DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters As Used in Cosmetics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PINK Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics CIR EXPERT PANEL MEETING DECEMBER 10-11, 2012 Memorandum To: CIR Expert Panel Members and Liaisons From: Monice M. Fiume MMF Senior Scientific Analyst/Writer Date: November 16, 2012 Subject: Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics Enclosed in the Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics. The status of this document is draft tentative amended report for CIR Expert Panel Review. This report was tabled at the September meeting so that historical use data from reports on ingredients previously reviewed by CIR could be added to the safety assessment. You will find these data incor- porated into Table 8. Incorporation of the historical data into the table allows the Panel a side-by-side comparison of the concentration reported when determining safety in the original safety assessments compared to the use data submitted with the current re-review. Increases in reported concentrations are highlighted. Also at the September meeting, the Panel deleted 16 alkyl ethylhexanoates from the report. Concern about the possible fetotoxicity of 2-ethylhexanoic acid, a possible metabolite of the ethylhexanoates, led to a determination that these ingredients are not “no brainers” and therefore, the ethylhexanoates should not be included in this review. The following unpublished data have been received since the last review. These data, which are included under the data tab of this submission, have been incorporated. 1. Personal Care Products Council. 2012. Updated concentration of use by FDA product category: alkyl esters and ethylhexanoates; 2. Personal Care Products Council. 2012. Updated concentration of use by FDA product category: cetyl esters; 3. Product Investigations, Inc. 2008. Determination of the irritating and sensitizing propensities of a product on human skin (body oil containing 77.9% Ethylhexyl Palmitate); 4. Clinical Research Laboratories. 2009. Repeated insult patch test of eyebrow pencil containing 38.8% Ethylhexyl Stearate; 5. Product Investigations, Inc. 2008. Determination of the irritating and sensitizing propensities of a product on human skin (lip gloss containing 25.9% Ethylhexyl Stearate); 6. Consumer Product Testing Co. 2005. Repeated insult patch test of a concealer containing 29.5% Isocetyl Myristate; 7. Clinical Research Laboratories. 2011. Repeated insult patch test of lipstick containing 15.2% Cetyl Ricinoleate. Again, the data profile is being provided in order by chain length and chemical structure and by alphabetical order. The data profile on the component alcohol and acids is included between the two. As a final note, please be aware that the Supplemental books from the March meeting that provided the original CIR safety assessments will be available on the CIR website. It is expected the Panel will issue a Tentative Amended Report at this meeting. Distributed for Comment Only -- Do Not Cite or Quote CIR Panel Book Page 1 Distributed for Comment Only -- Do Not Cite or Quote Alkyl Esters Re-Review History March 5-6, 2012: original consideration of re-review The re-review of Cetyl Esters was presented for consideration to re-open. An additional 200 alkyl esters were presented as potential add-on ingredients. The Panel stated that 52 ingredients (that were included for supporting data but not included for review in the safety assessment) that have been reviewed or re-reviewed previously should also be included in the safety assessment. The Panel considered an additional 6 ingredients that might have been included, but determined that it was not appropriate. The ingredients that will not be included (for the following reasons) are: decyl hempseedate (hempseedate has not been reviewed); hexyldecyl ester of hydrolyzed collagen (lack of chemical similarity); lauryl Carpotroche brasiliensis seedate; lauryl Theobroma grandiflorum seedate; myristyl Carpotroche brasiliensis seedate; and myristyl Theobroma grandiflorum seedate (these four ingredients have reported function as skin bleaching agents). A concern was expressed regarding the lack of data on biotransformation of branched fatty acids and branched alcohols in the skin. September 10-11, 2012: Tentative Amended Report The safety assessment was revised since the March meeting to include the additional 52 ingredients. Additionally, another unreviewed alkyl ester (Cetyl Myristoleate) was identified and added. The additions resulted in a family of 254 ingredients being evaluated in this safety assessment. Concentration of use data were received from industry and incorporated. Frequency of use data were updated using the May 2012 VCRP submission. The Panel deleted the 16 ethylhexanoates from the report; a discussion of the fact that cetearyl ethylhexanoate is now used at higher concentrations than previously reported and the fetotoxicity of 2-ethylhexanoic acid, a possible metabolite, led to the determination that these ingredients are not “no brainers.” These ingredients will be reviewed separately. The report was tabled for a more direct comparison of historic vs. current use for some of the previously reviewed ingredients, and to determine whether existing data support that higher concentration. December 10-11, 2012: Tentative Amended Report The ethylhexanoates have been removed and the historic use data have been added to the report. The following unpublished data have been received and added to the report: 1. Personal Care Products Council. 