-)-(R)-α-phellandrene MOE for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint can be calculated by dividing the (-)-(R)-α-phellandrene NOAEL in mg/kg/day by the total systemic exposure to (-)-(R)-α-phellandrene, 8.33/0.00040, or 20825.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 5-hydroxy-7-decenoic acid δ-lactone, CAS Registry Number 25524-95-2.

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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, octyl isobutyrate, CAS Registry Number 109-15-9.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Octyl isobutyrate 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 octyl isobutyrate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on analog propyl (2S)-2-(1,1-dimethylpropoxy)-propanoate (CAS # 319002-92-1) provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from analog hexyl 2-methylbutyrate (CAS # 10032-15-2) provided octyl isobutyrate a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 7000 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. Octyl isobutyrate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material; exposure to is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; octyl 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2,6-nonadienenitrile, CAS Registry Number 67019-89-0.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2,6-Nonadienenitrile was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 2,6-nonadienenitrile is not genotoxic. Data on read-across analog E- and Z-2(+3),12-tridecadiennitrile (CAS # 124071-40-5) provided 2,6-nonadienenitrile 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 III material, and the exposure to 2,6-nonadienenitrile is below the TTC (0.0015 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data show that there are no safety concerns for 2,6-nonadienenitrile for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 2,6-nonadienenitrile is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2,6-nonadienenitrile 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal, CAS Registry Number 65405-84-7.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal 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-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data provided 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1100 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen)-2-methylbutanal 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, l-carvone, CAS Registry Number 6485-40-1.

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.

Update to RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, α-irone, CAS registry number 79-69-6.

In addition, the total systemic exposure to α-irone (1.1 µg/kg/day) is below the TTC (30 µg/kg/day; Kroes et al., 2007) for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint of a Cramer Class I material at the current level of use.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ß-caryophyllene, CAS Registry Number 87-44-5.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. ß-Caryophyllene was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that ß-caryophyllene is not genotoxic. Data on ß-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 ß-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 ß-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; ß-caryophyllene is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ß-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.

The RIFM approach to evaluating Natural Complex Substances (NCS).

The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) has evaluated safety data for fragrance materials for 55 years. The safety assessment of Natural Complex Substances (NCS) is similar to that of discrete fragrance materials; all of the same endpoints are evaluated. A series of decision trees, reflecting advances in risk assessment approaches of mixtures and toxicological methodologies, follows a tiered approach for each endpoint using a 4-step process with testing only as a last resort: 1) evaluate available data on NCS; 2) verify whether the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) can be applied; 3) verify whether the NCS risk assessment can be achieved on a component basis; and 4) determine whether data must be generated. Using in silico tools, RIFM examined NCS similarities based on the plant part, processing, and composition of materials across 81 plant families to address data gaps. Data generated from the Creme RIFM Aggregate Exposure Model for over 900 fragrance NCS demonstrate that dermal exposure is the primary route of human exposure for NCS fragrance uses. Over a third of materials are below the most conservative TTC limits. This process aims to provide a comprehensive Safety Assessment of NCS used as a fragrance ingredient.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, tetrahydro-6-(3-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one, CAS Registry Number 32764-98-0.

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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3-phenylpropyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 122-72-5.

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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-tridecanone, CAS Registry Number 593-08-8.

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.