Route to improving Type 1 diabetes mellitus glycaemic outcomes: real-world evidence taken from the National Diabetes Audit.

AIM: To use general practice-level data for England, available through the National Diabetes Audit, and primary care prescribing data to identify prescription treatment factors associated with variations in achieved glucose control (HbA1c ). METHODS: General practice-level National Diabetes Audit data on Type 1 diabetes, including details of population characteristics, services, proportion of people achieving target glycaemic control [HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol (7.5%)] and proportion of people at high glycaemic risk [HbA1c >86 mmol/ml (10%)], were linked to 2013-2016 primary care diabetes prescribing data on insulin types and blood glucose monitoring for all people with diabetes. RESULTS: A wide variation was found between the 10th percentile and the 90th percentile of general practices in both target glycaemic control (15.6% to 44.8%, respectively) and high glycaemic risk (4.8% to 28.6%, respectively). Our analysis suggests that, given the extrapolated total of 280 000 people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK, there may be the potential to increase the number of those within target glycaemic control from 80 000 to 101 000; 53% of this increase (11 000 people) would result from service improvements and 47% (10 000 people) from medication and technology changes. The same improvements would also provide the opportunity to reduce the number of people at high glycaemic risk from 42 000 to 26 500. A key factor associated with practice-level target HbA1c achievement would be greater use of insulin pumps for up to an additional 56 000 people. CONCLUSION: If the HbA1c achievement rates in service provision, medication and use of technology currently seen in practices in the 90th percentile were to be matched with regard to HbA1c achievement rates in all general practices, glycaemic control might be improved for 36 500 people, with all the attendant health benefits.

Measuring vitamin D levels: surrogates are insufficient.

AIMS: With the increasing evidence of adverse consequences because of low vitamin D levels on health demand for vitamin D, screening is increasing. The objective of the study was to assess whether parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels/bone profile is sufficient to identify patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, or whether vitamin D should be measured directly. METHODOLOGY: A total of 1560 serum specimens, with requests for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D), calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), creatinine and PTH on the same sample were analysed at Salford Royal Hospital from November 2010 to November 2012. RESULTS: The prevalence of total vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency (defined as total 25-OH vitamin D < 50 nmol/l) was 62.9% (981/1560) overall, with males having higher proportions (67.2 vs. 59.3 per cent; χ(2) = 8.78, p = 0.003). There was no overall trend in mean serum adjusted calcium across categories of 25-OH vitamin D status but mean serum phosphate was significantly lower (F = 6.53, p < 0.0001) in patients with a 25-OH vitamin D level < 50 nmol/l. However in patients with vitamin D deficiency, a significant proportion had PTH, calcium, phosphate and alkaline phosphatase levels within the laboratory normal range. Even at a 25-OH vitamin D < 10 nmol/l, 71.6% had a normal PTH, 89.8% had normal serum calcium levels, 84.9% had normal phosphate levels and 81.6% had normal serum ALP. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, despite the costs associated with the measurement of vitamin D, our findings show that no surrogate is adequate for screening for vitamin D deficiency.

Novel compound heterozygous mutations in the desmoplakin gene cause hair shaft abnormalities and culminate in lethal cardiomyopathy.

A 2-month-old white girl born to nonconsanguineous parents presented to the dermatology department with hair loss that had commenced a few months after birth. Although her hair loss later stabilized, it remained sparse. By the age of 2 years, she was noted to have developed focal keratoderma over pressure points of the soles. Aged 5 years, she was admitted to hospital with a chest infection, and investigations at that point revealed that she had a dilated cardiomyopathy. Subsequent genetic investigations identified compound heterozygous mutations in the 3' end of the desmoplakin (DSP) gene (7567delAAGA and 6577G>A), explaining the cardiocutaneous phenotype.

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.

Genetic linkage of cone-rod retinal dystrophy to chromosome 19q and evidence for segregation distortion.

Inherited retinal dystrophies are the most common cause of childhood blindness in the developed world. Cone-rod retinal dystrophies are severe examples of this group of disorders. Analysis of a large cone-rod dystrophy pedigree suggested that inheritance within the family was influenced by meiotic drive (p = 0.008), a rare segregation distortion in human genetics. Two-point linkage analysis showed significant linkage with three markers mapping to chromosome 19q. Multipoint analysis gave a maximum lod score of 10.08 (theta = 0.05) distal to D19S47. Cone-rod dystrophy is therefore assigned to 19q13.1-q13.2 and a new candidate locus for other retinal dystrophies is identified.

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.

Update to RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2,4-dimethylbenzyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 62346-96-7.

The MOE is greater than 100. Without adjustment for specific uncertainty factors related to inter-species and intra-species variation, the material exposure by inhalation at 0.0040 mg/day is deemed to be safe under the most conservative consumer exposure scenario.

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, 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.

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.