2012. Updated concentration of use by FDA product category: alkyl esters and ethylhexanoates; 2. Personal Care Products Council. 2012. Updated concentration of use by FDA product category: cetyl esters; 3. Product Investigations, Inc. 2008. Determination of the irritating and sensitizing propensities of a product on human skin (body oil containing 77.9% Ethylhexyl Palmitate); 4. Clinical Research Laboratories. 2009. Repeated insult patch test of eyebrow pencil containing 38.8% Ethylhexyl Stearate; 5. Product Investigations, Inc. 2008. Determination of the irritating and sensitizing propensities of a product on human skin (lip gloss containing 25.9% Ethylhexyl Stearate); 6. Consumer Product Testing Co. 2005. Repeated insult patch test of a concealer containing 29.5% Isocetyl Myristate; 7. Clinical Research Laboratories. 2011. Repeated insult patch test of lipstick containing 15.2% Cetyl Ricinoleate. CIR Panel Book Page 2 Distributed for Comment Only -- Do Not Cite or Quote Alkyl Esters Data Profile –presented by chain length and structure – Dec 2012 – Writer, Monice Fiume on-Human on-Human on-Human on_Animal Year Reviewed Composition/Con- stituents/Impurities Mfg of Methods Toxicokinetics Penetration Dermal Acute Tox-Derm Acute Tox-Oral Acute Tox-Inhal Rptd Dose-Derm Rpted Dose-Oral Rptd Dose-Inhal Tox Repro/Dev Genotoxicity Carcinogenicity Derm Irritation- N Derm Sensitization N N Derm Irritation- Human Derm Sensitization Human Human Phototox - Irritation Ocular Phototox- Phototox- Straight chain alkyl ingredients by total length Cetyl Esters 1997 X X X X Caprylyl Butyrate Caprylyl Caprylate Hexyl Laurate Butyl Myristate 2010 X X X X X X X X Decyl Laurate Butyl Stearate 1985* X X X X X X X X X X Arachidyl Propionate 1990* X X X X X X X X X X Stearyl Caprylate 2010 Decyl Myristate 2010 Lauryl Laurate Cetyl Caprylate Tridecyl Laurate Cetyl Caprate Decyl Palmitate Lauryl Myristate 2010 Myristyl Laurate X Tridecyl Myristate 2010 Myristyl Myristate 2010 X X X X X X Cetyl Laurate Lauryl Palmitate X Lauryl Stearate Cetyl Myristate 2010 Tridecyl Stearate Myristyl Stearate 1985* X X X X Cetyl Palmitate 1982* X X X X X X X X X X X Stearyl Palmitate 2010 Cetyl Stearate 1985* X X Lauryl Behenate X Stearyl Heptanoate 2010 X X X X X X X Tridecyl Behenate Stearyl Stearate 2010 Cetyl Behenate X Stearyl Behenate 2010 Arachidyl Behenate Behenyl Behenate Unsaturated, straight chain Heptyl Undecylenate Butyl Oleate X X X X Caprylyl Eicosenoate Decyl Oleate 1982* X X X X X X X Cetyl Myristoleate Lauryl Oleate X Oleyl Myristate 2010 Cetyl Oleate X X Tridecyl Erucate Oleyl Stearate X Stearyl Linoleate Oleyl Oleate X Oleyl Arachidate X Stearyl Erucate Erucyl Oleate Oleyl Erucate Arachidyl Erucate Behenyl Erucate Erucyl Arachidate Erucyl Erucate Lignoceryl Erucate Branched, by longest length Isohexyl Neopentanoate Isopropyl Sorbate Ethylhexyl Neopentanoate Isobutyl Pelargonate 2010 Isodecyl Neopentanoate Ethylhexyl Isononanoate 2010 X X CIR Panel Book Page 3 Distributed for Comment Only -- Do Not Cite or Quote Alkyl Esters Data Profile –presented by chain length and structure – Dec 2012 – Writer, Monice Fiume on-Human on-Human on-Human on_Animal Year Reviewed Composition/Con- stituents/Impurities Mfg of Methods Toxicokinetics Penetration Dermal Acute Tox-Derm Acute Tox-Oral Acute Tox-Inhal Rptd Dose-Derm Rpted Dose-Oral Rptd Dose-Inhal Tox Repro/Dev Genotoxicity Carcinogenicity Derm Irritation- N Derm Sensitization N N Derm Irritation- Human Derm Sensitization Human Human Phototox - Irritation Ocular Phototox- Phototox- Isohexyl Caprate Isopropyl Laurate X Tridecyl Neopentanoate Octyldodecyl Neopentanoate Isononyl Isononanoate 2010 X X X X X X X X Ethylhexyl Pelargonate 2010 X X X Propylheptyl Caprylate X X X X X X X X Isopropyl Myristate 2010 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Myristyl Neopentanoate Isobutyl Myristate 2010 Isohexyl Laurate Isoamyl Laurate Isodecyl Isononanoate 2010 X X Isopropyl Palmitate 1982* X X X X X X X X X X Ethylhexyl Laurate X X X X X X X X X X Isostearyl Neopentanoate 1985* X X X X X X X X X X Isotridecyl Isononanoate 2010
Recommended publications
  • RE-REVIEW Supplement Book 1 Alkyl Esters CIR EXPERT PANEL

