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, p-tolyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 140-39-6.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. p-Tolyl acetate 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 p-tolyl carbonate (CAS # 22719-81-9) show that p-tolyl acetate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across materials p-cresol (CAS # 106-44-5) and acetic acid (CAS # 64-19-7) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using DST for reactive materials (64 µg/cm2); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; p-tolyl 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 p-tolyl acetate is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day).The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p-tolyl 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal, CAS Registry Number 141-92-4.

Hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog hydroxycitronellal diethyl acetal (CAS # 7779-94-4) show that hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material and the exposure to hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal and from read-across material hydroxycitronellal diethyl acetal (CAS # 7779-94-4) 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 UV spectra; hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; hydroxycitronellal dimethyl acetal 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone, CAS Registry Number 5471-51-2.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 4-(p-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone is not genotoxic. Data on 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. The developmental and reproductive toxicity and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone 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 UV spectra; 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, isobutyl alcohol, CAS Registry Number 78-83-1.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Isobutyl alcohol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that isobutyl alcohol is not genotoxic. Data on isobutyl alcohol provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from read-across material isoamyl alcohol (CAS # 123-51-3) show that there are no safety concerns for isobutyl alcohol for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; isobutyl alcohol 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 isobutyl alcohol is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; isobutyl alcohol 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl 2-octynoate, CAS Registry Number 111-12-6.

Methyl 2-octynoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that methyl 2-octynoate is not genotoxic. Data provided methyl 2-octynoate a NESIL of 110 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to methyl 2-octynoate is below the TTC (0.009 mg/kg/day, 0.009 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; methyl 2-octynoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; methyl 2-octynoate 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl ionone (mixture of isomers), CAS registry number 1335-46-2.

Methyl ionone (mixture of isomers) was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from methyl ionone (mixture of isomers) show that the material is not genotoxic and provided a NESIL of 70,000 µg/cm2 for the skin sensitization endpoint. Data provided a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity and developmental toxicity endpoints, and data from read-across material (E)-ß-ionone (CAS # 79-77-6) provided a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint. For the local respiratory endpoint, a calculated MOE >100 was provided by the read-across material ß-ionone (CAS # 14901-07-6). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and UV spectra; the material is not phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated with data from the target chemical and read-across material α-allylionone (CAS # 79-78-7), and the material was not found to be PBT; its risk quotients, based on current volume of use in Europe and North America (PEC/PNEC), are <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl 2-nonenoate, CAS Registry Number 111-79-5.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Methyl 2-nonenoate 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 trans-2,cis-4-decadienoate (CAS # 3025-30-7) show that methyl 2-nonenoate is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to methyl 2-nonenoate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). Data from the target and read-across analog isobutyl-2-butenoate (CAS # 589-66-2) do not indicate the material is a sensitizer. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and UV spectra; methyl 2-nonenoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; methyl 2-nonenoate 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.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, isobutyl propionate, CAS Registry Number 540-42-1.

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Isobutyl propionate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog isobutyl acetate (CAS # 110-19-0) show that isobutyl propionate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from read-across analog isoamyl acetate (CAS # 123-92-2) show that there are no safety concerns for isobutyl propionate for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The repeated dose and reproductive endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to isobutyl propionate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day and 0.03 mg/kg/day, respectively). For the local respiratory endpoint, a calculated MOE >100 was provided by read-across analog butyl acetate (CAS # 123-86-4). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; isobutyl propionate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; isobutyl propionate is not PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, isobutyl propionate was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, propanal diethyl acetal, CAS registry number 4744-08-5.

There are insufficient toxicity data on the target material propanal diethyl acetal (CAS # 4744-08-5). Hence, in silico evaluation was conducted to determine read-across analogs for this material. Based on structural similarity, reactivity, metabolism data, physical-chemical properties, and expert judgment, analogs acetal (CAS # 105-57-7) and butane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis- (CAS # 2568-90-3) were identified as read-across materials with sufficient data for toxicological evaluation of genotoxicity.

Evaluation of reproductive/developmental and repeated dose (subchronic) toxicity and cytogenetic effects in rats of a roofing asphalt fume condensate by nose-only inhalation.

