• Fat, smelly & stupid?
• An unlikely scenario?
• Out of control
• Drugs regulated
• From washing to brainwashing
• What are the dangers?
• Perfumed air, perfumed rain
• Fragrant as pigs in...
• Perfumed animals
• Informed consent?
• Can anything be done?
• References
• Further information
• Appendix 1
  • Table 1 Irritancy discrepancies
  • Glossary for Appendix 1
  • References for Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Contents in Full

  Appendix 1

Perfume chemicals 1 to 10 of 39

 1. Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde

One of the 26 recognised allergens CAS RN 101-86-0 Good Scents state “found in nature.” “Irritant” per Good Scents main page. Good Scents MSDS states: “Irritant May cause sensitisation by skin contact. Irritating to skin.” Moderate rabbit skin irritancy; eye irritation “not determined” and human experience: “12% solution: no irritation or sensitization.” Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus.

  2. 2-methyl-3-(para-tert-butylphenyl)-propionaldehyde/Lilial

One of the 26 recognised allergens CAS RN 80-54-6 Good Scents state “not found in nature.” Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus but no reference to irritancy on Good Scents main page. Good Scents MSDS states irritating to skin and eyes but skin and eye irritation “not determined” and 4% solution not irritating to humans. IUCLID Dataset reports rabbit tests showing eye irritation but skin irritation findings inconsistent.

 3. 7-acetyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-1,1,6,7-tetramethyl naphthalene/boisvelone

CAS RN 54464-57-2, 68155-67-9, 68155-66-8 or 54464-59-4 Good Scents state “not found in nature.” Has been subjected to virtually no testing during the more-than-20 years it has been used. Irritancy cited on Good Scents main page. Good Scents MSDS states “irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin”; skin and eye irritation “not determined”; human experience “23% solution: no skin irritation or sensitization”, and main page also cites irritancy. ChemIDPlus has no reference to irritancy for any of the CAS RNs. Also see no. 33 below.

 4. Benzyl salicylate

One of the 26 recognised allergens CAS RN 118-58-1 Occurs naturally per Good Scents. Good Scents MSDS states “Irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin” but also eye and skin irritation “not determined” and 30% solution not irritating to humans. Irritancy not cited in ChemIDPlus. EC classification “not irritating” to skin and eyes despite moderate irritation to rabbits’ eyes and slight irritation to human skin. 2005 MSDS states “May cause eye, skin and/or respiratory tract irritation.” (Acros Organics, 2005a)

 5. 7-acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetralin/musk tonalid/AHTN

CAS RNs 1506-02-1 and 21145-77-7 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.” Skin and eye irritation “not determined” per Good Scents MSDS; no other reference to irritancy. No irritancy cited by ChemIDPlus. Classed as “not irritating” despite being “slightly irritating” to rabbit eyes (IUCLID). Oestrogenic in vitro (Bitsch et al., 2002). “For a full safety assessment of AHTN, it is necessary to consider other sources of consumer exposure from nonfood products e.g. laundry products.” (SCCNFP, 2002)

 6. para-tert-butyl cyclohexyl acetate/woody acetate/vertenex

Confusion over identity (listed, perhaps erroneously, in some P&G patent applications as ‘vertinex’): CAS RN 32210-23-4, 104-05-2 or 67874-72-0 Good Scents CAS-indexed list has both woody acetate and conifer acetate listed under 32210-23-4, and conifer acetate also listed under 67874-72-0. Main page for 32210-23-4 but not 67874-72-0 says “irritant.” Good Scents main pages state: “not found in nature” and that uses include soap. Main Good Scents page for 32210-23-4 links to MSDS referred to below. Good Scents page for “conifer acetate” listed under CAS RN 67874-72-0 does not link to an MSDS but links to ChemIDPlus record for 32210-23-4, which cites skin and eye irritancy. ChemIDPlus record for 67874-72-0 does not cite irritancy. Good Scents MSDS for 32210-23-4 gives 2 more CAS RNs (not included here to avoid excessive complexity and confusion) and cites eye irritancy and moderate rabbit skin irritation, but eye irritation “not determined”, and human experience with 4% solution: “no irritation or sensitization.” Privi Organics MSDS accessed in 2006 stated: “Information on the human health effects from exposure to this substance is limited”, “undiluted material may cause eye and skin irritation” and “applied full strength under occlusion to the skin of rabbit for 24 hours was mildly irritating. Skin Sensitization (Human) No irritant effects.” (Note apparent confusion between irritancy and sensitisation) Not irritating to rabbit eyes or skin per (IUCLID). “7 of 8 basic tests to identify chemical hazards have not been conducted on this chemical.” (Scorecard)

 7. Methyl dihydro jasmonate

CAS RN 24851-98-7 or 2630-39-9 Good Scents main page states found in nature and does not cite irritancy. Good Scents MSDS says eye and skin irritation “not determined” and contains no other references to irritancy. Good Scents said in 2006: “Irritant; irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin; (irritancy) not determined; human experience 4% solution: no irritation or sensitization.” Irritancy not cited in ChemIDPlus. A 2007 MSDS states “May be irritating to skin and eyes.” (Bedoukian Research, 2007)

 8. beta-naphthol methyl ether

(misspelt in patent application): CAS RN 93-04-9 Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” They also state: “irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin” but also that skin and eye irritation are “not determined” and gives human findings: “4% solution: no irritation or sensitization.” Irritancy not cited in ChemIDPlus. “May be harmful or act as an irritant - toxicology not fully investigated.” (Oxford University) A Cornell University MSDS states: “DUST AND/OR VAPORS CAN CAUSE IRRITATION TO RESPIRATORY TRACT. CAN BE IRRITATING TO MUCOUS MEMBRANES.”

 9. Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone

CAS RN 93-08-3 Good Scents state “not found in nature.” They also state: “Critical Effect: Phototoxicity.” Good Scents does not cite irritancy but gives symbol Xn (harmful). Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus but no mention of phototoxicity. An MSDS calls it skin and eye irritant and also states “The toxicological properties of this material have not been fully investigated”, “Causes digestive and respiratory tract irritation” and “Causes irritation of the mucous membrane and upper respiratory tract.” (Acros Organics, 2005b) A 1988 MSDS states: “CAN CAUSE SKIN/EYE IRRITATION, SEVERE EYE BURNS. CAN BE HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THRU THE SKIN, IF INHALED OR IF SWALLOWED. CAN BE IRRITATING TO MUCOUS MEMBRANES...” (Chemservice, 1988)

  10. 2-methyl-2-(para-iso-propylphenyl)-propionaldehyde/Cyclamen aldehyde

CAS RN probably 103-95-7: name in patent application may be wrong and it may be 2-methyl-3-(para-iso-propylphenyl)-propionaldehyde. Assuming this, Good Scents state: “not found in nature.” Good Scents main page calls it irritant. Good Scents MSDS calls it “irritant” and “irritating to skin” and cites mild rabbit eye irritation, but also states skin irritation “not determined” and that 3% solution caused no irritation or sensitization in humans. Skin/eye irritant per ChemIDPlus.

previous | next