    RE-REVIEW Supplement Book 1 Alkyl Esters CIR EXPERT PANEL

    RE-REVIEW Supplement Book 1 Alkyl Esters CIR EXPERT PANEL MEETING MARCH 5-6, 2012 ALKYL ESTERS RE-REVIEW – SUPPLEMENTAL BOOK 1 Cetyl Esters and Other Previously Reviewed Alkyl Esters Cetyl Esters ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Isopropyl Linoleate .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Cetearyl Octanoate (now Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate) ...................................................................................... 15 Octyl, Cetyl, and Isopropyl Palmitate ............................................................................................................ 25 Decyl and Isodecyl Oleate ............................................................................................................................. 48 Butyl, Cetyl Isobutyl, Isocetyl, Isopropyl, Myristyl, and Octyl Stearate ....................................................... 59 Isostearyl Neopentanoate ............................................................................................................................... 99 Arachidyl Propionate ................................................................................................................................... 121 Isopropyl Isostearate .................................................................................................................................... 131 Cetyl,
  • Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters As Used in Cosmetics

    Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters As Used in Cosmetics

    Amended Safety Assessment of Alkyl Esters as Used in Cosmetics Status: Tentative Amended Report for Public Comment Release Date: December 18, 2012 Panel Meeting Date: March 18-19, 2013 All interested persons are provided 60 days from the above release date to comment on this safety assessment and to identify additional published data that should be included or provide unpublished data which can be made public and included. Information may be submitted without identifying the source or the trade name of the cosmetic product containing the ingredient. All unpublished data submitted to CIR will be discussed in open meetings, will be available at the CIR office for review by any interested party and may be cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please submit data, comments, or requests to the CIR Director, Dr. F. Alan Andersen. The 2012 Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel members are: Chairman, Wilma F. Bergfeld, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Donald V. Belsito, M.D.; Ronald A. Hill, Ph.D.; Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph.D.; Daniel C. Liebler, Ph.D.; James G. Marks, Jr., M.D., Ronald C. Shank, Ph.D.; Thomas J. Slaga, Ph.D.; and Paul W. Snyder, D.V.M., Ph.D. The CIR Director is F. Alan Andersen, Ph.D. This report was prepared by Monice M. Fiume, Senior Scientific Analyst/Writer, and Bart Heldreth, Ph.D., Chemist CIR. Cosmetic Ingredient Review 1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 412 ♢ Washington, DC 20036-4702 ♢ ph 202.331.0651 ♢ fax 202.331.0088 ♢ [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production

