The complete
IFRA Standards

Up to and including the51th Amendment
January 2024

Index of IFRA Standards
51st Amendment

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

Ace�c acid, anhydride,reac�on products with
1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene

144020-22-4
28371-99-5

Restric�on

2020

1

Acetylated Ve�ver oil

84082-84-8
68917-34-0
73246-97-6
62563-80-8

Restric�on

2020

4

3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran

10599-70-9

Prohibi�on

2023

705

Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl
tetralin (AETT)

88-29-9

Prohibi�on

2006

312

Acetyl hexamethyl indan(AHMI)

15323-35-0

Restric�on

2020

256

Acetyl isovaleryl

13706-86-0

Prohibi�on

2006

314

Alantroot oil

84012-20-4
97676-35-2

Prohibi�on

2006

316

Allyl 3cyclohexylpropionate

2705-87-5

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2023

621

Allyl esters

Not applicable.

Specifica�on

2009

486

Allyl hep�ne carbonate

73157-43-4

Prohibi�on

2008

318

Allyl isothiocyanate

57-06-7

Prohibi�on

2020

320

Allyl phenoxyacetate

7493-74-5
863306-60-9

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

7

alpha-Amyl cinnamic
alcohol

101-85-9

Restric�on

2020

10

alpha-Amyl cinnamic
aldehyde122-40-7

Restric�on

2020

13

alphaAmylcinnamicaldehyde
diethyl acetal

60763-41-9

Restric�on

2023

624

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

alphaAmylcinnamicaldehyde
dimethyl acetal

91-87-2

Restric�on

2023

627

Amylcyclopentenone

25564-22-1

Prohibi�on

2008

322

Angelica root oil

8015-64-3
84775-41-7

Restric�on

2020

260

Anisyl alcohol

105-13-5
1331-81-3

Restric�on

2020

16

Anisylidene acetone

943-88-4

Prohibi�on

2006

324

cis-and trans-Asarone494-40-6
2883-98-9
5273-86-9

Prohibi�on
Restric�on

2006

326

Benzaldehyde

100-52-7

Restric�on

2020

19

Benzene71-43-2

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2004

329

Benzyl alcohol

100-51-6

Restric�on

2020

22

Benzyl benzoate

120-51-4

Restric�on

2020

25

Benzyl cinnamate

103-41-3

Restric�on

2020

28

Benzyl cyanide

140-29-4

Prohibi�on
Restric�on

2004

331

Benzyl salicylate

118-58-1

Restric�on

2020

31

Benzylidene acetone122-57-6

Prohibi�on

2006

334

Bergamot oil expressed

8007-75-889957-91-5

Restric�on

2020

263

Birch wood pyrolysate

8001-88-5
68917-50-0
84012-15-7
85251-66-7
85940-29-0
91745-85-6

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2013

336

alpha-Bisabolol515-69-523089-26-1
23178-88-3
78148-59-1
76738-75-5
72691-24-8

Restric�on

2020

496

Bi�er orange peel oil
expressed

68916-04-1
72968-50-4

Restric�on

2020

266

Boldo oil8022-81-984649-96-7

Prohibi�on

2009

338

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

Bromostyrene

103-64-0

Prohibi�on

2008

342

3-Bromo-1,7,7trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hepta
ne-2-one

76-29-9

Prohibi�on

2008

340

alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde

7492-44-6

Restric�on

2020

34

4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone

98-53-3

Restric�on

2023

696

1-(2-tert.-Butyl
cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol

139504-68-0

Restric�on

2023

576

p-tertButyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

18127-01-0

Restric�on

2020

40

p-tert-Butyl-αmethylhydrocinnamic
aldehyde (p-BMHCA)

80-54-6

Restric�on
Prohibi�on

2020

43

p-tert-Butylphenol

98-54-4

Prohibi�on

2006

344

3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropionaldehyde (mBMHCA)

62518-65-4

Restric�on

2020

37

Cade oil8013-10-390046-02-9

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2013

346

Carvomenthone499-70-759471-80-6

Restric�on

2023

693

Carvone99-49-02244-16-8
6485-40-1

Restric�on

2020

46

Carvone oxide

33204-74-9

Prohibi�on

2004

348

Carvyl acetate

97-42-71205-42-1
1134-95-8

Restric�on

2023

636

Restric�on

2020

508

Cedrene11028-42-5
469-61-4
546-28-1

Chenopodium oil

8006-99-3
8024-11-1
89997-47-7

Prohibi�on

2008

350

Cinnamic alcohol

104-54-1

Restric�on

2020

49

Cinnamic aldehyde

104-55-2

Restric�on

2020

52

Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl
acetal

4364-06-1

Restric�on

2020

55

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

Cinnamylidene acetone

4173-44-8

Prohibi�on

2008

352

Cinnamyl nitrile

1885-38-7
4360-47-8

Restric�on

2020

58

Citral5392-40-5
141-27-5
106-26-3

Restric�on

2020

61

Citronellal

106-23-05949-05-3

Restric�on

2020

532

Citronellol

106-22-91117-61-926489-01-0
6812-78-8
141-25-3
7540-51-4

Restric�on

2020

64

150-84-5
67601-05-2
141-11-7

Restric�on

2023

651

Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing
essen�al oils

Not applicable.

Restric�on

2020

269

Colophony

8050-09-7

Prohibi�on

2006

354

Costus root oil, absoluteand concrete8023-88-990106-55-1

Prohibi�on

2006

356

Coumarin

91-64-5

Restric�on

2020

67

p-Cresol

106-44-5
1319-77-3

Restric�on

2023

687

Cumin oil8014-13-984775-51-9

Restric�on

2020

272

Cuminaldehyde

122-03-2

Restric�on

2020

70

Cyclamen alcohol4756-19-8

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

1980

358

Cyclamen aldehyde

103-95-7

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

73

Cyclohexadecanone

2550-52-9

Restric�on

2023

654

Cyclohexadecenone

88642-03-95365-06-0
2550-59-6
3100-36-5
5120-20-7
854373-71-0
854373-70-9

Restric�on

2023

657

Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4dimethyl-

68480-15-9

Restric�on

2020

544

Citronellyl acetate

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

alpha-Cyclohexylidene
benzeneacetonitrile

10461-98-0

Restric�on

2023

630

2-Cyclohexylidene-2-orthotolylacetonitrile

916887-53-1

Restric�on

2023

585

Cyclopentadecanolide

106-02-5

Restric�on

2020

76

Dibenzyl ether

103-50-4

Restric�on

2020

79

2,2-Dichloro-1methylcyclopropylbenzene

3591-42-2

Prohibi�on

2008

364

2,4-Dienals

764-40-9
142-83-6
80466-34-8
5910-85-0
30361-28-5
6750-03-4
2363-88-4
13162-46-4
21662-16-825152-84-5
30361-29-6
4313-03-5
20432-40-0
4488-48-6
5577-44-6
5910-87-2

Prohibi�on

2013

366

Diethyl maleate

141-05-9

Prohibi�on

2006

368

Dihydrocoumarin

119-84-6

Restric�on

2023

85

2,4-Dihydroxy-3methylbenzaldehyde

6248-20-0

Prohibi�on

2006

370

6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3pentamethyl-4(5H)indanone (DPMI)

33704-61-9

Restric�on

2020

82

4,6-Dimethyl-8-tertbutylcoumarin

17874-34-9

Prohibi�on

2006

372

Dimethyl citraconate

617-54-9

Prohibi�on

2006

376

Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1carbaldehyde (mixed
isomers)68737-61-1(mixed isomers)
68039-49-6
68039-48-527939-60-2
67801-65-4
36635-35-5
68084-52-6
35145-02-9

Restric�on

2020

88

56973-85-4

Restric�on

2020

91

1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en1-one

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

4,8-Dimethyl-4,9decadienal

71077-31-1

Restric�on

2020

535

5,9-Dimethyl-4,8decadienal

762-26-5

Restric�on

2020

526

3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien1-al41448-29-7

Restric�on

2020

523

3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal

55722-59-3
1754-00-3
72203-98-6
72203-97-5

Restric�on

2020

529

3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol

40607-48-5

Prohibi�on

2004

374

Dimethyl octenone

2550-11-0

Restric�on

2023

612

2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3tolyl)propan-1-ol

103694-68-4

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

94

3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1yl)-4-penten-2-ol

107898-54-4

Restric�on

2020

547

Diphenylamine

122-39-4

Prohibi�on

2004

378

2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E,
4E)

18485-38-6

Prohibi�on

2015

380

Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid(except Methyl oc�necarbonate)e.g.:10031-92-2

Prohibi�on

2008

382

Esters of 2-Octynoic acid(except Methyl hep�necarbonate)e.g.:10484-32-9
10519-20-7

Prohibi�on

2008

384

Estragole

140-67-0
1407-27-877525-18-9

Restric�on

2023

300

(Ethoxymethoxy)cyclododecane

58567-11-6

Restric�on

2023

663

2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol

2563-07-7

Restric�on

2020

97

Ethyl acrylate

140-88-5

Prohibi�on

2006

386

p-Ethylbenzaldehyde

4748-78-1

Restric�on

2020

100

Ethyl and Methyl furaneol

27538-09-6
27538-10-9

Restric�on

2023

588

Ethyl isopropyl
bicycloheptene-2carboxylate

116044-44-1
116126-82-0

Restric�on

2023

567

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

Ethylene glycol monoethyl
ether and its acetate110-80-5(ether)111-15-9(acetate)

Prohibi�on

2004

388

Ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether and its
acetate109-86-4(ether)110-49-6(acetate)

Prohibi�on

2004

390

Eugenol

97-53-0

Restric�on

2023

103

Farnesal

19317-11-4

Restric�on

2020

520

Farnesol4602-84-0
106-28-5
3790-71-4
16106-95-9
3879-60-5

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

106

Fig leaf absolute

68916-52-9
90028-74-3

Prohibi�on

2006

392

Furfural

98-01-1

Restric�on

2020

297

Furfuryl alcohol

98-00-0

Prohibi�on

2015

394

Furfurylidene acetone623-15-4

Prohibi�on

2008

396

Geraniol

106-24-1

Restric�on

2023

109

Geranyl nitrile

5146-66-7
5585-39-7
31983-27-4

Prohibi�on

2008

398

Grapefruit oil expressed

8016-20-4
90045-43-5

Restric�on

2020

275

trans-2-Heptenal18829-55-5

Prohibi�on

2006

400

cis-3-Heptenyl acetate

1576-78-9

Restric�on

2023

639

2-Heptylidene cyclopentan1-one

39189-74-7

Restric�on

2020

112

2,4-Hexadien-1-ol

111-28-4
17102-64-6

Prohibi�on

2015

402

Hexahydrocoumarin

700-82-3

Prohibi�on

2006

404

2-Hexenal

6728-26-3
505-57-7
16635-54-4

Restric�on

2023

115

trans-2-Hexenal diethyl
acetal

67746-30-9

Prohibi�on

2006

406

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl
acetal18318-83-7

Prohibi�on

2006

408

cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate

35154-45-1

Restric�on

2023

642

5-Hexen-1-yl 2methylbutanoate

155514-23-1

Restric�on

2023

633

cis-3-Hexenyl methylcarbonate67633-96-9

Restric�on

2023

645

alpha-Hexyl cinnamic
aldehyde101-86-0

Restric�on

2020

118

Hexyl salicylate6259-76-3

Restric�on

2020

124

alpha-Hexylidene
cyclopentanone

17373-89-6

Restric�on

2020

121

2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1one

16429-07-5

Restric�on

2023

591

Hydroabietyl alcohol,
Dihydroabietyl alcohol

13393-93-6
26266-77-3
1333-89-7

Prohibi�on

2004

410

Hydroquinone monoethyl
ether

622-62-8

Prohibi�on

2006

412

Hydroquinone monomethyl
ether

150-76-5

Prohibi�on

2006

414

4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl3(2H)-furanone

3658-77-3

Restric�on

2020

517

6-Hydroxy-2,6dimethylheptanal

62439-42-3

Restric�on

2023

666

3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4methylpentyl)-3cyclohexene-1carboxaldehyde (HMPCC)

31906-04-4
51414-25-6

Restric�on

2020

130

Hydroxycitronellal

107-75-5

Restric�on

2023

127

4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan2-one

5471-51-2

Restric�on

2020

562

Isobutyl cinnamate

122-67-8

Restric�on

2023

669

Isobutyl Nmethylanthranylate

65505-24-0

Specifica�on

2009

556

p-Isobutyl-alpha-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde

6658-48-6

Restric�on

2020

133

Isocyclocitral

1335-66-6
1423-46-7
67634-07-5

Restric�on

2020

136

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

Isocyclogeraniol

68527-77-5

Restric�on

2020

139

Isoeugenol

97-54-1
5932-68-3

Restric�on

2020

142

Isoeugenyl acetate

93-29-8

Restric�on

2023

672

Isopentylcyclohexanone

16587-71-6

Restric�on

2023

615

Isophorone

78-59-1

Prohibi�on
Restric�on

2020

416

p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol

536-60-7

Restric�on

2020

502

6-Isopropyl-2-decalol

34131-99-2

Prohibi�on

2006

419

cis,trans-4(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol

5502-75-013828-37-0
13674-19-6

Restric�on

2020

538

4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.methylcyclohexanethanol

67634-03-1

Restric�on

2020

541

Jasmine absolute(grandiflorum)8022-96-6
8024-43-990045-94-6
84776-64-7

Restric�on

2020

145

Jasmine absolute (sambac)

91770-14-81034798-23-6

Restric�on

2020

148

Lemon oil cold pressed

8008-56-8
84929-31-7

Restric�on

2020

278

Lime oil expressed

8008-26-2
90063-52-8

Restric�on

2020

281

Limonene138-86-3
7705-14-8
5989-27-5
5989-54-8

Specifica�on

1995

481

Specifica�on

2004

483

Linalool

78-70-6
126-90-9
126-91-0

Longifolene

475-20-7
16846-09-6
19067-29-9

Restric�on

2020

514

Massoia bark oil

85085-26-3

Prohibi�on

2008

421

Massoia lactone

54814-64-1
51154-96-2

Prohibi�on

2015

423

Melissa oil (genuine
Melissa officinalis L.)

