Appendix 1

Perfume chemicals 21 to 30 of 39

 21. Ethylene brassylate/Musk BRB
CAS RN 105-95-3 macrocyclic musk. Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” Used in wide range of products including Vaseline petroleum jelly and a Body Shop “unfragranced” product! Main Good Scents page states: “Xi – irritant.” Per Good Scents MSDS irritating to skin and eyes but skin and eye irritation “not determined”. It also reports human experience as “30% solution: no irritation or sensitization.” ChemIDPlus calls it a skin and eye irritant. RTECS says “Primary Irritant.” (RTECS, 2004)
 22. gamma methyl ionone
Much confusion over identity CAS RNs 79-89-0, 127-42-4, 127-43-5 and/or 127-51-5. 79-89-0 is also listed by Good Scents for alpha methyl ionone under main CAS RN 7779-30-8, which does not cite irritancy on main page. In 2006 Good Scents stated not found in nature/found in nature depending on which chemical was meant, and that gamma-methyl-beta-ionone was aka isomethyl-beta-ionone (a mixture of 3 chemicals) and irritant (webpage now amended). Good Scents now say for both that they are not found in nature. Main Good Scents page for 127-51-5 (90%), which also lists CAS RN 79-89-0, does not cite irritancy, and nor do 60, 70 or 80% concentration pages, but 50% page does, although all 5 pages also list 79-89-0 as a CAS RN. 50% concentration of 127-51-5 has MSDS which states “irritating to skin” and “may cause sensitisation by skin contact” but skin and eye irritation “not determined.” Main Good Scents page for 79-89-0 does not cite irritancy. Main Good Scents page for 127-43-5 does not cite irritancy. Main Good Scents pages for all 3 concentrations of 127-42-4 do not cite irritancy. No other Good Scents MSDSs. ChemIDPlus records for all 5 CAS RNs do not cite irritancy. Privi Organics MSDS for alpha iso-METHYL IONONE (a mixture) accessed in 2006 stated: “full strength may be irritating to skin and eyes”; “harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin. Causes irritation to eyes and skin.” It also stated: “may be irritating if inhaled” and “full strength tested on humans produced no irritation. Irritation Data : Eye Rabbit: intense conjunctival irritations. Skin Human: no irritant effects at 2%. Skin Rabbit: irritant effects, erythema = 2, edema = 2. Toxicity Data : LD50 Dermal (rabbit) > 5 g/kg.”
 23. Citronellol
One of the 26 recognised allergens CAS RN 106-22-9 Widespread natural occurrence; long history of use in cosmetics, flavourings and fragrances (USEPA, 2005). Irritant per Good Scents main page. Good Scents MSDS states “irritating to skin and eyes” and “may cause. sensitisation by skin contact.” It also says that skin and eye irritation is “not determined.” Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus.
 24. Linalool
One of the 26 recognised allergens but among the less-frequently-reported allergens (SCCNFP, 1999). CAS RN 78-70-6; 126-90-9 for the d isomer and 126-91-0 for the l isomer. Allergenicity seems to be (mainly) due to the oxidised form (Sköld et al., 2002). Source plants and essential oils have antioxidant properties, so it may be better to use natural extracts. Irritation data are very inconsistent. Good Scents lists most important hazard for 78-70-6 as Xi – Irritant. Good Scents MSDS for 78-70-6 states “irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin” and “may cause sensitisation by skin contact”, and cites mild human skin irritation and moderate rabbit eye irritation. Good Scents has no MSDS or reference to irritancy for 126-90-9. Good Scents main page for 126-91-0 cites irritancy; MSDS states “irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin”, and cites severe rabbit skin irritation and moderate rabbit eye irritation. NIOSH state: “The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of its aerosol and by ingestion...The substance irritates the eyes and the skin...The substance may have effects on the liver...Data are insufficiently available on the effect of this substance on human health, therefore utmost care must be taken.” (NIOSH, 1997) ChemIDPlus say that CAS RN 78-70-6 is a skin/eye irritant but do note cite irritancy for the d and l isomers.

2002 SIDS dossier concludes that “linalool must be regarded as a skin irritant and should be seen as mildly irritant for man” and “linalool is considered not to be a sensitizer.”

It also states: “In a recent (1998) EEG study in human subjects, a tendency of decreasing ß-waves (evidencing sedation) was seen during inhalation of l- and dl-linalool-enriched air, but a contrary tendency of increase was noted with d-linalool.”

Good Scents MSDSs state: “Mutagenicity data : Not determined.” RTECS calls 78-70-6 a mutagen and primary irritant (RTECS, 2006) but SIDS dossier does not consider it mutagenic.

Scorecard states: “6 of 8 basic tests to identify chemical hazards have not been conducted on this chemical, or are not publicly available according to US EPA's 1998 hazard data availability study.”

Widespread natural occurrence, often at very high levels (NTP, 1997). Linalool degrades/breaks down readily, and anthropogenic production is dwarfed by natural production (SIDS, 2002). It is also water-soluble (SIDS, 2002).

SIDS dossier also cites “well developed metabolic pathways from bacteria to mammals” for linalool.

SIDS dossier concludes: “Due to its ready degradability, abiotic in the atmosphere and biological in water and soil, the low tendency for bioaccumulation and the well developed metabolic pathways from bacteria to mammals, no concentrations that might cause toxicity are expected.”