    “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production

    “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production Terry Shistar, PhD A Beyond Pesticides Report he relatively few registered pesticides allowed in organic production are contained in product formulations with so-called “inert” ingredients that are not disclosed on the T product label. The “inerts” make up the powder, liquid, granule, or spreader/sticking agents in pesticide formulations. The “inerts” are typically included in products with natural or synthetic active pesticide ingredients recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and listed by the National Organic Program (NOP) on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Any of the pesticides that meet the standards of public health and environmental protection and organic compatibility in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) may contain “inert” ingredients. Because the standards of OFPA are different from those used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pesticides and given changes in how the agency categorizes inerts, the NOSB has adopted a series of recommendations since 2010 that established a substance review process as part of the sunset review. NOP has not followed through on the Board’s recommendations and, as a result, there are numerous materials in use that have not been subject to OFPA criteria. This report (i) traces the history of the legal requirements for review by the NOSB, (ii) identifies the universe of toxic and nontoxic materials that make of the category of “inerts” used in products permitted in organic production, and (iii) suggests a path forward to ensure NOSB compliance with OFPA and uphold the integrity of the USDA organic label.
  • Sorbent Pens™ for Next Generation Headspace Analysis Featured Chromatograms

    Sorbent Pens™ for Next Generation Headspace Analysis Featured Chromatograms

    Sorbent Pens™ For Next Generation Headspace Analysis Featured Chromatograms Abundance 15 2e+08 1.8e+08 1.6e+08 1.4e+08 1.2e+08 1e+08 13 6 8e+07 2 6e+07 8 5 4e+07 4 11 14 3 2e+07 7 10 1 9 12 0 Time--> 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 Brie Cheese Duplicate Analysis TIC: 16081501.D\data.ms SORBENT PEN™ #1 Abundance 1.1e+07 8 23 1e+07 9000000 8000000 2 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 19 4 2000000 7 15 *20 22 24 1000000 1 9 11 14 16 17 10 12 21 3 5 6 13 18 0 Time--> 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 SORBENT PEN™ #2 Abundance 8 23 1.1e+07 1e+07 9000000 8000000 2 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 19 4 7 15 2000000 22 14 17 24 1000000 1 9 10 11 *20 21 12 16 3 5 6 13 18 0 Time--> 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 *Difference in Dodecanoic acid, ethyl ester caused by difficulty in maintaining exact amount of cheese sample oxidation from run to run, and expected variations in sample homegeneity. Instrument: 5800-SPDU (Sorbent Pen Desorption Unit) 1. 4-Heptanone 14. 2-Undecanone Technique: VASE (Vacuum Assisted Sorbent Extraction) 2. 2-Heptanone 15. n-Decanoic acid Run date: August 15, 2016 3. Benzaldehyde 16. Decanoic acid, ethyl ester Sample description: Brie Cheese 4. 2-Octanone 17.

  • Fuzzy Divisive Hierarchical Clustering of Solvents According to Their Experimentally and Theoretically Predicted Descriptors