8014-71-9
84082-61-1

Restric�on

2020

151

Menthadiene-7-methyl
formate68683-20-5

Restric�on

2020

157

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

p-Methoxybenzaldehyde

123-11-5

Restric�on

2023

160

o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde

1504-74-1

Restric�on

2020

163

7-Methoxycoumarin

531-59-9

Prohibi�on
Restric�on

2008

425

Methoxycyclododecane

2986-54-1

Restric�on

2023

702

Methoxy dicyclopentadienecarboxaldehyde

86803-90-9

Restric�on

2020

166

7-Methoxy-3,7dimethyloct-1-ene

53767-86-5

Restric�on

2023

699

4-Methoxy-alphamethylbenzenepropanal5462-06-6

Restric�on

2023

169

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol

93-51-6

Restric�on

2020

172

2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol

2785-87-7

Restric�on

2020

493

α-Methyl anisylidene
acetone104-27-8

Prohibi�on

2006

428

alpha-Methyl-1,3benzodioxole-5propionaldehyde(MMDHCA)1205-17-0

Restric�on

2020

175

alpha-Methyl cinnamic
aldehyde101-39-3

Restric�on

2020

178

6-Methylcoumarin

92-48-8

Prohibi�on

2006

430

7-Methylcoumarin2445-83-2

Prohibi�on

2006

432

Methyl crotonate

623-43-8

Prohibi�on

2006

434

4-Methyl-7ethoxycoumarin

87-05-8

Prohibi�on

2006

436

Methyl eugenol

93-15-2

Restric�on

2023

303

Methyl Nformylanthranilate

41270-80-8

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

306

6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2one

1604-28-0

Restric�on

2020

181

Methyl hep�ne carbonate

111-12-6

Restric�on

2020

184

p-Methylhydrocinnamic
aldehyde5406-12-2

Prohibi�on

2008

438

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

Methyl ionone, mixed
isomers1335-46-2
127-42-4
127-43-5
127-51-5
7779-30-8
79-89-01335-94-0

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

187

Methyl lavender ketone

67801-33-6
67633-95-8

Restric�on

2023

600

Methyl methacrylate

80-62-6

Prohibi�on

2008

440

Methyl Nmethylanthranilate

85-91-6

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2023

284

Methyl beta-naphthyl
ketone93-08-3

Restric�on

2020

287

3-Methyl-2(3)nonenenitrile

53153-66-5

Prohibi�on

2008

442

Methyl oc�ne carbonate

111-80-8

Restric�on

2020

191

2-Methyl-2-pentenal623-36-9

Restric�on

2023

594

3-Methyl-2(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en1-one

68922-13-4

Restric�on

2020

194

3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2enenitrile

93893-89-1
53243-59-7
53243-60-0

Restric�on

2023

606

4-Methyl-1-propan-2ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8carboxylate

68966-86-9

Restric�on

2023

675

pMethyltetrahydroquinoline

91-61-2

Specifica�on

2009

558

Methyl vanillyl ether

5533-03-9

Restric�on

2023

678

Mintlactone

13341-72-5
38049-04-6

Prohibi�on

2021

565

Musk alpha63697-53-0

Prohibi�on

2008

360

Musk ambre�e

83-66-9

Prohibi�on

2006

446

Musk ketone

81-14-1

Specifica�on

2010

488

Musk KS62265-99-0

Prohibi�on

2008

365

Musk moskene

116-66-5

Prohibi�on

2008

444

Musk �betene145-39-1

Prohibi�on

2008

448

Musk xylene

81-15-2

Prohibi�on

2009

450

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

Myraldyl acetate

72403-67-9

Restric�on

2023

681

Nitrobenzene

98-95-3

Prohibi�on

2006

452

cis-3-Nonenyl acetate

13049-88-2

Restric�on

2023

648

2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl
acetal13257-44-8

Restric�on

2020

197

Nootkatone

4674-50-4

Specifica�on

2006

479

Oakmoss extracts

90028-68-5
68917-10-2
9000-50-4

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

200

2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7trimethyl-, (2E)-

358331-95-0357650-26-1
847144-75-6

Restric�on

2023

707

Octahydrodimethylnaphthalene-2carbaldehyde (mixed
isomers)68738-94-3
68738-96-5
68991-96-8
68991-97-9

Restric�on

2023

684

1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Octahydro-2,3,8,8tetramethyl-2naphthalenyl) ethanone(OTNE)

54464-57-2
54464-59-4
68155-66-8
68155-67-9

Restric�on

2020

203

2-Octen-4-one

4643-27-0

Restric�on

2023

597

3-Octen-2-one

1669-44-9

Restric�on

2023

609

1-Octen-3-yl acetate

2442-10-6

Restric�on

2020

206

Opoponax

8021-36-1
9000-78-6
93384-32-8

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

209

13144-88-2

Restric�on

2020

215

3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept3-en-2-one

81786-75-6
81786-73-4
86115-11-9
81786-74-5

Restric�on

2023

603

2-Pentylidene
cyclohexanone

25677-40-1

Prohibi�on

2006

454

Perilla aldehyde

2111-75-3

Restric�on

2020

154

Peru balsam

8007-00-9

Restric�on
Prohibi�on

2020

212

Phenoxyacetaldehyde

2120-70-9

Restric�on

2023

690

Phenylacetaldehyde

122-78-1

Restric�on

2020

218

1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1one

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

Phenyl acetone103-79-7

Prohibi�on

2008

456

Phenyl benzoate

93-99-2

Prohibi�on

2008

458

3-Phenylbutanal

16251-77-7

Restric�on

2020

221

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol

17488-65-2

Restric�on

2020

511

2-Phenylpropionaldehyde

93-53-81340-11-0
34713-70-7

Restric�on

2020

224

Pinacea deriva�ves

Not applicable.

Specifica�on

1994

477

Propenylguaethol

94-86-063477-41-8

Restric�on

2020

490

3-Propylidenephthalide

17369-59-4

Restric�on

2023

227

Pseudoionone

141-10-6

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2006

460

Pseudo methylionones

26651-96-7
72968-25-3
1117-41-5

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2009

462

Quinoline

91-22-5

Prohibi�on

2010

464

Rose ketones

23696-85-7
23726-93-4
59739-63-843052-87-5
24720-09-0
23726-94-5
23726-92-3
23726-91-2
35044-68-957378-68-4
71048-82-3
35087-49-1
39872-57-6
70266-48-7
33673-71-1
87064-19-5

Restric�on

2020

230

Rue oil

8014-29-7
84929-47-5

Restric�on

2020

290

Safrole, Isosafrole andDihydrosafrole

94-59-7
120-58-1
94-58-6

Prohibi�on
Restric�on

1987

466

Santolina oil

84961-58-0

Prohibi�on

2008

469

Savin oil8024-00-8
90046-04-1
68916-94-990046-03-0

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

1982

471

Sclareol

515-03-7

Specifica�on

2005

475

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on Year

Page

Styrax8046-19-3
8024-01-9
94891-27-7
94891-28-8
101227-15-0

Prohibi�on
Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

235

Tagetes oil and absolute

90131-43-4
8016-84-0
91722-29-1
8016-84-0
91770-75-1

Prohibi�on
Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

293

Tea leaf absolute

84650-60-2

Restric�on

2020

238

1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4methylquinoline

19343-78-3

Specifica�on

2009

560

Tetramethyl bicyclo-2heptene-2propionaldehyde

33885-52-8

Restric�on

2023

570

alpha,2,2,3Tetramethylcyclopent-3ene-1-butyraldehyde

65114-03-6

Restric�on

2020

553

2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6octen-3-one

74338-72-0

Restric�on

2023

582

Thujone546-80-5
471-15-876231-76-0
1125-12-8

Restric�on

2020

309

o,m,p-Tolualdehydes andtheir mixtures529-20-4
620-23-5
104-87-0
1334-78-7

Restric�on

2020

244

Toluene108-88-3

Prohibi�onSpecifica�on

2004

473

p-Tolyl alcohol589-18-4

Restric�on

2020

499

Treemoss extracts

90028-67-4
68648-41-9
68917-40-8

Restric�onSpecifica�on

2020

241

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex1,3-dienyl methanal116-26-7

Restric�on

2020

247

1-(2,2,6Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3hexanol

70788-30-6

Restric�on

2023

573

1-(2,2,6Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3pentanol

60241-52-3
60241-53-4

Restric�on

2023

660

5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3cyclopentenyl)-3methylpentan-2-ol

65113-99-7

Restric�on

2020

550

Name of Ingredient

CAS Number

Standard

Publica�on YearPage

3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6octadienal

1891-67-4

Restric�on

2023

579

2,6,10-Trimethylundeca5,9-dien-1-ol

24048-14-4
185019-19-6
58001-88-0
58001-87-9
1373932-23-0
1018832-07-9

Restric�on

2020

505

Verbena oil and absolute(Lippia citriodora Kunth.)8024-12-2
85116-63-8

Restric�on
Prohibi�on

2020

250

Woody furan

338735-71-0
351343-77-6

Restric�on

2023

618

Ylang ylang extracts

8006-81-3
68606-83-7
83863-30-3

Restric�on

2020

253

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene

CAS-No.:144020-22-4
28371-99-5
This substance was previously erroneously identified as CAS 28371-99-5, however this CAS
number is still used on certain commercial qualities today and as such this Standard is also
applicable to that CAS number, which is an isomer of CAS 144020-22-4.
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl trimethylcyclododecatrienyl ketone (mixture of isomers)
Trimofix O (commercial name)
Fixamber (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.00016 %Category 7A

0.87 %

Category 2

0.13 %

Category 7B

0.87 %

Category 3

0.40 %

Category 8

0.17 %

Category 4

2.4 %Category 9

2.2 %Category 5A

0.60 %

Category 10A

2.2 %Category 5B

0.52 %

Category 10B

4.4 %Category 5C

0.60 %

Category 11A

0.17 %

Category 5D

0.17 %

Category 11B

0.17 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 1 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene
Category 6

0.00016 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction
products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9-cyclododecatriene, which can be downloaded from the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction
products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9-cyclododecatriene and recommends the concentrations for the 12
different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of Acetic acid, anhydride,
reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9-cyclododecatriene in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 2 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetic acid, anhydride, reaction products with 1,5,10-Trimethyl-1,5,9cyclododecatriene• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 3 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetylated Vetiver oil

CAS-No.:84082-84-8
68917-34-0
73246-97-6
62563-80-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Vetiveria zizanioides, extract, acetylatedOils, vetiver, acetylated
Acetic acid, esters with vetiver oil alcohols
Vetiverol, acetate
Vetivert acetate (commercial name)
Vetivert acetate (Haiti) (commercial name)
Vetyveryl acetate (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.050 %

Category 7A

0.10 %

Category 2

0.050 %

Category 7B

0.10 %

Category 3

0.050 %

Category 8

0.033 %

Category 4

0.90 %

Category 9

0.20 %

Category 5A

0.10 %

Category 10A

0.20 %

Category 5B

0.10 %

Category 10B

3.8 %Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

0.033 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 4 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetylated Vetiver oil
Category 5D

0.033 %

Category 11B

0.033 %

Category 6

0.098 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Acetylated Vetiver oil, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Acetylated Vetiver oil andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Acetylated Vetiver oil in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Acetylated Vetiver oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Acetylated Vetiver oil if available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 5 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetylated Vetiver oil• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Final Opinion on fragrance ingredient Acetylated
Vetiver Oil - AVO (Vetiveria zizanioides root extract acetylated) Adopted on February 26, 2019 Submission III (SCCS/1599/18).
(https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_221.pdf).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available in www.ifraorg.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 6 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl phenoxyacetate

CAS-No.:7493-74-5
863306-60-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Acetic acid, phenoxy-, 2-propenyl ester
2-Propenyl phenoxyacetate
Prop-2-enyl 2-phenoxyacetate
Acetate PA

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.054 %

Category 7A

0.41 %

Category 2

0.016 %

Category 7B

0.41 %

Category 3

0.21 %

Category 8

0.025 %

Category 4

0.30 %

Category 9

0.59 %

Category 5A

0.076 %

Category 10A

0.59 %

Category 5B

0.076 %

Category 10B

1.7 %Category 5C

0.076 %

Category 11A

0.025 %

Category 5D

0.025 %

Category 11B

0.025 %

Category 6

0.18 %

Category 12

52 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 7 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl phenoxyacetate
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

According to the IFRA Specification Standard ofAllyl esters, Allyl esters should only be used when
the level of free Allylalcohol in the ester is less than
0.1%. This recommendation is based on the
delayed irritant potential of Allylalcohol.
Please also refer to the IFRA Specification
Standard Allyl esters.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Allyl phenoxyacetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Allyl phenoxyacetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Allyl phenoxyacetate in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Allyl phenoxyacetate according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Allyl phenoxyacetate is based on at least one of the following publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 8 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl phenoxyacetate• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Allyl phenoxyacetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 9 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol

CAS-No.:101-85-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Amylcinnamyl alcohol
α-Amylcinnamyl alcohol
2-Amyl-3-phenyl-2-propen-1-ol
2-Benzylideneheptanol
1-Heptanol, 2-(phenylmethylene)α-Pentylcinnamyl alcohol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

0.64 %

Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

0.64 %

Category 3

0.64 %

Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

1.6 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

1.6 %Category 5B

0.32 %

Category 10B

3.5 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

Category 6

0.32 %

Category 12

79 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 10 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 11 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic alcohol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 12 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde

CAS-No.:122-40-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Amyl cinnamal
Amyl cinnamic aldehyde
α-Amylcinnamaldehyde
α-Amyl ß-phenylacrolein
Heptanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)
α-Pentylcinnamaldehyde
α-Pentyl-ß-phenylacrolein
2-(Phenylmethylene)heptanal
Flomine (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.58 %

Category 7A

0.26 %

Category 2

0.53 %

Category 7B

0.26 %

Category 3

0.26 %

Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

7.0 %Category 9

1.5 %Category 5A

2.5 %Category 10A

1.5 %Category 5B

0.32 %

Category 10B

3.5 %Category 5C

0.45 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 13 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde
Category 6

0.064 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 14 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amyl cinnamic aldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 15 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Anisyl alcohol

CAS-No.:105-13-5
1331-81-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Anisalcohol
Anise alcohol
Anisic alcohol
Benzyl alcohol, p-methoxy
p-Methoxybenzyl alcohol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0028 %Category 7A

0.033 %

Category 2

0.039 %

Category 7B

0.033 %

Category 3

0.025 %

Category 8

0.0020 %Category 4

0.21 %

Category 9

0.099 %

Category 5A

0.041 %

Category 10A

0.099 %

Category 5B

0.0055 %Category 10B

0.17 %

Category 5C

0.033 %

Category 11A

0.0020 %Category 5D

0.0020 %Category 11B

0.0020 %Category 6

0.091 %

Category 12

14 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 16 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Anisyl alcohol
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Anisyl alcohol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Anisyl alcohol and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Anisyl alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Anisyl alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Anisyl alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 17 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Anisyl alcohol(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 18 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzaldehyde

CAS-No.:100-52-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenecarbonal
Benzene carboxaldehyde
Benzenecarboxaldehyde
Benzenemethylal
Benzoic aldehyde
Bitter almond oil, synthetic
Phenylformaldehyde
Phenylmethanol aldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.52 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.52 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.021 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.49 %

Category 5B

0.064 %

Category 10B

1.8 %Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.021 %

Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.021 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 19 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzaldehyde
Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Benzaldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzaldehyde and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Benzaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 20 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 21 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl alcohol

CAS-No.:100-51-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenemethanol
Benzylic alcohol
α-Hydroxytoluene
Phenylcarbinol
Phenyl carbinol
Phenylmethanol
Phenylmethyl alcohol
α-Toluenol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.45 %

Category 7A

0.68 %

Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

0.68 %

Category 3

0.34 %

Category 8

0.057 %

Category 4

2.5 %Category 9

2.2 %Category 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

2.2 %Category 5B

0.17 %

Category 10B

8.5 %Category 5C

0.34 %

Category 11A

0.057 %

Category 5D

0.057 %

Category 11B

0.057 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 22 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl alcohol
Category 6

1.5 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Benzyl alcohol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzyl alcohol and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Benzyl alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzyl alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzyl alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 23 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl alcohol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 24 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl benzoate

CAS-No.:120-51-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benylate
Benzoic acid, benzyl ester
Benzoic acid, phenylmethyl ester
Benzyl phenylformate
Phenylmethyl benzoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

1.7 %Category 7A

0.41 %

Category 2

1.4 %Category 7B

0.41 %

Category 3

0.41 %

Category 8

0.070 %

Category 4

4.8 %Category 9

1.9 %Category 5A

4.3 %Category 10A

1.9 %Category 5B

0.21 %

Category 10B

12 %Category 5C

0.83 %

Category 11A

0.070 %

Category 5D

0.070 %

Category 11B

0.070 %

Category 6

0.41 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 25 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl benzoate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Benzyl benzoate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzyl benzoate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Benzyl benzoate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzyl benzoate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzyl benzoate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 26 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl benzoate(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 27 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cinnamate

CAS-No.:103-41-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzyl γ-phenylacrylate
Benzyl 3-phenylpropenoate
Cinnamein
Cinnamic acid, benzyl ester
Phenylmethyl 3-phenyl-2-propenoate
2-Propenoic acid, 3-phenyl-phenylmethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.36 %

Category 7A

2.4 %Category 2

0.11 %

Category 7B

2.4 %Category 3

1.2 %Category 8

0.17 %

Category 4

2.0 %Category 9

3.9 %Category 5A

0.51 %

Category 10A

3.9 %Category 5B

0.51 %

Category 10B

14 %Category 5C

0.51 %

Category 11A

0.17 %

Category 5D

0.17 %

Category 11B

0.17 %

Category 6

1.2 %Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 28 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cinnamate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Benzyl cinnamate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzyl cinnamate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Benzyl cinnamate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzyl cinnamate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzyl cinnamate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 29 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cinnamate(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 30 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl salicylate

CAS-No.:118-58-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, phenylmethyl ester
Benzyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Benzyl o-hydroxybenzoate
2-Hydroxybenzoic acid, benzyl ester
Phenylmethyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Salicylic acid, benzyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

1.3 %Category 7A

15 %Category 2

0.39 %

Category 7B

15 %Category 3

7.8 %Category 8

0.77 %

Category 4

7.3 %Category 9

14 %Category 5A

1.9 %Category 10A

51 %Category 5B

1.9 %Category 10B

51 %Category 5C

1.9 %Category 11A

28 %Category 5D

1.9 %Category 11B

28 %Category 6

4.3 %Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 31 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl salicylate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Benzyl salicylate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzyl salicylate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Benzyl salicylate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzyl salicylate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzyl salicylate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 32 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl salicylate(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 33 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde

CAS-No.:7492-44-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Benzylidenehexanal
Butyl cinnamic aldehyde
α-Butyl-β-phenylacrolein
Hexanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)alpha-butylcinnamaldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.036 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

0.84 %

Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

0.036 %

Category 5D

0.036 %

Category 11B

0.036 %

Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 34 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 35 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 36 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA)

CAS-No.:62518-65-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, 3-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-α-methyl3-(3-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropanal
m-BMHCA

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0086 %Category 7A

0.37 %

Category 2

0.094 %

Category 7B

0.37 %

Category 3

0.21 %

Category 8

0.094 %

Category 4

1.8 %Category 9

0.96 %

Category 5A

0.45 %

Category 10A

0.96 %

Category 5B

0.28 %

Category 10B

3.1 %Category 5C

0.42 %

Category 11A

0.094 %

Category 5D

0.094 %

Category 11B

0.094 %

Category 6

0.0086 %Category 12

64 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 37 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA)
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA) is based on at least
one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA) if
available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 38 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-(m-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde (m-BMHCA)• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 39 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

CAS-No.:18127-01-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)3-(4-tert-Butylphenyl)propionaldehyde
Bourgeonal (commercial name)
Liliphenal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1991
1994
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0041 %Category 7A

0.029 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.029 %

Category 3

0.025 %

Category 8

0.0096 %Category 4

0.47 %

Category 9

0.099 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

0.099 %

Category 5B

0.029 %

Category 10B

0.24 %

Category 5C

0.037 %

Category 11A

0.0096 %Category 5D

0.0096 %Category 11B

0.0096 %Category 6

0.087 %

Category 12

6.9 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 40 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-tertButyldihydrocinnamaldehyde and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories,
which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde in the various
product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 41 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 42 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA)

CAS-No.:80-54-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-alpha-methylp-t-Bucinal
2-(4-tert-Butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde
p-t-Butyl-alpha-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde
Butylphenyl methylpropional
alpha-Methyl-ß-(p-t-butylphenyl)propionaldehyde
Lilestralis (commercial name)
Lilial (commercial name)Lysmeral (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

2003
2007
2008
2013
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

RESTRICTION / PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (pBMHCA) should not be used for any finishedproduct application included under IFRA Categories
1 and 6 (lipsticks and oral care products).

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0 % (Prohibited)

Category 7A

0.040 %

Category 2

0.090 %

Category 7B

0.040 %

Category 3

0.040 %

Category 8

0.017 %

Category 4

1.4 %Category 9

0.10 %

Category 5A

0.060 %

Category 10A

0.10 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 43 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA)
Category 5B

0.050 %

Category 10B

0.63 %

Category 5C

0.050 %

Category 11A

0.017 %

Category 5D

0.017 %

Category 11B

0.017 %

Category 6

0.0 % (Prohibited)

Category 12

16 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Recommended concentration levels are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the recommended concentration levels for each product category is derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity). Such
recommended concentration levels correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic
aldehyde (p-BMHCA), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-tert-Butyl-αmethylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA) and recommends the limits for the 12 different productcategories, which provide the acceptable use levels of p-tert-Butyl-α- methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (pBMHCA) in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend not to use p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA) in any
finished product application included in Categories 1 and 6.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA) is based in at least one of thefollowing publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 44 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA)• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-tert-Butyl-α-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde (p-BMHCA) is available atthe RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on the safety of Butylphenyl methylpropional(p-BMHCA) in cosmetic products - Submission II, preliminary version of 14 December 2017, final version of
10
May
2019,
SCCS/1591/2017(https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_213.pdf).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance to IFRA
Standards, publicly available in www.ifraorg.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 45 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Carvone

CAS-No.:99-49-02244-16-8
6485-40-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

99-49-0
Carvonep-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-one
1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-6-cyclohexen-2-one
2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)5-Isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one
6,8(9)-p-Menthadien-2-one
2244-16-8
d-Carvonedextro-Carvone(S)-2-Methyl-5-(1-methylvinyl)cyclohex-2-en-1-one(S)-2-Methyl-5-(prop-1-en-2-yl)cyclohex-2-en-1-one
d-p-Mentha-6,8(9)-dien-2-one
d-1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-6-cyclohexen-2-one
2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, (5S)5-Isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one
6485-40-1
l-Carvonelaevo-Carvone
l-p-Mentha-1(6),8-dien-2-one
l-p-Mentha-6,8(9)-dien-2-one
l-1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-6-cyclohexen-2-one
2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, (5R)5-Isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

RECOMMENDATION:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 46 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

CarvoneCategory 1

0.20 %

Category 7A

0.039 %

Category 2

0.060 %

Category 7B

0.039 %

Category 3

0.020 %

Category 8

0.013 %

Category 4

0.59 %

Category 9

0.18 %

Category 5A

0.20 %

Category 10A

0.18 %

Category 5B

0.039 %

Category 10B

0.43 %

Category 5C

0.059 %

Category 11A

0.013 %

Category 5D

0.013 %

Category 11B

0.013 %

Category 6

0.66 %

Category 12

17 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMThe natural contribution of Carvone is determined by the sum of the natural contributions of each of its
isomers.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Carvone, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 47 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Carvonehttp://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Carvone and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Carvone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Carvone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Carvone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 48 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic alcohol

CAS-No.:104-54-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cinnamyl alcohol
3-Phenylallyl alcohol
3-Phenyl-2-propen-1-ol
2-Propen-1-ol, 3-phenylStyrone
Styryl alcohol
Zimtalcohol
Styryl carbinol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1987
1992
2002
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.22 %

Category 7A

0.25 %

Category 2

0.067 %

Category 7B

0.25 %

Category 3

0.25 %

Category 8

0.085 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

0.76 %

Category 5A

0.32 %

Category 10A

0.76 %

Category 5B

0.25 %

Category 10B

2.0 %Category 5C

0.25 %

Category 11A

0.085 %

Category 5D

0.085 %

Category 11B

0.085 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 49 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic alcohol
Category 6

0.13 %

Category 12

51 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cinnamic alcohol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cinnamic alcohol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cinnamic alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cinnamic alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cinnamic alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 50 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic alcohol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 51 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde

CAS-No.:104-55-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

CinnamalCinnamaldehyde
Phenylacrolein
3-Phenyl-2-propena
3-Phenyl-2-propen-1-a
Cassia aldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1978
2004
2006
2007
2008
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.17 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.17 %

Category 3

0.021 %

Category 8

0.014 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.49 %

Category 5B

0.042 %

Category 10B

1.8 %Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.014 %

Category 5D

0.014 %

Category 11B

0.014 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 52 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde
Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cinnamic aldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cinnamic aldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cinnamic aldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cinnamic aldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cinnamic aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 53 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 54 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal

CAS-No.:4364-06-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzene, (3,3-dimethoxy-1-propenyl)(3,3-Dimethoxypropen-1-yl)benzene(3,3-Dimethoxyprop-1-en-1-yl)benzene
3-Phenyl-2-propenal dimethyl acetalHistory:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.063 %

Category 7A

0.72 %

Category 2

0.019 %

Category 7B

0.72 %

Category 3

0.38 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.35 %

Category 9

0.69 %

Category 5A

0.089 %

Category 10A

2.5 %Category 5B

0.089 %

Category 10B

2.5 %Category 5C

0.089 %

Category 11A

1.4 %Category 5D

0.089 %

Category 11B

1.4 %Category 6

0.21 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 55 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl
acetal and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 56 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamic aldehyde dimethyl acetal• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 57 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamyl nitrile

CAS-No.:1885-38-7
4360-47-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cinnamonitrile (E)trans-.β.-Phenylacrylonitrile
2-Propenenitrile, 3-phenyl-, (E)-History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2002
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 58 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamyl nitrile
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cinnamyl nitrile, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cinnamyl nitrile and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cinnamyl nitrile in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cinnamyl nitrile is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cinnamyl nitrile if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 59 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamyl nitrile
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 60 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

CitralCAS-No.:5392-40-5
141-27-5
106-26-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienal
Geranial (trans-citral)
Neral
Geranial
Lemarome (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2002
2008
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

0.20 %

Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

0.20 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.051 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

1.2 %Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

1.2 %Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

0.051 %

Category 5D

0.051 %

Category 11B

0.051 %

Category 6

0.35 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 61 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

CitralFLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Citral, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Citral and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Citral in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Citral is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Citral if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 62 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citralaquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 63 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellol

CAS-No.:106-22-91117-61-926489-01-0
6812-78-8
141-25-3
7540-51-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