 25. Methyl cedrylone
Considerable confusion over identity, and Good Scents feature two different sets of data, including different CAS RNs , for the synonym that they use: methyl cedryl ketone. CAS RN 32388-55-9, 68039-35-0, 73398-84-2 and/or 126239-49-4 Good Scents state: “not found in nature” in both records. Per Good Scents main page for 32388-55-9 “irritant” and MSDS states “irritating to skin and eyes” but skin and eye irritation “not determined.” No MSDS or reference to irritancy in Good Scents record for 73398-84-2. ChemIDPlus does not cite irritancy for any of the CAS RNs (126239-49-4 links to 32388-55-9). Good Scents record for 32388-55-9 links to ChemIDPlus record for 68039-35-0.
 26. Verdox
CAS RNs 88-41-5 and 20298-69-5 Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” Good Scents main page does not refer to irritancy. Good Scents MSDS states re human experience “4% solution: no irritation or sensitization” but also states irritation “not determined.” No reference to irritancy in ChemIDPlus for either CAS RN. Privi Organics MSDS accessed in 2006 stated: “Contact with the undiluted material may cause eye and skin irritation...Dermal Irritancy Applied full strength under occlusion to the skin of rabbit for 24 hours was mildly irritating. Skin Sensitization (Human) No irritant effects.” (NB this appears to indicate lack of understanding of difference between sensitisation and irritancy.)

Privi also previously provided following info: “Warning : Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin. Causes irritation to eyes and skin. Advice on critical hazards to human being and the environment: Information on the human health effects from exposure to this substance is limited.

Exposure Effect
Inhalation May be irritating if inhaled.
Ingestion May be harmful if swallowed.
Skin Contact Causes irritation. May be absorbed through skin.
Eye Contact Causes irritation.
Chronic Exposure No information found.
Aggravation of pre-existing conditions No information found.

Acute effects : Most likely route of entry is through the skin. Full strength may be irritating to skin and eyes. Full strength tested on humans produced no irritation.

Eye Rabbit : Intense conjunctival irritations.
Skin Human : No irritant effects.
Skin Rabbit : Irritant effects, slight to moderate.”

Toxicology studies sent to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003 reported possible neurotoxic effects, but described the chemical as “an intermediate in organic synthesis...not expected to be used in a way such that human exposure outside of an industrial setting will occur,” (Degussa, 2003) which is odd in view of its apparent widespread use in perfumed products. The document describes horrific effects on laboratory animals from doses stated to range from 2150-6310 milligrams per kilogramme of body weight. However, the final reference to the LD50 (the dose which kills half of the animals) includes a comma which, in Germany - where the tests were performed - represents a decimal point, so that the doses may have been a thousand times lower than indicated elsewhere in the document.

 27. Hexyl salicylate
CAS RN 6259-76-3 Good Scents stated in 2006: “not found in nature” but in 2008 they state that it is found in osmanthus absolute. No reference to hazards in Good Scents in 2006. In 2008 Good Scents cite irritancy and “IFRA critical Effect: Sensitization.” ChemIDPlus does not cite irritancy. Safety Data “R36 = Irritating to eyes; R37 = Irritating to respiratory system; R38 = Irritating to skin” per chemBlink (2008). A 2005 Rentokil-Initial MSDS for “a felt pad impregnated with a perfumed fragrance (sic!). For use in Calmic Sanitizers...” cites safety classification “Xi R38” which indicates irritancy, and states that the product may cause irritation to skin and eyes and that “Excessive inhalation of vapours may cause irritation of the respiratory system.” (Rentokil, 2005) A 2003 one for an “air-freshener” cartridge (Rentokil, 2003) also cites safety classification “Xi R38” and “irritant” re the chemical and “if swallowed may cause irritation of the digestive system. Excessive inhalation of vapours may cause irritation of the respiratory system” re the product.
 28. Musk indanone/crysolide/Musk DTI/celestolide
CAS RNs 13171-00-1 and 88401-65-4 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.” No hazards cited in Good Scents or ChemIDPlus in 2006 but in 2008 Good Scents categorise as irritant. Still no reference to irritancy in ChemIDPlus.
 29. Ambrettolide
Confusion over identity CAS RN 28645-51-4 Per Good Scents stated: “not found in nature” in 2006 but in 2008 they say that it is found in ambrette seed concrete. Givaudan stated “not reported as being found in nature (this isomer)” in 2006 (URL no longer works). They refer to Ambrette seed in their 2008 description (Givaudan, 2008). Rice University say that ambrettolide is obtained from hibiscus (Rice, 2005). (Ambrette appears to be a type of hibiscus.) Irritant per Good Scents but no reference to any hazards in ChemIDPlus. Good Scents MSDS states: “Irritating to eyes”; eye and skin irritation “not determined” and “1% solution: no irritation or sensitization ” in humans.
 30. Sandela
Much confusion over identity Givaudan gave CAS RN as 66068-84-6 for the main isomer in 2006 and 2008. Per Givaudan in 2006 “not reported as being found in nature.” (URL no longer works) Not found in Good Scents under this CAS RN, but instead under 3407-42-9, where 66068-84-6 is also given and the name is given as sandal hexanol. Good Scents state: “not found in nature’. ChemIDPlus record linked from Good Scents gives CAS RN 66072-32-0, and there are also records for 66068-84-6 and 3407-42-9. No toxicology data found in ChemIDPlus.