    S S symmetry Article Fuzzy Divisive Hierarchical Clustering of Solvents According to Their Experimentally and Theoretically Predicted Descriptors Miroslava Nedyalkova 1, Costel Sarbu 2 , Marek Tobiszewski 3 and Vasil Simeonov 4,* 1 Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sofia, 1 James Bourchier Blvd., Sofia 1164, Bulgaria; [email protected]fia.bg 2 Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Babes-Bolyai University, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; [email protected] 3 Department of Analytical Chemistry, Chemical Faculty, Gda´nskUniversity of Technology (GUT), 11/12 G. Narutowicza St., 80-233 Gda´nsk,Poland; [email protected] 4 Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sofia, 1 James Bourchier Blvd., Sofia 1164, Bulgaria * Correspondence: [email protected]fia.bg Received: 5 September 2020; Accepted: 22 October 2020; Published: 24 October 2020 Abstract: The present study describes a simple procedure to separate into patterns of similarity a large group of solvents, 259 in total, presented by 15 specific descriptors (experimentally found and theoretically predicted physicochemical parameters). Solvent data is usually characterized by its high variability, different molecular symmetry, and spatial orientation. Methods of chemometrics can usefully be used to extract and explore accurately the information contained in such data. In this order, advanced fuzzy divisive hierarchical-clustering methods were efficiently applied in the present study of a large group of solvents using specific descriptors. The fuzzy divisive hierarchical associative-clustering algorithm provides not only a fuzzy partition of the solvents investigated, but also a fuzzy partition of descriptors considered. In this way, it is possible to identify the most specific descriptors (in terms of higher, smallest, or intermediate values) to each fuzzy partition (group) of solvents.
  • Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality

    Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality

    Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality Volume I Hydrocarbons, Glycerides, Waxes and Other Esters »»SKrIONAL FEDER·'17' C 1· 180 4 So~457'/ES OF COSMET,c 606> 0 4 f 6 Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality Volume I: Hydrocarbons, Glycerides, Waxes and Other Esters Edited by Hilda Butler Monograph Coordinators Luigi Rigano and Tasuku Takamatsu Published on behalf of the International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists by ~-/ MICELLE PRESS Weymouth, Dorset, England Copyright © 1994 by the International Federation of the Societies of Cosmetic Chemists All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted underthe UKCopyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988, nopart ofthis publication maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the priorpermission in writingofthe International Federationofthe Societies ofCosmetic Chemists, or in the case of reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate reproduction rights organization outside the UK. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 1-870228-11-1 Published on behalf of the International Federation of the Societies of Cosmetic Chemists by Micelle Press 12 Ullswater Crescent, Weymouth, Dorset DT3 5HE, England IFSCC Secretariat G.T. House, 24-26 Rothesay Road, Luton, Beds LUl 1QX England Printed and bound in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire The International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists The International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (IFSCC) is an international association which links national societies of cosmetic chemists and which is dedicated to international cooperation in cosmetic science and technology.
  • Estimated Carboxylic Acid Ester Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Food

    Estimated Carboxylic Acid Ester Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Food

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Nature Precedings 1 Estimated carboxylic acid ester hydrolysis rate constants for food and beverage 2 aroma compounds 3 4 Sierra Rayne a,* and Kaya Forest b 5 6 a Chemologica Research, PO Box 74, 318 Rose Street, Mortlach, Saskatchewan, Canada, S0H 3E0 7 b Department of Environmental Engineering, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and 8 Technology, Palliser Campus, PO Box 1420, 600 6th Avenue NW, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada, 9 S6H 4R4 10 11 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 306 690 0573. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Rayne). 12 Nature Precedings : doi:10.1038/npre.2011.6471.1 Posted 28 Sep 2011 1 13 Abstract 14 15 Aroma compounds in the Flavornet database were screened for potentially hydrolyzable carboxylic 16 acid ester functionalities. Of the 738 aroma compounds listed in this database, 140 molecules contain 17 carboxylic acid ester groups that may be amenable to hydrolysis in various food and beverage products. 18 Acid- (kA) and base- (kB) catalyzed and neutral (kN) hydrolysis rate constants in pure water at 25°C 19 were estimated for these aroma compounds. Where available, good agreement between theoretical and 20 experimental hydrolytic half-lives was obtained at various pH values. Wide ranges and broad frequency 21 distributions for kA, kB, and kN are expected among the various hydrolyzable aroma compounds, with -8 -4 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1 22 estimated kA ranging from 3.7×10 to 4.7×10 M s , estimated kB ranging from 4.3×10 to 43 M s , -17 -9 -1 -1 23 and estimated kN ranging from 4.2×10 to 7.6×10 M s .
  • Over 45 Years of Credibility & Reliability