106-22-9:
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethylCitronellol
dl-Citronellol
Rhodinol pure (commercial name)1117-61-9:
3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-ol
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (R)(R)-3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-ol(+)-ß-Citronellol(+)-(R)-Citronellol
26489-01-0:
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-,(+/-)6812-78-8:
3,7-Dimethyloct-7-en-1-ol
7-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-,(S)3,7-Dimethyl-(6-or 7-)octen-1-ol
3,7-Dimethyl-7-octen-1-ol
141-25-3:
3,7-Dimethyloct-7-en-1-ol
7-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl- (isomer unspecified)
α-Citronellol
Rhodinol (commercial name)7540-51-4:
3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-ol(-)-3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-ol(S)-3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (S)l-Citronellol

History:

Publication date:2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:2007

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 64 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellol

Implementation
dates:For new creation*:

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

2.2 %Category 7A

25 %Category 2

0.67 %

Category 7B

25 %Category 3

13 %Category 8

1.3 %Category 4

12 %Category 9

24 %Category 5A

3.2 %Category 10A

87 %Category 5B

3.2 %Category 10B

87 %Category 5C

3.2 %Category 11A

48 %Category 5D

3.2 %Category 11B

48 %Category 6

7.3 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 65 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellol

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Citronellol, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Citronellol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Citronellol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Citronellol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Citronellol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 66 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Coumarin

CAS-No.:91-64-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one
1,2-Benzopyrone
cis-o-Coumaric acid lactone
Coumarinic anhydride
2-Oxo-1,2-benzopyran
2H-chromen-2-one
Tonka bean camphor

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.089 %

Category 7A

0.18 %

Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

0.18 %

Category 3

0.089 %

Category 8

0.035 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

0.52 %

Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

0.52 %

Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

1.6 %Category 5C

0.16 %

Category 11A

0.035 %

Category 5D

0.035 %

Category 11B

0.035 %

Category 6

0.0024 %Category 12

33 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 67 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Coumarin

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Coumarin, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Coumarin and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Coumarin in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Coumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Coumarin if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 68 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Coumarinaquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 69 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cuminaldehyde

CAS-No.:122-03-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzaldehyde, 4-(1-methylethyl)Cumaldehyde
Cuminal
Cuminic aldehyde
4-Isopropylbenzaldehydep-Isopropylbenzaldehyde
4-Isopropylbenzenecarboxaldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.085 %

Category 7A

0.96 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.96 %

Category 3

0.51 %

Category 8

0.050 %

Category 4

0.47 %

Category 90.92 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

3.3 %Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

3.3 %Category 5C

0.12 %

Category 11A

1.8 %Category 5D

0.12 %

Category 11B

1.8 %Category 6

0.28 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 70 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cuminaldehyde

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cuminaldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cuminaldehyde and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cuminaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cuminaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cuminaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 71 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cuminaldehyde
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 72 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclamen aldehyde

CAS-No.:103-95-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, α-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)Benzenepropanol, .α.-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)3-p-Cumenyl-2-methylpropionaldehydep-Isopropyl-α-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde
3-(4-Isopropylphenyl)-2-methylpropanal
2-Methyl-3-(p-isopropylphenyl)propionaldehyde
α-Methyl-p-isopropylphenylpropylaldehyde
α-Methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)benzenepropanal
Cyclamal (commercial name)
Cyclaviol (commercial name)
Cyclosal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

2013
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

0.076 %

Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

0.076 %

Category 3

0.038 %

Category 8

0.025 %

Category 4

0.95 %

Category 9

0.23 %

Category 5A

0.45 %

Category 10A

0.23 %

Category 5B

0.076 %

Category 10B

0.72 %

Category 5C

0.076 %

Category 11A

0.025 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 73 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclamen aldehyde
Category 5D

0.025 %

Category 11B

0.025 %

Category 6

0.076 %

Category 12

16 %FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Cyclamen aldehyde should not contain more than
1.5% of Cyclamen alcohol.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Cyclamen aldehyde has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cyclamen aldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclamen aldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cyclamen aldehyde in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Cyclamen aldehyde according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 74 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclamen aldehyde
The IFRA Standard on Cyclamen aldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclamen aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 75 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclopentadecanolide

CAS-No.:106-02-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Angelica lactone
Cyclopentadecanolide
15-Hydroxypentadecanoic acid, ω-lactone
Oxacyclohexadecan-2-one
Pentadecalactone
ω-Pentadecalactone
Pentadecanolide
Cyclopentadecanolid Supra (commercial name)
Exaltex (commercial name)
Exaltolide (commercial name)Macrolide (commercial name)Muskalactone (commercial name)Pentalide (commercial name)Thibetolide (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.42 %

Category 7A

4.8 %Category 2

0.13 %

Category 7B

4.8 %Category 3

2.5 %Category 8

0.20 %

Category 4

2.4 %Category 9

4.6 %Category 5A

0.60 %

Category 10A

4.6 %Category 5B

0.60 %

Category 10B

17 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 76 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclopentadecanolide
Category 5C

0.60 %

Category 11A

0.20 %

Category 5D

0.20 %

Category 11B

0.20 %

Category 6

1.4 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cyclopentadecanolide, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclopentadecanolide andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cyclopentadecanolide in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cyclopentadecanolide is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclopentadecanolide if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 77 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclopentadecanolide
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 78 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dibenzyl ether

CAS-No.:103-50-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Phenylmethoxymethylbenzene
Benzene, 1,1'-[oxybis(methylene)]bisBenzyl ether
Benzyl oxide
Dibenzyl oxide
1,1'-[Oxybis(methylene)]dibenzene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.000040 %Category 7A

0.00093 %Category 2

0.0028 %Category 7B

0.00093 %Category 3

0.00020 %Category 80.000081 %Category 4

0.012 %

Category 9

0.0037 %Category 5A

0.0023 %Category 10A

0.0037 %Category 5B

0.00024 %Category 10B

0.0037 %Category 5C

0.00032 %Category 11A

0.000081 %Category 5D

0.000081 %Category 11B

0.000081 %Category 6

0.0023 %Category 12

0.24 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 79 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dibenzyl ether
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Dibenzyl ether, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Dibenzyl ether and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Dibenzyl ether in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Dibenzyl ether is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Dibenzyl ether if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 80 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dibenzyl ether• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 81 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI)

CAS-No.:33704-61-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,2,3,5,6,7-Hexahydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4H-inden-4-one
4H-Inden-4-one, 1,2,3,5,6,7-hexahydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl1,1,2,3,3-Pentamethyl-1,2,3,5,6,7-hexahydro-4H-inden-4-one
Cashmeran (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0063 %Category 7A

0.031 %

Category 2

0.26 %

Category 7B

0.031 %

Category 3

0.019 %

Category 8

0.0084 %Category 4

3.8 %Category 9

0.13 %

Category 5A

0.31 %

Category 10A

0.13 %

Category 5B

0.025 %

Category 10B

0.28 %

Category 5C

0.038 %

Category 11A

0.0084 %Category 5D

0.0084 %Category 11B

0.0084 %Category 6

0.0063 %Category 12

9.4 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 82 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI)
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl4(5H)-indanone (DPMI), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)indanone (DPMI) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI) is based on at least oneof the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI) if available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 83 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6,7-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-4(5H)-indanone (DPMI)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 84 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dihydrocoumarin

CAS-No.:119-84-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Dihydrocoumarin
1,2-Benzodihydropyrone
2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 3,4-dihydroChroman-2-one
2-Chromanone
3,4-Dihydro-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one
o-Hydroxydihydrocinnamic acid lactone
Melilotic acid lactone
Melilotic lactone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
2013
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.038 %

Category 7A

0.43 %

Category 2

0.011 %

Category 7B

0.43 %

Category 3

0.23 %

Category 8

0.018 %

Category 4

0.21 %

Category 9

0.41 %

Category 5A

0.053 %

Category 10A

1.5 %Category 5B

0.053 %

Category 10B

1.5 %Category 5C

0.053 %

Category 11A

0.018 %

Category 5D

0.018 %

Category 11B

0.018 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 85 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dihydrocoumarin
Category 6

0.12 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Dihydrocoumarin, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Dihydrocoumarin andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Dihydrocoumarin in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Dihydrocoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Dihydrocoumarin if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 86 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dihydrocoumarin• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 87 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)

CAS-No.:68737-61-1 (mixed isomers)
68039-49-6
68039-48-527939-60-2
67801-65-4
36635-35-5
68084-52-6
35145-02-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (isomer mixture) (68737-61-1)
2,4-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde (68039-49-6)
3,5-Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (68039-48-5)
Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (isomer unspecified) (27939-60-2)
3,6-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (67801-65-4)
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, dimethyl- (isomer mixture)
2,4-Dimethyltetrahydrobenzaldehyde
Dimethyltetrahydrobenzaldehyde (isomer mixture)
Triplal (commercial name)Vertocitral (commercial name)Vertoliff (commercial name)Tricyclal (commercial name)
Hivertal (commercial name)
Agrumen Aldehyde (commercial name)
Cyclovertal (commercial name)
Ligustral (commercial name)
Aldehyde AA (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2010
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.45 %

Category 7A

5.2 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 88 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)
Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

5.2 %Category 3

2.7 %Category 8

0.27 %

Category 4

2.5 %Category 9

4.9 %Category 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

18 %Category 5B

0.64 %

Category 10B

18 %Category 5C

0.64 %

Category 11A

9.8 %Category 5D

0.64 %

Category 11B

9.8 %Category 6

1.5 %Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The above limits apply to Dimethylcyclohexen-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) used individually orin combination. The sum of concentrations of Dimethylcyclohexen-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde isomers should
not exceed the maximum concentration levels established by this Standard.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1carbaldehyde (mixed isomers), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 89 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories,
which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed
isomers) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) is based on at least oneof the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Dimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) if available atthe
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 90 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one

CAS-No.:56973-85-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

α-Dynascone
4-Penten-1-one, 1-(5,5-dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)Dynascone (commercial name)
Galbanone (commercial name)
Galbascone (commercial name)
Neobutenone (commercial name)
Neogal (commercial name)
Neogalbenum (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.19 %

Category 7A

0.54 %

Category 2

0.057 %

Category 7B

0.54 %

Category 3

0.18 %

Category 8

0.091 %

Category 4

1.1 %Category 9

1.4 %Category 5A

0.27 %

Category 10A

1.4 %Category 5B

0.27 %

Category 10B

3.4 %Category 5C

0.27 %

Category 11A

0.091 %

Category 5D

0.091 %

Category 11B

0.091 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 91 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one
Category 6

0.54 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1yl)pent-4-en-1-one, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1yl)pent-4-en-1-one and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are
the maximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one in thevarious product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one if available at the
RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 92 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-4-en-1-one
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 93 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol

CAS-No.:103694-68-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanol,.ß.,. ß.,3-trimethyl
2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-methylphenyl)propanol
Benzene propanol
Majantol (commercial name)
Linlan alcohol (commercial name)
Muguetol B (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

2008
2010

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.034 %

Category 7A

0.052 %

Category 2

0.20 %

Category 7B

0.052 %

Category 3

0.025 %

Category 8

0.013 %

Category 4

1.7 %Category 9

0.14 %

Category 5A

0.43 %

Category 10A

0.14 %

Category 5B

0.061 %

Category 10B

0.30 %

Category 5C

0.039 %

Category 11A

0.013 %

Category 5D

0.013 %

Category 11B

0.013 %

Category 6

0.0025 %Category 12

8.6 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 94 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol should only be
used as a fragrance ingredient if traces oforganochlorine compounds are restricted. Total
Chlorine, which can be measured by Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy, must not exceed 25 ppm
in the raw material.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1ol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol according to the specification above
mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol is based on at least one of the following
publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 95 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 96 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol

CAS-No.:2563-07-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Ethoxy-p-cresol
2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-ethoxyphenol
Phenol, 2-ethoxy-4-methylUltravanil (commercial name)Supravanil (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0087 %Category 7A

0.044 %

Category 2

0.0053 %Category 7B

0.044 %

Category 3

0.017 %

Category 8

0.0058 %Category 4

0.099 %

Category 9

0.052 %

Category 5A

0.025 %

Category 10A

0.052 %

Category 5B

0.017 %

Category 10B

0.052 %

Category 5C

0.025 %

Category 11A

0.0058 %Category 5D

0.0058 %Category 11B

0.0058 %Category 6

0.0087 %Category 12

4.2 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 97 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 98 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Ethoxy-4-methylphenol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 99 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Ethylbenzaldehyde

CAS-No.:4748-78-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Ethylbenzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde, 4-ethyl

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.085 %

Category 7A

0.96 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.96 %

Category 3

0.51 %

Category 8

0.040 %

Category 4

0.47 %

Category 90.92 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

0.92 %

Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

3.3 %Category 5C

0.12 %

Category 11A

0.040 %

Category 5D

0.040 %

Category 11B

0.040 %

Category 6

0.28 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 100 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Ethylbenzaldehydewith IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Ethylbenzaldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Ethylbenzaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of p-Ethylbenzaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Ethylbenzaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Ethylbenzaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 101 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Ethylbenzaldehyde
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 102 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Eugenol

CAS-No.:97-53-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Eugenol
4-Allylcatechol-2-methyl ether
1-Allyl-4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzene
4-Allyl-2-methoxyphenol
Caryophyllic acid
2-Hydroxy-5-allylanisole
1-Hydroxy-2-methoxy-4-allylbenzene
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxy-1-allylbenzene
1-Hydroxy-2-methoxy-4-propenylbenzene
2-Methoxy-4-allylphenol
2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)Eugenic acid
Allylguaiacol
4-Allylguaiacol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2004
2006
2007
2008
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.45 %

Category 7A

2.0 %Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

2.0 %Category 3

1.0 %Category 8

0.21 %

Category 4

2.5 %Category 9

4.9 %Category 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

4.0 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 103 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

