RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-heptanethiol, CAS Registry Number 1639-09-4

1-Heptanethiol was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 1-octanethiol (CAS # 111-88-6) show that 1-heptanethiol is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated MOE >100 for the reproductive toxicity endpoint. Data on read-across analog dodecanethiol (CAS # 112-55-0) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose toxicity endpoint. Data show that there are no safety concerns for 1-heptanethiol for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV/Vis spectra for read-across analog methyl mercaptan (CAS # 74-93-1); 1-heptanethiol is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 1-heptanethiol 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.

145 Outcomes of Unstable Distal Radius Fractures – A Meta-Analysis of Bridging External Fixation Versus Volar Plating

Introduction

Distal radius fractures are common and trends for fixation have changed with increased use of volar locking plates in recent time. A meta-analysis will summarise the best evidence for treatment.

Method

A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA methodology to identify studies that reported clinical and/or radiological outcomes in patients with AO type C distal radius fractures when treated with external fixation versus ORIF.

Results

10 randomised trials were included in this review, reporting on 967 patients. Clinical outcomes are in favour of volar plating at 3 months post-operation, but no difference between the two groups is seen at 6 or 12 months. Analysis of complication rates shows a minute increase in risk-ratio for volar plating versus external fixation. Subgroup analysis showed significantly higher re-operations after plate fixation and significantly higher infection after external fixation.

Conclusions

Internal fixation of complex distal radius fractures confers an improved clinical outcome at early follow up only and a minimally increased risk of complications. The improved grip strength with volar plating is only superior at early follow up and no long-term superiority is seen with either intervention. The type of surgery in this injury type therefore remains at the surgeon’s consideration on a case-by-case basis.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, hexadeca-1,5-lactone, CAS Registry Number 7370-44-7

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Hexadeca-1,5-lactone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from the target material and read-across analog hydroxynonanoic acid, δ-lactone (CAS # 3301-94-8) show that hexadeca-1,5-lactone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from analog δ-decalactone (CAS # 705-86-2) provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from analog δ-octalactone (CAS # 698-76-0) 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 ultraviolet (UV) spectra; hexadeca-1,5-lactone 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; exposure is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). For the hazard assessment based on the screening data, hexadeca-1,5-lactone is not Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. Hexadeca-1,5-lactone could not be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, butyl lactate, CAS registry number 138-22-7

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Butyl lactate 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 (L)-lactate (CAS # 687-47-8) show that butyl lactate is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across materials butyl alcohol (CAS # 71-36-3) and lactic acid (CAS # 50-21-5) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm²); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; butyl lactate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. Data on butyl lactate provide a calculated MOE >100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; butyl lactate 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, ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate, CAS Registry Number 53399-81-8

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog methyl undec-10-enoate (CAS # 111-81-9) show that ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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 non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm²); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl 2-methyl-4-pentenoate 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.