    Over 45 Years of Credibility & Reliability

    G.J. CHEMICAL CO., INC. • 40 Veronica Ave • Somerset NJ 08873 • P 973.589.1450 • F 732.249.0082 Over 45 years of Credibility & Reliability G.J. Chemical is an active member of The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), as well as SOCMA, DCAT and ILDA. We operate under Responsible Care Guidelines, maintain an extensive on-site laboratory and adhere to strict QC/QA practices such as cGMP guidelines. G.J. Chemical is family owned and operated and has been in the chemical business for over 45 years. G.J. Chemical is also certified by the New Jersey Commerce & Economic Growth Commission as a Women Business Enterprise. G.J. has solidified its presence in the industry by making substantial investments into expansion and diversification programs. G.J. Chemical is a credible, reliable partner that can help you succeed well into the next century. Corporate Offices: 40 Veronica Ave Somerset, NJ 08873 Phone: 973-589-1450 Fax: 732-249-0082 Production Facility: 128 Doremus Ave., Newark, NJ 07105 Phone: 973-589-4176 Fax: 973-589-3072 Warehouse Location: 370-376 Adams St., Newark, NJ 07114 Phone: 973-589-1450 Fax: 732-249-0082 Minimum Order: $150 for orders shipped F.O.B. our facilities, Newark, NJ $250 or orders shipped prepaid (delivered price). Terms: Net 30 days after shipment Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday EST G.J. Chemical is Customer Driven: We offer the flexibility in product lines, product specifications, custom formulations, packaging and labeling to help you meet your changing needs and solve your most pressing problems.
  • A Chemical Analysis of Flavor Differences in Chocolate Coconut Rum Porter

    A Chemical Analysis of Flavor Differences in Chocolate Coconut Rum Porter

    A Chemical Analysis of Flavor Differences in Chocolate Coconut Rum Porter A Major Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the field of Chemical Engineering Sponsored by: Purgatory Beer Company 670 Linwood Ave, Whitinsville, MA 01588 Authors: Joseph Crognale Tyler Donovan Shane O’Dell Advised by: Professor Stephen Kmiotek This report represents the work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, please see http://www.wpi.edu/academics/ugradstudies/project-learning.html Abstract The origin of the batch-to-batch inconsistency in flavor of Purgatory Beer Company’s Fiero Coconut Rum porter was investigated by extracting organic compounds from desirable and undesirable batches of porter and quantifying them using GC-MS. The concentration and occurrence of key flavor compounds were compared between the samples and showed that the undesirable batch contained more unpleasant organoleptic compounds and was more acidic. Based on the marked inconsistency in chemical profile between batches, the team recommended quality control be improved through more accurate monitoring and consistent control of the fermentation temperature, oxygenation of wort and beer, order of ingredient addition to the fermentation broth, reuse
  • The Safety Assessment of Fragrance Materials

    The Safety Assessment of Fragrance Materials

    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 37 (2003) 218–273 www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph The safety assessment of fragrance materials David R. Bickers,a,* Peter Calow,b Helmut A. Greim,c Jon M. Hanifin,d Adrianne E. Rogers,e Jean-Hilaire Saurat,f I. Glenn Sipes,g Robert L. Smith,h and Hachiro Tagamii a Columbia University, New York, NY, USA b The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK c Technical University, Munich, Germany d Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA e Boston University, Boston, MA, USA f University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland g University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA h Imperial College, London, UK i Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Received 20 May 2002 Abstract Safety evaluation of the large number of diverse chemicals used as fragrance ingredients follows a systematic prioritization of data generation and analysis, consideration of exposure and critical analysis of the quality of the available information. In prior publications the research priorities used by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), and the methods of exposure estimation used by industry have been summarized. This paper provides details of the approach used by the RIFM Expert Panel (REXPAN), to examine the dermal effects, systemic toxicity and environmental consequences of the use of and exposure to fra- grance materials, which allow a reliable determination of safe use under intended conditions. The key to the usefulness of this analysis is the grouping of more than 2600 discrete ingredients into classes, based on chemical structures. Research sponsored by RIFM, data supplied by member companies, and relevant published reports from many sources are all considered during hazard characterization.
  • Ep 1256336 A2