EugenolCategory 5B

0.64 %

Category 10B

18 %Category 5C

0.64 %

Category 11A

0.21 %

Category 5D

0.21 %

Category 11B

0.21 %

Category 6

1.5 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Eugenol, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Eugenol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Eugenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Eugenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Eugenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 104 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Eugenol• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 105 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Farnesol

CAS-No.:4602-84-0
106-28-5
3790-71-4
16106-95-9
3879-60-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Farnesol
2,6,10-Dodecatrien-1-ol, 3,7,11-trimethylFarnesyl alcohol
Trimethyl dodecatrienol
3,7,11-Trimethyl-2,6,10-dodecatrien-1-oltrans-trans-Farnesol
cis-trans-Farnesol
2Z,6Z-Farnesol
cis-cis-Farnesol
2-trans,6-cis-Farnesol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1979
1980
2002
2006

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.21 %

Category 7A

2.4 %Category 2

0.062 %

Category 7B

2.4 %Category 3

1.2 %Category 8

0.12 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.3 %Category 5A

0.29 %

Category 10A

8.1 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 106 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

FarnesolCategory 5B

0.29 %

Category 10B

8.1 %Category 5C

0.29 %

Category 11A

4.5 %Category 5D

0.29 %

Category 11B

4.5 %Category 6

0.68 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Farnesol should only be used as a fragrance
ingredient if it contains a minimum of 96% offarnesol isomers as determined by GLC.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Farnesol, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Farnesol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Farnesol in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Farnesol according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 107 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Farnesol
The IFRA Standard on Farnesol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Farnesol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 108 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Geraniol

CAS-No.:106-24-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Geraniol
3,7-Dimethylocta-2,6-dien-1-ol
2,6-Octadien-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (e)2,6-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-8-oltrans-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol
Geraniol 60 (commercial name)
Geraniol Coeur (commercial name)
Geraniol extra (commercial name)
Geraniol SP (commercial name)
Geraniol Supra (commercial name)
Meranol (commercial name)
Rhodinol pure (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.78 %

Category 7A

0.78 %

Category 2

0.25 %

Category 7B

0.78 %

Category 3

1.1 %Category 8

0.26 %

Category 4

4.7 %Category 9

2.8 %Category 5A

1.2 %Category 10A

1.1 %Category 5B

0.78 %

Category 10B

5.3 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 109 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Geraniol
Category 5C

0.94 %

Category 11A

0.26 %

Category 5D

0.26 %

Category 11B

0.26 %

Category 6

0.16 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Geraniol, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Geraniol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Geraniol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Geraniol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Geraniol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 110 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Geraniol
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 111 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one

CAS-No.:39189-74-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Heptylidenecyclopentanone
2-Heptylidenecyclopentan-1-one
Cyclopentanone, 2-heptylidene-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 112 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 113 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 114 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexenal

CAS-No.:505-57-7
6728-26-3
16635-54-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Hexenal
Hex-2-enaltrans-2-Hexenal
2-Hexenal, (E)Hexen-2-alLeaf aldehyde
beta-Propyl acrolein
cis-2-Hexenal
2-Hexenal, (Z)-History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1989
1992
2006
2007
2008
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0014 %Category 7A

0.016 %

Category 2

0.00041 %Category 7B

0.016 %

Category 3

0.0083 %Category 80.00067 %Category 4

0.0077 %Category 9

0.015 %

Category 5A

0.0020 %Category 10A

0.054 %

Category 5B

0.0020 %Category 10B

0.054 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 115 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexenal
Category 5C

0.0020 %Category 11A

0.00067 %Category 5D

0.00067 %Category 11B

0.00067 %Category 6

0.0045 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Hexenal, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Hexenal and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof 2-Hexenal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Hexenal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Hexenal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 116 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexenal
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 117 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde

CAS-No.:101-86-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Benzylideneoctanal
Hexyl cinnamal
α-Hexyl cinnamaldehyde
Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde
α-n-Hexylcinnamic aldehyde
Hexyl cinnamyl
α-n-Hexyl-β-phenylacrolein
Octanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)Jasmonal H (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

1.8 %Category 7A

20 %Category 2

0.53 %

Category 7B

20 %Category 3

11 %Category 8

1.0 %Category 4

9.9 %Category 9

19 %Category 5A

2.5 %Category 10A

69 %Category 5B

2.5 %Category 10B

69 %Category 5C

2.5 %Category 11A

38 %Category 5D

2.5 %Category 11B

38 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 118 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde
Category 6

5.8 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 119 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 120 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone

CAS-No.:17373-89-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Hexylidene cyclopentanone
Cyclopentanone, 2-hexylidene2-Hexylidene cyclopentanone
Jasmalone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1983
1994
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.023 %

Category 7A

0.26 %

Category 2

0.0069 %Category 7B

0.26 %

Category 3

0.14 %

Category 8

0.014 %

Category 4

0.13 %

Category 9

0.25 %

Category 5A

0.033 %

Category 10A

0.90 %

Category 5B

0.033 %

Category 10B

0.90 %

Category 5C

0.033 %

Category 11A

0.50 %

Category 5D

0.033 %

Category 11B

0.50 %

Category 6

0.076 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 121 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Hexylidene
cyclopentanone and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 122 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Hexylidene cyclopentanone• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 123 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Hexyl salicylate

CAS-No.:6259-76-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Hexyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, hexyl ester
Hexyl o-hydroxybenzoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.092 %

Category 7A

0.38 %

Category 2

0.80 %

Category 7B

0.38 %

Category 3

0.25 %

Category 8

0.10 %

Category 4

6.5 %Category 9

1.2 %Category 5A

2.7 %Category 10A

1.2 %Category 5B

0.30 %

Category 10B

2.2 %Category 5C

0.46 %

Category 11A

0.10 %

Category 5D

0.10 %

Category 11B

0.10 %

Category 6

0.0092 %Category 12

64 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 124 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Hexyl salicylate
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Hexyl salicylate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hexyl salicylate and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Hexyl salicylate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hexyl salicylate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hexyl salicylate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 125 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Hexyl salicylate(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 126 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroxycitronellal

CAS-No.:107-75-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Hydroxycitronellal
Citronellalhydrate
7-Hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal
3,7-Dimethyl-7-hydroxyoctanal
Octanal, 7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethylOxydihydrocitronellal
Laurinal (commercial name)
Laurine (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1987
2000
2005
2007
2008
2013
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.38 %

Category 7A

1.6 %Category 2

0.11 %

Category 7B

1.6 %Category 3

2.3 %Category 8

0.18 %

Category 4

2.1 %Category 9

4.1 %Category 5A

0.53 %

Category 10A

0.78 %

Category 5B

0.53 %

Category 10B

7.8 %Category 5C

0.53 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 127 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroxycitronellal
Category 5D

0.18 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

1.2 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Hydroxycitronellal, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hydroxycitronellal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Hydroxycitronellal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hydroxycitronellal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hydroxycitronellal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 128 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroxycitronellal
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 129 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC)

CAS-No.:31906-04-4
51414-25-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde, 4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)3-Cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde, 3-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpenyl) cyclohex-3-enecarbaldehyde
3-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde
HICC
Lyral (commercial name)
Kovanol (commercial name)Mugonal (commercial name)Landolal (commercial name)
Cyclohexal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2003
2008
2009
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.020 %

Category 7A

0.020 %

Category 2

0.020 %

Category 7B

0.020 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.067 %

Category 4

0.20 %

Category 9

0.20 %

Category 5A

0.20 %

Category 10A

0.20 %

Category 5B

0.20 %

Category 10B

0.20 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 130 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC)
Category 5C

0.20 %

Category 11A

0.067 %

Category 5D

0.067 %

Category 11B

0.067 %

Category 6

0.20 %

Category 12

91 %Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The restrictions as given for the individual categories are not based on the Quantitative Risk Assessment(QRA) methodology but solely represent a pragmatic approach to address the specific situation for 3 and4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC) and recommends the concentrations for the 12
different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 131 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC)
The IFRA Standard on 3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde (HMPCC) isbased on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3 and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde(HMPCC) if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 132 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde

CAS-No.:6658-48-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

p-Isobutyl-α-methyl hydro cinnamic aldehyde
Benzenepropanal, α-methyl-4-(2-methylpropyl)3-(4-Isobutyl-phenyl)-2-methyl-propionaldehyde
2-Methyl-3-[4-(2-methylpropyl)phenyl]propanal
3-(p-Cumenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde
Cyclamen homoaldehyde
Rhodial (commercial name)
Silvial (commercial name)Suzaral (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.080 %

Category 7A

0.72 %

Category 2

0.053 %

Category 7B

0.72 %

Category 3

0.80 %

Category 8

0.083 %

Category 4

0.99 %

Category 9

1.9 %Category 5A

0.25 %

Category 10A

1.9 %Category 5B

0.25 %

Category 10B

5.4 %Category 5C

0.25 %

Category 11A

0.083 %

Category 5D

0.083 %

Category 11B

0.083 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 133 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde
Category 6

0.080 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Isobutyl-alpha-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Isobutyl-alpha-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which
are the maximum acceptable concentrations of p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde in thevarious product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 134 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isobutyl-alpha-methyl hydrocinnamaldehyde
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 135 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclocitral

CAS-No.:1335-66-6
1423-46-7
67634-07-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1335-66-6:
1-Formyl-[2,4,6-]&[3,5,6-]trimethyl-3-cyclohexene[2,4,6-]&[3,5,6-]Trimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde
1423-46-7:
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 2,4,6-trimethylNeocyclocitral
2,4,6-Trimethylcyclohex-3-enecarbaldehyde
2,4,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexenylcarboxaldehyde
2,4,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-carbaldehyde
67634-07-5:
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 3,5,6-trimethyl3,5,6-Trimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.54 %

Category 7A

6.1 %Category 2

0.16 %

Category 7B

6.1 %Category 3

3.2 %Category 8

0.32 %

Category 4

3.0 %Category 9

5.9 %Category 5A

0.76 %

Category 10A

21 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 136 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclocitral
Category 5B

0.76 %

Category 10B

21 %Category 5C

0.76 %

Category 11A

12 %Category 5D

0.76 %

Category 11B

12 %Category 6

1.8 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isocyclocitral, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isocyclocitral and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Isocyclocitral in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 137 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclocitral
The IFRA Standard on Isocyclocitral is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isocyclocitral if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 138 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclogeraniol

CAS-No.:68527-77-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, 2,4,6-trimethyl2,4,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-methanol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1995
2005
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.29 %

Category 7A

3.3 %Category 2

0.087 %

Category 7B

3.3 %Category 3

1.8 %Category 8

0.17 %

Category 4

1.6 %Category 9

3.2 %Category 5A

0.41 %

Category 10A

11 %Category 5B

0.41 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.41 %

Category 11A

6.3 %Category 5D

0.41 %

Category 11B

6.3 %Category 6

0.96 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 139 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclogeraniol
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isocyclogeraniol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isocyclogeraniol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Isocyclogeraniol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isocyclogeraniol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isocyclogeraniol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 140 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isocyclogeraniol
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 141 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenol

CAS-No.:97-54-1
5932-68-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Hydroxy-2-methoxy-4-propen-1-ylbenzene
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxy-1-propen-1-ylbenzene
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxy-1-propenylbenzene
iso-Eugenol
3-Methoxy-4-hydroxy-1-propen-1-ylbenzene
2-Methoxy-4-propenylphenol
2-Methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)phenol
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)4-Propenylguaiacol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
1998
2001
2004
2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.019 %

Category 7A

0.22 %

Category 2

0.0057 %Category 7B

0.22 %

Category 3

0.12 %

Category 8

0.0090 %Category 4

0.11 %

Category 9

0.21 %

Category 5A

0.027 %

Category 10A

0.21 %

Category 5B

0.027 %

Category 10B

0.75 %

Category 5C

0.027 %

Category 11A

0.0090 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 142 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenol
Category 5D

0.0090 %Category 11B

0.0090 %Category 6

0.063 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isoeugenol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isoeugenol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Isoeugenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isoeugenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isoeugenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 143 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenol
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 144 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum)

CAS-No.:8022-96-6
8024-43-990045-94-6
84776-64-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Jasmine absolute (Jasminum grandiflorum L.)
Jasminum grandiflorum absolute
Jasmin officinale var. grandiflorum

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

1.2 %Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

1.2 %Category 3

0.65 %

Category 8

0.063 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

1.2 %Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

4.2 %Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

2.3 %Category 5D

0.15 %

Category 11B

2.3 %Category 6

0.35 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 145 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum)
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum),which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum)and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum) is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum) if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 146 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (grandiflorum)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 147 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (sambac)

CAS-No.:91770-14-81034798-23-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Jasmin sambac extract
Jasminum sambac (L.) Aiton

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.68 %

Category 7A

7.7 %Category 2

0.20 %

Category 7B

7.7 %Category 3

4.1 %Category 8

0.40%

Category 4

3.8 %Category 9

7.4 %Category 5A

0.96 %

Category 10A

26 %Category 5B

0.96 %

Category 10B

26 %Category 5C

0.96 %

Category 11A

15 %Category 5D

0.96 %

Category 11B

15 %Category 6

2.2 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 148 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (sambac)
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Jasmine absolute (sambac), which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Jasmine absolute (sambac) andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Jasmine absolute (sambac) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Jasmine absolute (sambac) is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Jasmine absolute (sambac) if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 149 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Jasmine absolute (sambac)(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 150 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.)