A Type III Built-up Roofing Asphalt (BURA) fume condensate was evaluated for subchronic systemic toxicity and reproductive/developmental toxicity screening in Wistar rats, by OECD protocol 422 and OECD cytogenetic protocol 474. Animals were exposed by nose-only inhalation to target concentrations of 30, 100 and 300 mg/m³ total hydrocarbons (actual concentrations, 30.0, 100.1 and 297.3 mg/m³). The study was performed to assess potential hazards from asphalt fumes to which humans could be exposed during application. No adverse effects were seen for spermology, reproductive or developmental parameters or early postnatal development of offspring from day 1 to 4 postpartum. BURA fume condensate did not induce any significant increases in micronucleus frequency in polychromatic erythrocytes of rat bone marrow nor was neurobehavioral toxicity observed at any dose. Systemic effects were slight and seen at doses above those measured at work sites. The systemic NOAEC of 100 mg/m³ for males was based on decreased body weight gain, food consumption and increased absolute and relative lung wet weight correlated with slight histological changes in the lung, primarily adaptive in nature at 300 mg/m³. The female NOAEC of 30 mg/m³ was based on a statistically significant increase in relative wet lung weight at higher doses, correlated with slight histopathologic effects in the lungs at the highest dose. However, no increase in relative lung weight was seen in breeding females at 100 mg/m³.

Embryotoxicity study of monomeric 4,4'-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) aerosol after inhalation exposure in Wistar rats.

One of the uses of MDI is as an alternative to formaldehyde in the manufacture of furniture, its main route of exposure to humans being by inhalation. There have been no previous studies on the potential prenatal toxic effects of this compound. To close this gap in information, gravid Wistar rats, Crl:(WI)BR, were exposed by whole-body inhalation to clean air (control) and to 1, 3, and 9 mg/m3 MDI, respectively, for 6 hr per day from Days 6 to 15 post conception (p.c.). Rats were killed on Day 20 p.c. and the following results were obtained: Treatment caused a dose-dependent decrease in food consumption in all substance-treated groups during exposure, returning to normal values after cessation of treatment. The lung weights in the high-dose group were significantly increased compared to the sham-treated control animals. Treatment did not influence any other material and/or fetal parameters investigated (maternal weight gain, number of corpora lutea, implantation sites, pre- and postimplantation loss, fetal and placental weights, gross and visceral anomalies, degree of ossification), although a slight but significant increase in litters with fetuses displaying asymmetric sternebra(e) was observed after treatment with the highest dose of 9 mg/m3. Although the relevance of an increase of this minor anomaly in doses which cause toxic effects in dams (reduced food consumption, increased lung weights) is limited and the number observed is within the limits of biological variability, a substance-induced effect in the high-dose group cannot be excluded with certainty. Consequently, a no embryotoxic effect level of 3 mg/m3 was determined.

[Anesthesiologic treatment of 3,665 patients in Red Cross hospitals in Thailand, Lebanon, Pakistan and Indonesia]. / Anästhesiologische Versorgung von 3665 Patienten in Rotkreuz-Hospitälern in Thailand, Libanon, Pakistan und Indonesien.

Between the end of 1979 and the beginning of 1984, the authors served as anaesthetists for Red Cross missions in surgical field hospitals on the Thai-Cambodian and the Afghan-Pakistan borders, in Lebanon, and in Indonesia. A total of 3665 civilian emergency patients were anaesthetised. 643 were operated on under local anaesthesia; 639, under regional anaesthesia, in most cases spinal anaesthesia. In spite of principal preference for local and regional anaesthetic techniques, 65% of the patients (2383 patients) were managed under general anaesthesia, which was maintained with halothane in 947 cases and ketamine in 1345 cases. 877 general anaesthesias with ketamine were performed with spontaneous breathing of ambient air; endotracheal anaesthesia was necessary in 1238 patients. In spite of the high risk for the patients and of the operative interventions and in the light of the simple and sometimes even primitive working conditions, no anaesthesia-related fatalities occurred. Postoperative lethality was 2%. In all cases, the duties of the anaesthesist involved more than performance of anaesthesia, which was sometimes assigned to paramedics. Other duties included preoperative examination, postoperative intensive care, consultation services in nonsurgical emergency cases, resuscitation, and training of local assistants.