Appendix 1

Perfume chemicals 11 to 20 of 39

 11. 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-cyclopenta-gamma-2-benzopyran/galaxolide/HH
CAS RN 1222-05-5 Polycyclic musk so accumulates in body fat (Huber the Nose, 2005); not permitted under the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation’s Ecolabel system (SSNC, 2006). Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” Irritant per main Good Scents page for 100% concentration; no Good Scents MSDS in 2008 for 100% concentration. 50% concentration in dep (diethyl phthalate, q.v.) also irritant per Good Scents main page, and MSDS states: “irritating to skin”; skin and eye irritation “not determined.” 50% concentration in ipm (isopropyl myristate) irritant per Good Scents main page; MSDS states irritating to skin; skin and eye irritation “not determined.” 50% concentration in bb (benzyl benzoate) irritant per Good Scents main page; no MSDS. All forms listed under same CAS RN. Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus. Per IUCLID one rabbit skin irritation test found it to be moderately irritating, but others found it to be not irritating. EC classification is “not irritating.” Eye irritation tests (rabbit) negative. HERA document states that it is “neither an eye nor a skin irritant.” (HERA, 2004)
 12. Dodecahydro3a, 6,6,9a-tetramethylnaphtho [2,1b] furan
CAS RN 3738-00-9 and 21582-36-5 Appears to occur naturally in whales. No reference to irritancy in Good Scents or ChemIDPlus
 13. anisaldehyde
Confusion over identity - see below
 13a. ortho-anisaldehyde/2-anisaldehyde
CAS RN 135-02-4 Found in nature per Good Scents. Irritant per Good Scents, skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus. Not clear from P&G documents whether they use this as well as 13b.

US Department of Labor states that it is found in diesel exhaust, but uses CAS RN 123-11-5, which other sites use for 13b.

 13b. 4-anisaldehyde/para-anisaldehyde
(which is used by P&G) CAS RN 123-11-5 Suspected neurotoxicant per Scorecard. Found in several plant species. Irritant per Good Scents main page. Irritant/irritating to skin and eyes per Good Scents MSDS, who report moderate skin irritation in rabbits; eye irritation “not determined”; human experience with 10% solution: “no irritation or sensitization.” Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus. Per 1988-1995 Cornell MSDS “CAN BE HARMFUL IF INHALED, SWALLOWED AND ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN. CAN CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. DUST AND/OR VAPORS CAN CAUSE IRRITATION TO RESPIRATORY TRACT.”
 14. Coumarin
One of the 26 recognised allergens CAS RN 91-64-5 Good Scents state that this occurs in nature. No reference to irritancy on main Good Scents page. Good Scents MSDS states that skin and eye irritation are “not determined.” MSDS also states “may cause sensitisation by skin contact.” No reference to irritancy in ChemIDPlus. EU Opinion states “Coumarin is a cause of allergic reactions in about 0.4-0.8% of consecutive patch tested patients. 1/3 of these cases is not detected by the fragrance mix. Coumarin has caused contact allergic reactions in 0.8-10% of patients with eczema from cosmetic products.” (SCCNFP, 1999)
 15. Cedrol
CAS RN 77-53-2 Good Scents state that this occurs in nature. Irritancy not cited in Good Scents or ChemIDPlus.
 16. Vanillin
CAS RN 121-33-5 Good Scents state that this occurs in nature (but “vanillin” may be used to refer to other chemicals not found in nature. See ethyl vanillin) Good Scents MSDS states “Irritating to eyes” but also states that skin and eye irritation are “not determined”. No reference to irritancy in ChemIDPlus. SIDS dossier states: “Skin irritation and sensitisation testing have shown that in some tests vanillin turned out to be a sensitiser and thus a potential allergen. These results are, however, not conclusive and the negative human data support the opinion that vanillin is not a human allergen.” (OECD, 1996) It states elsewhere that irritation did not occur in humans.
 17. Cyclopentadecanolide/Exaltolide
CAS RN 106-02-5 Macrocyclic musk Good Scents state that this occurs in nature. Per Good Scents irritation “not determined”; human experience with 10% solution: “no irritation or sensitization.” No reference to irritancy in ChemIDPlus.
 18. Tricyclodecenyl acetate
Confusion over identity (overlap with no. 38, flor acetate). CAS RNs 5413-60-5 and/or 2500-83-6 and/or 64001-15-6 Per Good Scents Moellhausen claimed in 2006 that their product was “nature identical” (webpage no longer accessible, and new page www.moellhausen.com does not make this claim). Per Good Scents MSDS skin and eye irritation for 5413-60-5/2500-83-6: “not determined” and human experience: “8% solution: no irritation or sensitization.” Per Good Scents main page 64001-15-6 irritant; no MSDS.

Per ChemIDPlus 5413-60-5 is a skin/eye irritant. No reference to irritancy for 2500-83-6 or 64001-15-6. Some patients reacted to Cyclacet (one of the names for this chemical according to some sources, e.g. Takasago, 2007) in patch testing (Frosch et al., 1995).

 19. Tricyclodecenyl propionate
CAS RN 17511-60-3 Per Good Scents “not found in nature” but Moellhausen claimed in 2006 that their product was “nature identical” (webpage no longer accessible, and new page
www.moellhausen.com does not make this claim). No reference to irritancy in Good Scents. Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus.
 20. Ethyl vanillin
CAS RN 121-32-4 Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” This unnatural chemical may sometimes be referred to as “vanillin”, which is in fact a natural chemical (see above). No reference to irritancy on main Good Scents page but their MSDS states “irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin.” Human skin irritation mild; eye irritation “not determined.” Vermont Safety Information Resources, Inc. describe ethyl vanillin as mutagen and primary irritant. Per ChemIDPlus it is a skin/eye irritant. Ditto per 1998-2005 MSDS, which also states “Causes digestive and respiratory tract irritation. Light sensitive.” (Acros Organics, 2005c) This MSDS cites mild human skin irritation and also mutagenicity. “Administration (to mice) of ethyl vanillin i.p. at doses of 15 or 75 mg/kg bw, 3 times/week for 8 weeks resulted in mortalities of 8/20 and 10/20 animals, respectively... No reproductive toxicity or teratogenicity studies have been reported on ethyl vanillin...” (Inchem) 15 mg/kg is only 5 times the maximum ADI (acceptable daily intake) per 2003 Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives webpage (JECFA, 2003), which represents a small safety margin.