Macrocyclic fragrance materials—A screening-level environmental assessment using chemical categorization

Abstract

A screening-level aquatic environmental risk assessment for macrocyclic fragrance materials using a "group approach" is presented using data for 30 macrocyclic fragrance ingredients. In this group approach, conservative estimates of environmental exposure and ecotoxicological effects thresholds for compounds within two subgroups (15 macrocyclic ketones and 15 macrocyclic lactones/lactides) were used to estimate the aquatic ecological risk potential for these subgroups. It is reasonable to separate these fragrance materials into the two subgroups based on the likely metabolic pathway required for biodegradation and on expected different ecotoxicological modes of action. The current volumes of use for the macrocyclic ketones in both Europe and North America ranges from <1 (low kg quantities) to no greater than 50 metric tonnes in either region and for macrocyclic lactones/lactides the volume of use range for both regions is <1 to no greater than 1000 metric tonnes in any one region. Based on these regional tonnages, biodegradability of these two subgroups of materials, and minimal in stream dilution (3:1), the conservatively predicted exposure concentrations for macrocyclic ketones would range from <0.01 to 0.05 μg/L in Europe and from <0.01 to 0.03 μg/L in North America. For macrocyclic lactones/lactides, the concentration within the mixing zone would range from <0.01 to 0.7 μg/L in Europe and from <0.01 to 1.0 μg/L in North America. The PNECs derived for the macrocyclic ketones is 0.22 μg/L and for macrocyclic lactones/lactides is 2.7 μg/L. The results of this screening-level aquatic ecological risk assessment indicate that at their current tonnage, often referred to as volumes of use, macrocyclic fragrance materials in Europe and North America, pose a negligible risk to aquatic biota; with no PEC/PNEC ratio exceeding 1 for any material in any subgroup.

Macrocyclic-, polycyclic-, and nitro musks in cosmetics, household commodities and indoor dusts collected from Japan: Implications for their human exposure

“…The macrocyclic musks represented about only 5% of total amounts of musk compounds in 1996 (Sommer, 2004), but the results in this study suggest the large amounts of production and usage of macrocyclic musks in cosmetics and household commodities now in Japan. The current usage volumes of Musk T, habanolide, exaltolide and Musk MC-4 in EU ranged from 100 to 1000 ton for each compounds in 2008 (Salvito et al, 2011). These values were mostly comparable with those of HHCB (1427 ton) and AHTN (358 ton) in 2000 (HERA, 2004).…”

“…The musk ambrette (CAS#: 83-66-9) of nitro musk was withdrawn from the market, due to its severe toxic effects such as neurotoxicity (Spencer and Bischoff-Fenton, 1984). Recently, PNEC (predicted environmental non-effective concentration) values of macrocyclic musks, such as Musk T, Musk MC4, were reported from a viewpoint of ecotoxicological implication (Salvito et al, 2011). In Japan, musk xylene (CAS# 81-15-2) was registered as the 'Monitoring Chemical Substances' to prevent large amounts of human exposure to this compound.…”

Prioritisation approach to score and rank synthetic musk compounds for environmental risk assessment

“…Exaltolide and romandolide were the only macrocyclic and alicyclic musks detected, with respective frequencies of 12% and 7% in 42 samples. This may be due to their inherently better biodegradability, or to the fact of being novel synthetic musks, and thus less used so far. As personal care products are one of the main sources for the release of synthetic musks into the environment, it is noteworthy that the detection rates of musks in water correlate well with our previous study.…”

Clustering a Chemical Inventory for Safety Assessment of Fragrance Ingredients: Identifying Read-Across Analogs to Address Data Gaps

“…For environmental toxicity and hazard endpoints, we leverage our data gap filling efforts largely by following the environmental toxicity and hazard assessment scheme published previously. 16 Test data for specific toxicological endpoints were obtained mainly by testing, either by RIFM or by RIFM member companies according to OECD guidelines for testing chemicals. 17 Data from registration dossiers, such as those contained in a REACH registration dossier may also be included.…”

“…The human health endpoints are skin sensitization, genetic toxicity (mutagenicity and clastogenicity), repeated dose toxicity, reproductive (fertility and developmental) toxicity, phototoxicity, inhalation, or local respiratory toxicity. For environmental toxicity and hazard endpoints, we leverage our data gap filling efforts largely by following the environmental toxicity and hazard assessment scheme published previously . Test data for specific toxicological endpoints were obtained mainly by testing, either by RIFM or by RIFM member companies according to OECD guidelines for testing chemicals .…”