Exposure based waiving: The application of the toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) to inhalation exposure for aerosol ingredients in consumer products

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, isobornyl isovalerate, CAS registry number 7779-73-9

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog isobornyl acetate (CAS # 125-12-2) show that this material is not genotoxic, provided a MOE > 100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive endpoints, and does not have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.47 mg/day). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethylene brassylate, CAS Registry Number 105-95-3

: The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using ethylene dodecanedioate (CAS # 54982-83-1) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra along with data on the target material. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data on the suitable read across analog oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl benzoate, CAS Registry Number 126-64-7

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog linalyl phenylacetate (CAS # 7143-69-3) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-37-5) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8), benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) and sodium benzoate (CAS # 532-32-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) and benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data from the suitable read across analog linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-375).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3,7-dimethyl-1,6-nonadien-3-ol, CAS Registry Number 10339-55-6

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints were completed using nerolidol (isomer unspecified, CAS # 7212-44-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-butanol, CAS Registry Number 97-95-0

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isopropyl alcohol (CAS # 67-63-0) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and isobutyl alcohol (CAS # 78-83-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, CAS registry number 104-76-7

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental and repeat dose toxicity endpoints were completed data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, benzyl butyrate, CAS Registry Number 103-37-7

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Isopulegol, CAS Registry Number 89-79-2

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4,4-dimethyl-1-naphthyl)propan-1-one, CAS Registry Number 74499-60-8

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the target material and the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) provided a MOE > 100 for the repeat dose and developmental toxicity endpoints. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.009 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data on the target material showed that this material is below the non-reactive DST for skin sensitization and did not have the potential for phototoxicity or photoallergenicity. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-methylundecanol, CAS Registry Number 10522-26-6

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analogs 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100 The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl cinnamate, CAS Registry Number 78-37-5

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8) and cinnamic acid (CAS # 621-82-9) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, p-Isopropylbenzyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 59230-57-8

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog, benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4), show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

Inhalation threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) - Structural alerts discriminate high from low repeated-dose inhalation toxicity

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of a compound represents an exposure value below which the associated human health risk is considered negligible. As such, this approach offers assessing the risk of potential toxicants when little or no toxicological information is available. For the inhalation repeated-dose TTC, the goal was to derive structural alerts that discriminate between high- and low-toxic compounds. A further aim was to identify physicochemical parameters related to the inhalation-specific bioavailability of the compounds, and to explore their use as predictors of high vs low toxicity. 296 compounds with subacute, subchronic and chronic inhalation toxicity NOEC (no-observed effect concentration) values were subdivided into three almost equal-sized high-, medium- and low-toxic (HTox, MTox, LTox) potency classes. Whereas the derived 14 HTox and 7 LTox structural alerts yield an only moderate discrimination between these three groups, the high-toxic vs low-toxic mis-classification is very low: LTox-predicted compounds are not HTox to 97.5%, and HTox-predicted compounds not LTox to 88.6%. The probability of a compound being HTox vs LTox is triggered further by physicochemical properties encoding the tendency to evaporate from blood. The new structural alerts may aid in the predictive inhalation toxicity assessment of compounds as well as in designing low-toxicity chemicals, and provide a rationale for the chemistry underlying the toxicological outcome that can also be used for scoping targeted experimental studies.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, α-Methylbenzyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 93-92-5

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Developmental toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 100 mg/kg/day. A gavage developmental toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in aMOE of 3571 while considering 78.7% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

Current and Future Perspectives on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of in Silico Approaches for Predicting Toxicity

Exploiting non-testing approaches to predict toxicity early in the drug discovery development cycle is a helpful component in minimizing expensive drug failures due to toxicity being identified in late development or even during clinical trials. Changes in regulations in the industrial chemicals and cosmetics sectors in recent years have prompted a significant number of advances in the development, application, and assessment of non-testing approaches, such as (Q)SARs. Many efforts have also been undertaken to establish guiding principles for performing read-across within category and analogue approaches. This review offers a perspective, as taken from these sectors, of the current status of non-testing approaches, their evolution in light of the advances in high-throughput approaches and constructs such as adverse outcome pathways, and their potential relevance for drug discovery. It also proposes a workflow for how non-testing approaches could be practically integrated within testing and assessment strategies.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Benzyl propionate, CAS Registry Number 122-63-4

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 14.5 mg/kg/day. A dietary 2-year chronic toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in a MOE of 1318 while considering 78.7% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, l-linalool, CAS Registry Number 126-91-0

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined using a suitable read across analog to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 36 mg/kg/day. A dermal 90-day subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats resulted in a MOE of 2250 while considering 14.4% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl isobutyrate, CAS registry number 78-35-3

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Reproductive toxicity was based on the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) of 0.03 mg/kg/day for a Cramer Class I material. The estimated systemic exposure is determined to be below this value while assuming 80% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A systemic exposure below the TTC value is acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, isoamyl salicylate, CAS registry number 87-20-7

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined using to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NOAEL of 47 mg/kg/day. A dietary 13-week subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in a MOE of 2350 while considering 10.3% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

A tiered asthma hazard characterization and exposure assessment approach for evaluation of consumer product ingredients

Asthma is a complex syndrome with significant consequences for those affected. The number of individuals affected is growing, although the reasons for the increase are uncertain. Ensuring the effective management of potential exposures follows from substantial evidence that exposure to some chemicals can increase the likelihood of asthma responses. We have developed a safety assessment approach tailored to the screening of asthma risks from residential consumer product ingredients as a proactive risk management tool. Several key features of the proposed approach advance the assessment resources often used for asthma issues. First, a quantitative health benchmark for asthma or related endpoints (irritation and sensitization) is provided that extends qualitative hazard classification methods. Second, a parallel structure is employed to include dose-response methods for asthma endpoints and methods for scenario specific exposure estimation. The two parallel tracks are integrated in a risk characterization step. Third, a tiered assessment structure is provided to accommodate different amounts of data for both the dose-response assessment (i.e., use of existing benchmarks, hazard banding, or the threshold of toxicological concern) and exposure estimation (i.e., use of empirical data, model estimates, or exposure categories). Tools building from traditional methods and resources have been adapted to address specific issues pertinent to asthma toxicology (e.g., mode-of-action and dose-response features) and the nature of residential consumer product use scenarios (e.g., product use patterns and exposure durations). A case study for acetic acid as used in various sentinel products and residential cleaning scenarios was developed to test the safety assessment methodology. In particular, the results were used to refine and verify relationships among tiered approaches such that each lower data tier in the approach provides a similar or greater margin of safety for a given scenario.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Fenchyl alcohol, CAS registry number 1632-73-1

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 15 mg/kg/day. A gavage 13-week subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in a MOE of 10,714 while assuming 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Linalyl isovalerate, CAS Registry Number 1118-27-0

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Reproductive toxicity was based on the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) of 0.03 mg/kg/day for a Cramer Class I material. The estimated systemic exposure is determined to be equal to this value while assuming 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A systemic exposure at or below the TTC value is acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Isoborneol, CAS Registry Number 124-76-5

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential as well as environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NOAEL of 15 mg/kg/day based on a gavage 13-week subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats on a read across analog resulting in a MOE of 1000 considering 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.