CAS-No.:8014-71-9
84082-61-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Balm oil (Melissa officinalis L.)
Lemon balm oil
Melissa officinalis leaf oil
Melissa oil (Melissa officinalis L.)
Oil of balm

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008
2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

1.2 %Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

1.2 %Category 3

0.65 %

Category 8

0.063 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

1.2 %Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

4.2 %Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

2.3 %Category 5D

0.15 %

Category 11B

2.3 %Category 6

0.35 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 151 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.)
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Melissa oil (genuine Melissa
officinalis L.), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Melissa oil (genuine Melissa
officinalis L.) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.) in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.) is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.) if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 152 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis L.)
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 153 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Perilla aldehyde

CAS-No.:2111-75-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 4-(1-methylethenyl)4-Isopropenylcyclohex-1-ene-1-carbaldehyde
4-Isopropenyl-1-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde
Dihydrocuminic aldehyde
p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-alPerillaldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
1994
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.054 %

Category 7A

0.61 %

Category 2

0.016 %

Category 7B

0.61 %

Category 3

0.32 %

Category 8

0.032 %

Category 4

0.30 %

Category 9

0.59 %

Category 5A

0.076 %

Category 10A

2.1 %Category 5B

0.076 %

Category 10B

2.1 %Category 5C

0.076 %

Category 11A

1.2 %Category 5D

0.076 %

Category 11B

1.2 %Category 6

0.18 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 154 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Perilla aldehyde
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Perilla aldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Perilla aldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Perilla aldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Perilla aldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Perilla aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 155 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Perilla aldehyde(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 156 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Menthadiene-7-methyl formate

CAS-No.:68683-20-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cyclohexadiene-1-ethanol, 4-(1-methylethyl)-, formate
Isobergamate
4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexadiene-1-ethyl formate
2-(4-Isopropylcyclohexadienyl)ethyl formate
Menthadienyl formate
4-(1-Methylethyl)cyclohexadiene-1-ethyl formate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1986
1994
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 157 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Menthadiene-7-methyl formate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Menthadiene-7-methyl formate,which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Menthadiene-7-methyl formate
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Menthadiene-7-methyl formate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Menthadiene-7-methyl formate is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Menthadiene-7-methyl formate if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 158 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Menthadiene-7-methyl formate(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 159 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methoxybenzaldehyde

CAS-No.:123-11-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

p-Methoxybenzaldehyde
Anisaldehyde
p-Anisaldehyde
Anisic aldehyde
Anisyl aldehyde
Benzaldehyde, 4-methoxy
4-Methoxybenzaldehyde
Aubepine P Cresol (commercial name)
Aubepine liquid (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.23 %

Category 7A

0.14 %

Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

0.14 %

Category 3

0.14 %

Category 8

0.031 %

Category 4

1.4 %Category 9

0.42 %

Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

0.19 %

Category 5B

0.093 %

Category 10B

1.1 %Category 5C

0.14 %

Category 11A

0.031 %

Category 5D

0.031 %

Category 11B

0.031 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 160 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methoxybenzaldehyde
Category 6

0.047 %

Category 12

31 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Methoxybenzaldehyde, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Methoxybenzaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of p-Methoxybenzaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Methoxybenzaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Methoxybenzaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 161 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methoxybenzaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 162 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde

CAS-No.:1504-74-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2'-Methoxycinnamaldehyde
ortho-Methoxycinnamic aldehyde
β-(o-Methoxyphenyl)acrolein
3-(2-Methoxyphenyl)acrylaldehyde
3-(o-Methoxyphenyl)-2-propenal
2-Propenal, 3-(2-methoxyphenyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 163 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 164 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 165 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde

CAS-No.:86803-90-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4,7-Methano-1H-indene-2-carboxaldehyde, octahydro-5-methoxy
8-Methoxytricyclo[5.2.2.1]decane-4-carboxaldehyde
Scentenal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1998
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.19 %

Category 7A

2.2 %Category 2

0.057 %

Category 7B

2.2 %Category 3

1.2 %Category 8

0.091 %

Category 4

1.1 %Category 9

2.1 %Category 5A

0.27 %

Category 10A

2.1 %Category 5B

0.27 %

Category 10B

7.5 %Category 5C

0.27 %

Category 11A

0.091 %

Category 5D

0.091 %

Category 11B

0.091 %

Category 6

0.63 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 166 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methoxy dicyclopentadienecarboxaldehyde, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methoxy dicyclopentadienecarboxaldehyde and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 167 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxy dicyclopentadiene carboxaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 168 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal

CAS-No.:5462-06-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal
4-Methoxy-α-methylbenzenepropanal
2-Anisylpropional
2-(p-Anisyl)propanal
Benzenepropanal, 4-methoxy-α-methylBenzenepropanal, 4-methoxy-alpha-methylHydrocinnamaldehyde, p-methoxy-a-methylp-Methoxyhydratropaldehyde
4-Methoxy-α-methylbenzenepropanal
p-Methoxy-α-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde
p-Methoxy-alpha-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde
3-(4-Methoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropanal
3-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde
2-Methyl-3-(p-methoxyphenyl)propanal
2-Methyl-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)propionaldehyde
Canthoxal (commercial name)
Fennaldehyde (commercial name)
Foliaver (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009
2013
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

0.86 %

Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

0.86 %

Category 3

0.75 %

Category 8

0.21 %

Category 4

2.5 %Category 9

2.7 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 169 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanalCategory 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

0.75 %

Category 5B

0.64 %

Category 10B

4.1 %Category 5C

0.64 %

Category 11A

0.21 %

Category 5D

0.21 %

Category 11B

0.21 %

Category 6

0.11 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-Methoxy-alphamethylbenzenepropanal, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-Methoxy-alphamethylbenzenepropanal and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which
are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal in the various
product categories.
REFERENCES:

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 170 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal
The IFRA Standard on 4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-Methoxy-alpha-methylbenzenepropanal if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 171 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol

CAS-No.:93-51-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Creosolp-Creosol
p-Cresol, 2-methoxyHomoguaiacol
1-Hydroxy-2-methoxy-4-methylbenzene
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxytoluene
2-Methoxy-p-cresol
3-Methoxy-4-hydroxytoluene
4-Methylguaiacol
p-Methylguaiacol
4-Methyl-2-methoxyphenol
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-methylValspice (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1999
2005
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0085 %Category 7A

0.096 %

Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.096 %

Category 3

0.051 %

Category 8

0.0050 %Category 4

0.047 %

Category 9

0.092 %

Category 5A

0.012 %

Category 10A

0.33 %

Category 5B

0.012 %

Category 10B

0.33 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 172 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol
Category 5C

0.012 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

Category 5D

0.012 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

0.028 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 173 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 174 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde (MMDHCA)

CAS-No.:1205-17-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,3-Benzodioxole-5-propanal, α-methyl3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methylpropanal
2-Methyl-3-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)- propionaldehyde
2-Methyl-3-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propanal
α-Methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)-hydrocinnamaldehyde
α-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propanal
α-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde
3-(3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-methylpropanal
α-Methyl-3,4-methylene-dioxyhydrocinnamic aldehyde
Heliofolal (commercial name)
Heliogan (commercial name)
Helional (commercial name)
Tropional (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2012
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.12 %

Category 7A

0.077 %

Category 2

0.25 %

Category 7B

0.077 %

Category 3

0.039 %

Category 8

0.026 %

Category 4

2.6 %Category 9

0.15 %

Category 5A

0.39 %

Category 10A

0.15 %

Category 5B

0.077 %

Category 10B

0.62 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 175 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde (MMDHCA)
Category 5C

0.077 %

Category 11A

0.026 %

Category 5D

0.026 %

Category 11B

0.026 %

Category 6

0.62 %

Category 12

12 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5propionaldehyde (MMDHCA), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5propionaldehyde (MMDHCA) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories,
which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde(MMDHCA) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde (MMDHCA) is based on at least
one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde (MMDHCA) if
available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 176 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde (MMDHCA)
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 177 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde

CAS-No.:101-39-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

α-Methylcinnamaldehyde
α-Methylcinnamyl aldehyde
α-Methylcinnamic aldehyde
2-Methyl-3-phenyl-2-propenal
3-Phenyl-2-methylacrolein
2-Propenyl, 2-methyl-3-phenyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2007

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

3.1 %Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

3.1 %Category 3

1.6 %Category 8

0.16 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

11 %Category 5B

0.38 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

5.8 %Category 5D

0.38 %

Category 11B

5.8 %Category 6

0.88 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 178 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 179 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 180 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one

CAS-No.:1604-28-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,5-Heptadien-2-one, 6-methylMethylheptadienone
2-Methylhepta-2,4-dien-6-one
6-Methylhepta-3,5-dien-2-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1989
1999
2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0085 %Category 7A

0.096 %

Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.096 %

Category 3

0.051 %

Category 8

0.0050 %Category 4

0.047 %

Category 9

0.092 %

Category 5A

0.012 %

Category 10A

0.33 %

Category 5B

0.012 %

Category 10B

0.33 %

Category 5C

0.012 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

Category 5D

0.012 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

0.028 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 181 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 182 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 183 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl heptine carbonate

CAS-No.:111-12-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl heptyne carbonate
Methyl 2-octynoate
Methyl oct-2-ynoate
MHC
2-Octynoic acid, methyl ester
Folione (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1976
2000
2005

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0085 %Category 7A

0.096 %

Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.096 %

Category 3

0.051 %

Category 8

0.0050 %Category 4

0.047 %

Category 9

0.092 %

Category 5A

0.012 %

Category 10A

0.33 %

Category 5B

0.012 %

Category 10B

0.33 %

Category 5C

0.012 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

Category 5D

0.012 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

0.028 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 184 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl heptine carbonate
Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
When used in the same fragrance compound within a specific QRA category, the sum total of Methyl
heptine carbonate (MHC, CAS number 111-12-6) and Methyl octine carbonate (MOC, CAS number 11180-8) contributions must not exceed the maximum permitted level for MHC. At the same time, thecontribution from MOC should always respect the maximum levels permitted in the respective categories
as listed in the Standard for MOC.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl heptine carbonate, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl heptine carbonate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl heptine carbonate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl heptine carbonate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl heptine carbonate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 185 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl heptine carbonate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 186 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl ionone, mixed isomers

CAS-No.:1335-46-2
127-42-4
127-43-5
127-51-5
7779-30-8
79-89-01335-94-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1335-46-2:
Methyl ionone, mixture of isomers
127-42-4:
Methyl-α-ionone
α-Cetone
α-Cyclocitrylidenebutanone
α-Cyclocitrylidenemethyl ethyl ketone
Methyl-α-ionone
α-Methylionone
1-Penten-3-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, [R-(E)](R-(E))-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-1-en-3-one
127-43-5:
Methyl-beta-ionone
Methyl-ß-ionone
β-Methylionone
β-Cetone
β-Cyclocitrylidenebutanone
β-Iraldeine
1-Penten-3-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)5-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-4-penten-3-one
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent -1-en-3-one
127-51-5:α-Isomethylionone
3-Buten-2-one, 3-methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2-one
α-Isomethyl ionone
Iraldeine gamma
Isoraldeine 95 (commercial name)7779-30-8:
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)pent-1-en-3-one
1-Penten-3-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)79-89-0:
iso-Methyl-β-ionone
3-Buten-2-one, 3-methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-1-en-1-yl)but-3-en-2-one

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/4

Page 187 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl ionone, mixed isomers
δ-Iraldeine
1335-94-0:
Irone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

2007
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

5.4 %Category 7A

61 %Category 2

1.6 %Category 7B

61 %Category 3

32 %Category 8

3.2 %Category 4

30 %Category 9

59 %Category 5A

7.6 %Category 10A

100 %Category 5B

7.6 %Category 10B

100 %Category 5C

7.6 %Category 11A

100 %Category 5D

7.6 %Category 11B

100 %Category 6

18 %Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The above limits apply to Methyl ionone isomers used individually or in combination.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Pseudo methyl ionones (CAS numbers 26651-967, 72968-25-3, 1117-41-5) should not be used as
fragrance ingredient as such. A level of up to 2% of
Pseudo methyl ionones as an impurity in Methyl
ionones is accepted.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/4

Page 188 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl ionone, mixed isomers

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl ionone, mixed isomers, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl ionone, mixed isomers
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Methyl ionone, mixed isomers in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Methyl ionone, mixed isomers according to the specification above
mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl ionone, mixed isomers is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl ionone, mixed isomers if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2020 (Amendment 49)

3/4

Page 189 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl ionone, mixed isomers
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

4/4

Page 190 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl octine carbonate

CAS-No.:111-80-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl octyne carbonate
Methyl 2-nonynoate
2-Nonynoic acid, methyl ester
MOC

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1988
2000
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0018 %Category 7A

0.021 %

Category 2

0.00055 %Category 7B

0.021 %

Category 3

0.011 %

Category 80.0011 %Category 4

0.010 %

Category 9

0.020 %

Category 5A

0.0026 %Category 10A

0.072 %

Category 5B

0.0026 %Category 10B

0.072 %

Category 5C

0.0026 %Category 11A

0.040 %

Category 5D

0.0026 %Category 11B

0.040 %

Category 6

0.0061 %Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
When used in the same fragrance compound within a specific QRA category, the sum total of and Methyl2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 191 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl octine carbonate
heptine carbonate (MHC, CAS number 111-12-6) and Methyl octine carbonate (MOC, CAS number 11180-8) contributions must not exceed the maximum permitted level for MHC. At the same time, thecontribution from MOC should always respect the maximum levels permitted as listed in the table above.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl octine carbonate, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl octine carbonate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl octine carbonate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl octine carbonate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl octine carbonate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 192 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl octine carbonate
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 193 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one

CAS-No.:68922-13-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2-(pentyloxy)-3-methylPentyloxy cyclopentenone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.085 %

Category 7A

0.96 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.96 %

Category 3

0.51 %

Category 8

0.050 %

Category 4

0.47 %

Category 90.92 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

3.3 %Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

3.3 %Category 5C

0.12 %

Category 11A

1.8 %Category 5D

0.12 %

Category 11B

1.8 %Category 6

0.28 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 194 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2en-1-one, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent2-en-1-one and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 195 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 196 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal

CAS-No.:13257-44-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,1-Dimethoxynon-2-yne
2-Nonyn-1-al-Dimeth-Acetyl2-Nonyne, 1,1-dimethoxyParmavert (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

1.8 %Category 7A

20 %Category 2

0.53 %

Category 7B

20 %Category 3

11 %Category 8

1.0 %Category 4

9.9 %Category 9

19 %Category 5A

2.5 %Category 10A

69 %Category 5B

2.5 %Category 10B

69 %Category 5C

2.5 %Category 11A

38 %Category 5D

2.5 %Category 11B

38 %Category 6

5.8 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 197 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 198 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 199 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Oakmoss extracts

CAS-No.:90028-68-5
68917-10-2
9000-50-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Oakmoss absolute
Evernia absolute
Evernia prunastri, ext.
Mousse de Chêne absolute
Oakmoss absolute (Evernia prunastri)Evernia prunastri (Oakmoss) extract

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1991
2001
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.020 %

Category 7A

0.10 %

Category 2

0.016 %

Category 7B

0.10 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.032 %

Category 4

0.10 %

Category 9

0.10 %

Category 5A

0.076 %

Category 10A

0.10 %

Category 5B

0.076 %

Category 10B

0.10 %

Category 5C

0.076 %

Category 11A

0.10 %

Category 5D

0.076 %

Category 11B

0.10 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 200 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Oakmoss extracts
Category 6

0.18 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
For Oakmoss and Treemoss extracts, the restrictions in the Standards are directly linked to the presenceof Atranol and Chloroatranol in the finished products. To ensure that those remain below trace levels, theupper concentration levels have not been increased (compared its last publication in the Amendment 43(2008)).
In the presence of Treemoss extracts, the level of Oakmoss in the respective category has to be reduced
accordingly, such that the total amount of both extracts does not exceed the maximum permitted level ineach category as listed in the table above.
If the same fragrance mixture is intended to be used in more than one IFRA Category, then the mostrestrictive limitation (based on foreseen use concentrations and maximum permitted level) will apply.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Oakmoss extracts must not contain added
Treemoss, which is a source of resin acids.
Traces of resin acids may be carried over tocommercial qualities of Oakmoss in the
manufacturing process. These traces must notexceed 0.1% (1000 ppm) of Dehydroabietic acid
(DHA) in the extract. The concentration of resin
acids in Oakmoss can be measured with an High
Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
Reverse Phase – Spectrofluorometry method.
Further, levels of Atranol and Chloroatranol shouldeach be below 100 ppm in Oakmoss extracts.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 201 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Oakmoss extracts
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Oakmoss extracts, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Oakmoss extracts andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Oakmoss extracts in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Oakmoss extracts according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Oakmoss extracts is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Oakmoss extracts if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 202 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE)

CAS-No.:54464-57-2
54464-59-4
68155-66-8
68155-67-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

54464-57-2:
1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)ethanone
1',2',3',4',5',6',7',8'-Octahydro-2',3',8',8'-tetramethyl-2'-acetonaphthone
1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one
1-(2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl)ethanone
2-acetoxy-2,3,8,8-tetramethyloctahydronaphthalene
7-Acetyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-1,1,6,7-tetramethylnaphthalene
Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)Naphthalene, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-aceto
Ambergris Ketone (commercial name)Amberonne (commercial name)Ambralux (commercial name)
Boisvelone (commercial name)Iso Ambois Super (commercial name)
Iso-E Super (commercial name)Iso Gamma Super (commercial name)
Isocyclemone E (commercial name)
Orbitone (commercial name)
Orbitone T (commercial name)
54464-59-4:
1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,5,5- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)ethan-1-one
1-(2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl)ethanone
Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,5,5- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)Naphthalene, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-aceto
68155-66-8:
1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one
1-(2,3,8,8-Tetramethyl-1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl)ethanone
Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)Decalene, 2-Aceto-2,3,8,8-Tetramethyl(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8A-Octahydro)68155-67-9:
1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one
1-(2,3,8,8-Tetramethyl-1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl)ethanone
Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)Decalene, 2-Aceto-2,3,8,8-Tetramethyl(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8A-Octahydro)-

History:

Publication date:2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:2008

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 203 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE)

Implementation
dates:For new creation*:

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.41 %

Category 7A

0.67 %

Category 2

1.1 %Category 7B

0.67 %

Category 3

0.41 %

Category 8

0.19 %

Category 4

20 %Category 9

2.4 %Category 5A

5.1 %Category 10A

2.4 %Category 5B

0.56 %

Category 10B

6.6 %Category 5C

0.76 %

Category 11A

0.19 %

Category 5D

0.19 %

Category 11B

0.19 %

Category 6

0.0093 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 204 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE)
RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE) and recommends the concentrations for the 12
different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) ethanone (OTNE)
is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)
ethanone (OTNE) if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 205 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-Octen-3-yl acetate

CAS-No.:2442-10-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Acetoxyoctene
Amyl crotonyl acetate
Amyl vinyl carbinyl acetate
1-Octen-3-ol, acetate
Octenyl acetate
β-Octenyl acetate
n-Pentyl vinyl carbinol acetate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1989
1994
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

3.1 %Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

3.1 %Category 3

1.6 %Category 8

0.16 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

11 %Category 5B

0.38 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

5.8 %Category 5D

0.38 %

Category 11B

5.8 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 206 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-Octen-3-yl acetate
Category 6

0.88 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-Octen-3-yl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-Octen-3-yl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 1-Octen-3-yl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-Octen-3-yl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-Octen-3-yl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 207 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-Octen-3-yl acetate• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 208 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Opoponax

CAS-No.:8021-36-1
9000-78-6
93384-32-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Opoponax (absolute, resinoid, oil, gum, tincture)
Bisabol-myrrh
Sweet myrrh
Opoponax chironium (L.) W.D.J. Koch
Commiphora erythraea Engler var. glabrescens (Burseraceae)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1978
1994
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 209 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Opoponax

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Opoponax oil can be obtained from solvent
extraction or pyrolysis.
Opoponax oil obtained through pyrolysis shall berectified according to Good Manufacturing
Practices (GMP) and the content of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) resulting from theiruse shall respect the following requirement:
Benzopyrene and 1,2-Benzanthracene are to be
used as markers for PAH. If used alone or in
combination with rectified Cade oil, rectified Birchtar oils or rectified Styrax oil, the total concentrationof both of the markers should not exceed 1 ppb in
the final product.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Opoponax, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Opoponax and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 210 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Opoponaxof Opoponax in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Opoponax according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Opoponax is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Opoponax if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 211 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Peru balsam

CAS-No.:8007-00-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of Peru balsam crude:
Exudation of Myroxylon pereirae Klotsch
Restriction of Peru balsam extracts and distillates:
Balsam oil, Peru (Myroxylon pereirae Klotzsch)
Myroxylon pereirae (Balsam Peru) oil
Myroxylon pereirae (Balsam Peru) resin
Myroxylon pereirae oil
Peru balsam absolute
Peru balsam anhydrol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1974
1991
2007
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

RESTRICTION / PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Peru balsam crude should not be used as afragrance ingredient for any finished productapplication.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.073 %

Category 7A

0.83 %

Category 2

0.022 %

Category 7B

0.83 %

Category 3

0.44 %

Category 8

0.034 %

Category 4

0.41 %

Category 90.80 %

Category 5A

0.10 %

Category 10A

0.80 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 212 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Peru balsam
Category 5B

0.10 %

Category 10B

2.9 %Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

0.034 %

Category 5D

0.034 %

Category 11B

0.034 %

Category 6

0.24 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The restriction only applies to Peru balsam extracts and distillates (Peru balsam oil, absolute andanhydrol).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Recommended concentration levels of Peru balsam extracts and distillates are based on a comprehensive
safety assessment, considering various endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it
might be one or more endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one
endpoint is of relevance, the recommended concentration levels for each product category is derived fromcomparing maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (dermal sensitization and/or systemic
toxicity). Such recommended concentration levels correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Peru balsam extracts and distillates,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Peru balsam extracts anddistillates and recommends the limits for the 12 different product categories, which provide the acceptable
use levels of Peru balsam extracts and distillates in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend not to use Peru balsam crude in any finished product application.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 213 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Peru balsam

REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Peru balsam is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Peru balsam if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 214 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one

CAS-No.:13144-88-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Acetyl-1,3,3,4,4-pentamethyl-1-cyclopentene
Ethanone, 1-(2,4,4,5,5-pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethylcyclopent-1-en-1-yl)ethanone
Alpinone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2011

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 215 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories,
which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one is based on at least one of
the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one if available atthe
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 216 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)ethan-1-one(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 217 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Phenylacetaldehyde

CAS-No.:122-78-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzeneacetaldehyde
Benzylcarboxaldehyde
Hyacinthin
1-Oxo-2-phenylethane
α-Tolualdehyde
α-Toluic aldehyde
Phenylacetic aldehyde
Phenyl acetic aldehyde (pure) (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
1980
2006

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.52 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.52 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.021 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.49 %

Category 5B

0.064 %

Category 10B

1.8 %Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.021 %

Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.021 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 218 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Phenylacetaldehyde
Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Phenylacetaldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Phenylacetaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Phenylacetaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Phenylacetaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Phenylacetaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 219 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Phenylacetaldehyde
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 220 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Phenylbutanal

CAS-No.:16251-77-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, β-methyl3-Phenylbutyraldehyde
3-Phenyl-3-methylpropanal
Trifernal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2010

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.17 %

Category 7A

0.023 %

Category 2

0.069 %

Category 7B

0.023 %

Category 3

0.023 %

Category 8

0.0076 %Category 4

0.44 %

Category 9

0.080 %

Category 5A

0.24 %

Category 10A

0.080 %

Category 5B

0.023 %

Category 10B

0.36 %

Category 5C

0.034 %

Category 11A

0.0076 %Category 5D

0.0076 %Category 11B

0.0076 %Category 6

0.011 %

Category 12

9.6 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 221 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Phenylbutanalfragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-Phenylbutanal, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Phenylbutanal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 3-Phenylbutanal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Phenylbutanal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Phenylbutanal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 222 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3-Phenylbutanalaquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 223 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Phenylpropionaldehyde

CAS-No.:93-53-81340-11-0
34713-70-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzeneacetaldehyde, α-methylHydratropaldehyde
α-Methylphenylacetaldehyde
α-Methyltolualdehyde
2-Phenylpropanal
α-Phenylpropionaldehyde(R)-2-Phenylpropionaldehyde(S)-2-Phenylpropionaldehyde
Hydratropic aldehyde (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.029 %

Category 7A

0.19 %

Category 2

0.0087 %Category 7B

0.19 %

Category 3

0.096 %

Category 8

0.014 %

Category 4

0.16 %

Category 9

0.32 %

Category 5A

0.041 %

Category 10A

0.32 %

Category 5B

0.041 %

Category 10B

0.77 %

Category 5C

0.041 %

Category 11A

0.014 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 224 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Phenylpropionaldehyde
Category 5D

0.014 %

Category 11B

0.014 %

Category 6

0.096 %

Category 12

31 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 225 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Phenylpropionaldehyde
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 226 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Propylidenephthalide

CAS-No.:17369-59-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Propylidenephthalide
1(3H)-Isobenzofuranone, 3-propylidene3-Propylidene-2-benzofuran-1(3H)-one
Propylidene phthalide

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1977
1994
2008
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.072 %

Category 7A

0.82 %

Category 2

0.022 %

Category 7B

0.82 %

Category 3

0.43 %

Category 8

0.042 %

Category 4

0.40 %

Category 9

0.79 %

Category 5A

0.10 %

Category 10A

2.8 %Category 5B

0.10 %

Category 10B

2.8 %Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

1.6 %Category 5D

0.10 %

Category 11B

1.6 %Category 6

0.24 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 227 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Propylidenephthalide
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-Propylidenephthalide, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Propylidenephthalide andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 3-Propylidenephthalide in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Propylidenephthalide is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Propylidenephthalide if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 228 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Propylidenephthalide
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 229 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rose ketones

CAS-No.:23696-85-7
23726-93-4
59739-63-843052-87-5
24720-09-0
23726-94-5
23726-92-3
23726-91-2
35044-68-957378-68-4
71048-82-3
35087-49-1
39872-57-6
70266-48-7
33673-71-1
87064-19-5
The scope of the Standard covers but is not limited to the list of CAS numbers enumerated
above (including all their geometric isomers).

Synonyms:

23696-85-7 (C13H18O):
1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-dienyl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)
Damascenone (commercial name)
Floriffone (commercial name)
Doricenone (commercial name)23726-93-4 (C13H18O):(E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
trans-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)- (2E)β-Damascenone
59739-63-8 (C13H18O):(2Z)-1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-Buten-1-one(Z)-β-Damascenone
cis-Damascenone
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-y1)-, (Z)43052-87-5 (C13H20O):
α-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)α-Damascone (commercial name)
Dihydrofloriffone α (commercial name)24720-09-0 (C13H20O):(E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
trans-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (2E)trans-α-Damascone
Damascone alpha (commercial name)
Dorinone (commercial name)2020 (Amendment 49)

1/5

Page 230 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rose ketones

23726-94-5 (C13H20O):(Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
cis-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (Z)1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one
cis-α-Damascone
23726-92-3 (C13H20O):
1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-en-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one(Z)-β-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one(Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (2Z)cis-β-Damascone (commercial name)Damasione (commercial name)23726-91-2 (C13H20O):(2E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one(E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-en-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one
trans-β-Damascone,
Dihydrofloriffone β (commercial name)
Dorinone beta (commercial name)
35044-68-9 (C13H20O):
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-(2-butenoyl)-1-cyclohexene
2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-crotonoyl-1-cyclohexene
1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexenyl)-2-buten-1-one
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
Damascone ββ-Damascone
57378-68-4 (C13H20O):
δ-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
δ-Damascone (commercial name)
Dihydrofloriffone TD (commercial name)
71048-82-3 (C13H20O):[1α(E),2β]-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one[1α(E),2β]-1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one
trans,trans-δ-Damasconetrans δ Damascone (commercial name)35087-49-1 (C13H20O):
1-(2,2-Dimethyl-6-methylenecyclohexyl)but-2-en-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,2-dimethyl-6-methylenecyclohexyl)Damascone γγ-Damascone (commercial name)
39872-57-6 (C13H20O):

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/5

Page 231 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rose ketones
1-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one(E)-1-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,4,4-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (2E)2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,4,4-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (E)(E)-α-Isodamascone
Isodamascone (high α) (commercial name)70266-48-7 (C13H20O):
1-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,4,4-trimethyl-1-cyclohexene-1-yl)
Generic β-Isodamascone
Isodamascone (standard quality) (commercial name)33673-71-1 (C13H20O):
1-(2,4,4-Trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-2-en-1-one
1-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,4,4-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)Isodamascone (isomer unspecified)
Generic δ-Isodamascone
87064-19-5 (C13H20O):
2-Buten-1-one, 1-(2,4,4-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (Z)cis-Isodamascone(including all geometric isomers).