    Ep 1256336 A2

    Europäisches Patentamt *EP001256336A2* (19) European Patent Office Office européen des brevets (11) EP 1 256 336 A2 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION (43) Date of publication: (51) Int Cl.7: A61K 7/48 13.11.2002 Bulletin 2002/46 (21) Application number: 02252757.6 (22) Date of filing: 18.04.2002 (84) Designated Contracting States: (72) Inventor: Butuc, Steluta Gina AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LI LU Woodlands, Texas 77380 (US) MC NL PT SE TR Designated Extension States: (74) Representative: Blake, John Henry Francis et al AL LT LV MK RO SI Brookes Batchellor 102-108 Clerkenwell Road (30) Priority: 11.05.2001 US 853552 London EC1M 5SA (GB) (71) Applicant: Penreco Houston, TX 77002 (US) (54) Two-phase gel composition (57) Two-phase gel compositions are provided. The pounds and has a viscosity η which is greater than or two-phase gel compositions are obtained by mixing a equal to η1 and which is greater than or equal to η2. The gelled ester composition comprising a mixture of an es- two-phase gel compositions are also obtained by mixing ter compound and a polymer compound selected from a gelled ether composition, a gelled alcohol composi- the group consisting of triblock copolymers, star poly- tion, a gelled naturally-occurring fat and oil composition mers, radial polymers, multi-block copolymers, and a or a combination thereof with a hydrophobic, non polar combination thereof and a hydrophobic, non polar sol- solvent. The two-phase gel compositions may be used vent. The gelled ester composition has a viscosity η1 to suspend various solids, liquids and/or gases.
  • Predicting Abraham Model Solvent Coefficients Jean-Claude Bradley1, Michael H Abraham2, William E Acree Jr3 and Andrew SID Lang4*

    Predicting Abraham Model Solvent Coefficients Jean-Claude Bradley1, Michael H Abraham2, William E Acree Jr3 and Andrew SID Lang4*

    Bradley et al. Chemistry Central Journal (2015) 9:12 DOI 10.1186/s13065-015-0085-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Predicting Abraham model solvent coefficients Jean-Claude Bradley1, Michael H Abraham2, William E Acree Jr3 and Andrew SID Lang4* Abstract Background: The Abraham general solvation model can be used in a broad set of scenarios involving partitioning and solubility, yet is limited to a set of solvents with measured Abraham coefficients. Here we extend the range of applicability of Abraham’s model by creating open models that can be used to predict the solvent coefficients for all organic solvents. Results: We created open random forest models for the solvent coefficients e, s, a, b, and v that had out-of-bag R2 values of 0.31, 0.77, 0.92, 0.47, and 0.63 respectively. The models were used to suggest sustainable solvent replacements for commonly used solvents. For example, our models predict that propylene glycol may be used as a general sustainable solvent replacement for methanol. Conclusion: The solvent coefficient models extend the range of applicability of the Abraham general solvation equations to all organic solvents. The models were developed under Open Notebook Science conditions which makes them open, reproducible, and as useful as possible. Keywords: Abraham general solvation model, Solvent coefficients, Sustainable solvents, Solvent replacement, Partition coefficients, Solubility Background and (E, S, A, B, V) are the solute descriptors: E is the The Abraham model was developed and is widely used solute excess molar refractivity in units of (cm^3/mol)/ to predict partition coefficients for both conventional or- 10, S is the solute dipolarity/polarizability, A and B are ganic solvents [1-11] and ionic liquid solvents [12,13], the overall or summation hydrogen bond acidity and for the partitioning of drug molecules between blood basicity, and V is the McGowan characteristic volume in and select body organs [14-18], and for partitioning into units of (cm^3/mol)/100.