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1991
1995
2007
2008
2009

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0077 %Category 7A

0.088 %

Category 2

0.0023 %Category 7B

0.088 %

Category 3

0.046 %

Category 8

0.0045 %2020 (Amendment 49)

3/5

Page 232 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rose ketones
Category 4

0.043 %

Category 9

0.084 %

Category 5A

0.011 %

Category 10A

0.30 %

Category 5B

0.011 %

Category 10B

0.30 %

Category 5C

0.011 %

Category 11A

0.17 %

Category 5D

0.011 %

Category 11B

0.17 %

Category 6

0.025 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The above limits apply to Rose Ketones used individually or in combination. The sum of concentrations ofRose ketones isomers should not exceed the maximum concentration levels established by thisStandard.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Rose ketones, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2020 (Amendment 49)

4/5

Page 233 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rose ketones
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Rose ketones and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Rose ketones in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Rose ketones is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Rose ketones if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

5/5

Page 234 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

StyraxCAS-No.:8046-19-3
8024-01-9
94891-27-7
94891-28-8
101227-15-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of the crude material:
Styrax crude gums
Restriction and Specification of the distillates:
Styrax resin
Styrax oil
Styrax oil, rectified
Styrax oil, pyrogenated, distilled

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1977
1994
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Crude gums of Liquidambar styraficula L. var.
macrophylla or Liquidambar orientalis Mill. should
not be used as fragrance ingredients for any
finished product application.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.12 %

Category 7A

1.3 %Category 2

0.034 %

Category 7B

1.3 %Category 3

0.69 %

Category 8

0.068 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 235 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

StyraxCategory 4

0.64 %

Category 9

1.3 %Category 5A

0.16 %

Category 10A

4.5 %Category 5B

0.16 %

Category 10B

4.5 %Category 5C

0.16 %

Category 11A

2.5 %Category 5D

0.16 %

Category 11B

2.5 %Category 6

0.38 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
Only extracts or distillates (resinoids, absolutes and oils), prepared from exudations of Liquidambar
styraciflua L. var. macrophylla or Liquidambar orientalis Mill., can be used.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Styrax oil can be obtained from solvent extraction
or pyrolysis.
Styrax oil obtained through pyrolysis shall berectified according to Good Manufacturing
Practices (GMP) and the content of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) resulting from theiruse shall respect the following requirement:
Benzopyrene and 1,2-Benzanthracene are to be
used as markers for PAH. If used alone or in
combination with rectified Cade oil, rectified Birchtar oils or rectified Opoponax oil, the total
concentration of both of the markers should notexceed 1 ppb in the final product.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 236 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

StyraxMaximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Styrax, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed data available for Styrax distillates and recommends thelimits for the 12 different product categories, which are the acceptable use levels of Styrax distillates in thevarious product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Styrax distillates according to the its specification above mentioned.
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety further recommends not to use Styrax crude in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Styrax is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Styrax if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 237 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tea leaf absolute

CAS-No.:84650-60-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Camellia sinensis leaf extract
Tea, ext.
Tea sinensis absolute
Thea chinensis ext.
Thea sinensis ext.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2006

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.037 %

Category 7A

0.42 %

Category 2

0.011 %

Category 7B

0.42 %

Category 3

0.22 %

Category 8

0.022 %

Category 4

0.21 %

Category 90.40 %

Category 5A

0.052 %

Category 10A

1.4 %Category 5B

0.052 %

Category 10B

1.4 %Category 5C

0.052 %

Category 11A

0.80 %

Category 5D

0.052 %

Category 11B

0.80 %

Category 6

0.12 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 238 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tea leaf absolute
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Tea leaf absolute, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Tea leaf absolute andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Tea leaf absolute in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Tea leaf absolute is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Tea leaf absolute if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 239 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tea leaf absolute• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 240 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Treemoss extracts

CAS-No.:90028-67-4
68648-41-9
68917-40-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Treemoss absolute (Pseudevernia furfuracea)
Treemoss (Usnea furfuracea)
Treemoss colourlessPseudevernia furfuracea extract
Cedar moss

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1991
2001
2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.020 %

Category 7A

0.10 %

Category 2

0.016 %

Category 7B

0.10 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.032 %

Category 4

0.10 %

Category 9

0.10 %

Category 5A

0.076 %

Category 10A

0.10 %

Category 5B

0.076 %

Category 10B

0.10 %

Category 5C

0.076 %

Category 11A

0.10 %

Category 5D

0.076 %

Category 11B

0.10 %

Category 6

0.18 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 241 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Treemoss extracts

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
For Treemoss and Oakmoss extracts, the restrictions in the Standards are directly linked to the presenceof Atranol and Chloroatranol in the finished products. To ensure that those remain below trace levels, theupper concentration levels have not been increased (compared its last publication in the Amendment 43(2008)).
In the presence of Oakmoss extracts, the level of Treemoss in the respective category has to be reduced
accordingly, such that the total amount of both extracts does not exceed the maximum permitted level ineach category as listed in the table above.
If the same fragrance mixture is intended to be used in more than one IFRA Category, then the mostrestrictive limitation (based on foreseen use concentrations and maximum permitted level) will apply.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Treemoss extracts shall not contain more than
0.8% of Dehydroabietic acid (DHA) as a marker of
2% of total resin acids. The concentration of DHA(about 40% of the total resin acids) in Treemoss
can be measured with an High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) reverse phase spectrofluorometry method.
Further, levels of Atranol and Chloroatranol shouldeach be below 100 ppm in Treemoss extracts.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Treemoss extracts, which can be2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 242 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Treemoss extracts
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

Material

SafetyAssessment

Center:

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Treemoss extracts andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Treemoss extracts in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Treemoss extracts according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Treemoss extracts is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Treemoss extracts if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 243 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures

CAS-No.:529-20-4
620-23-5
104-87-0
1334-78-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

529-20-4:
2-Tolualdehyde
ortho-Tolualdehyde
2-Methylbenzaldehyde
620-23-4:
meta-Tolualdehyde
3-Methyl-benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde, 3-methyl104-87-0:
para-Tolualdehyde
4-Methyl-benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde, 4-methylTolyl Aldehyde Para Extra (commercial name)1334-78-7:
Benzaldehyde, methylo,m,p-Methyl-benzaldehydes
Methylbenzaldehyde (mixed 2,3,4)
Tolualdehydes (mixed o,m,p)Tolualdehyde
Toluic aldehyde (mixed 2,3,4)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

RECOMMENDATION:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 244 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures
Category 1

0.085 %

Category 7A

0.96 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.96 %

Category 3

0.51 %

Category 8

0.050 %

Category 4

0.47 %

Category 90.92 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

3.3 %Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

3.3 %Category 5C

0.12 %

Category 11A

1.8 %Category 5D

0.12 %

Category 11B

1.8 %Category 6

0.28 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The above limits apply to ortho-, meta- and para-Tolualdehyde used individually or in combination.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 245 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures

Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their
mixtures, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their
mixtures and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on o,m,p-Tolualdehydes and their mixtures if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 246 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal

CAS-No.:116-26-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-diene-1-carbaldehyde
2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadienal
2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-carboxaldehyde
1,1,3-Trimethyl-2-formylcyclohexa-2,4-diene
Dehydro-β-cyclocitral
Safranal (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1998
2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0022 %Category 7A

0.025 %

Category 2

0.00066 %Category 7B

0.025 %

Category 3

0.013 %

Category 80.0013 %Category 4

0.012 %

Category 9

0.024 %

Category 5A

0.0032 %Category 10A

0.087 %

Category 5B

0.0032 %Category 10B

0.087 %

Category 5C

0.0032 %Category 11A

0.048 %

Category 5D

0.0032 %Category 11B

0.048 %

Category 6

0.0073 %Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 247 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl
methanal, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3dienyl methanal and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanal if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 248 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1,3-dienyl methanalK., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 249 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.)

CAS-No.:8024-12-2
85116-63-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of Verbena oils:
Lippia citriodora oils
Restriction of Verbena absolutes:
Lippia citriodora absolute
Verbena absolute
Aloysia triphylla absolute
Lippia triphylla absolute
Verbena triphylla absolute
Zappania citrodora absolute

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1987
2010

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

RESTRICTION / PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Verbena oils from Lippia citriodora Kunth. should
not be used as a fragrance ingredient, based on its
sensitizing and phototoxic potential.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.12 %

Category 7A

1.4 %Category 2

0.037 %

Category 7B

1.4 %Category 3

0.74 %

Category 8

0.072 %

Category 4

0.69 %

Category 9

1.3 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 250 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.)
Category 5A

0.17 %

Category 10A

4.8 %Category 5B

0.17 %

Category 10B

4.8 %Category 5C

0.17 %

Category 11A

2.7 %Category 5D

0.17 %

Category 11B

2.7 %Category 6

0.40 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.).
For more detailed information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic
ingredients in chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
Only Verbena absolutes from Lippia citriodora Kunth. can be used as a fragrance ingredient.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION, PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Recommended concentration levels of Verbena absolute are based on a comprehensive safetyassessment, considering various endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might
be one or more endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one
endpoint is of relevance, the recommended concentration levels for each product category is derived fromcomparing maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (dermal sensitization and/or systemic
toxicity). Such recommended concentration levels correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Verbena absolute, which can be
downloaded from the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 251 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.)
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Verbena absolute andrecommends the limits for the 12 different product categories, which provide the acceptable use levels of
Verbena absolute in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend not to use Verbena oil in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.) is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Verbena oil and absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.) if available at the
RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 252 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Ylang ylang extracts

CAS-No.:8006-81-3
68606-83-7
83863-30-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cananga odorata (Lamark) (Hooker et Thompson) (Anonaceae)
Cananga odorata extract
Cananga odorata flower oil
Cananga odorata oil
Cananga oil
Ylang ylang oil (Cananga odorata Hook. f. and Thomas)
Ylang ylang oil extra
Ylang ylang oil I
Ylang ylang oil II
Ylang ylang oil III
Ylang ylang, Cananga odorata, ext.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.13 %

Category 7A

1.5 %Category 2

0.039 %

Category 7B

1.5 %Category 3

0.78 %

Category 8

0.077 %

Category 4

0.73 %

Category 9

1.4 %Category 5A

0.18 %

Category 10A

5.1 %Category 5B

0.18 %

Category 10B

5.1 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 253 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Ylang ylang extracts
Category 5C

0.18 %

Category 11A

2.8 %Category 5D

0.18 %

Category 11B

2.8 %Category 6

0.43 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Ylang ylang extracts, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ylang ylang extracts andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Ylang ylang extracts in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ylang ylang extracts is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ylang ylang extracts if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 254 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Ylang ylang extracts
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 255 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI)

CAS-No.:15323-35-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

5-Acetyl-1,1,2,3,3,6-hexamethyl indan
6-Acetyl-1,1,2,3,3,5-hexamethylindane
1-(2,3-Dihydro-1,1,2,3,3,6-hexamethyl-1h-inden-5-yl)ethanone
Ethanone, 1-(2,3-dihydro-1,1,2,3,3,6-hexamethyl-1H-inden-5-yl)1,1,2,3,3,6-Hexamethylindan-5-yl methylketone
Phantolid (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1978
1987
2001
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

2.0 %Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

2.0 %Category 7B

2.0 %Category 3

2.0 %Category 8

2.0 %Category 4

2.0 %Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

2.0 %Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

2.0 %Category 10B

2.0 %Category 5C

2.0 %Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

2.0 %Category 11B

2.0 %Category 6

2.0 %Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/4

Page 256 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI)

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI). For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:Human studies – phototoxicity
The IFRA Standard is based upon two photoirritation studies in humans. In the first study, 10 volunteers
were treated with 10% solution of Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI) in 75% ethanol plus 25% diethyl
phthalate on each forearm. Twenty-four hours later, one arm was irradiated (UVA) and the other served asa control. Observations immediately after radiation, at 24 hrs, and at 48 hours showed no phototoxic
effects (RIFM, 1986). In the second study, 10 volunteers were treated with a 10% solution in 75% ethanol
plus 25% diethyl phthalate on the back. After 30 minutes, the site was irradiated (UVA and UVB).
Observations at 5 minutes after irradiation, and at 3, 24, 48, and 72 hours showed no phototoxic effects(RIFM, 1987).
Animal studies – phototoxicity• 5, 20, 50 % in guinea pigs, photoirritation observed 20 and 50% (RIFM, 1978a).
• 5, 20% in rabbits, photoirritation observed at 5 and 20% (RIFM, 1978a).
• 1, 5, 10, 20% in guinea pigs and rabbits, photoirritation observed in guinea pigs and rabbits at 5, 10, and
20% (Ogoshi et al., 1980; Ohkoshi et al., 1981).
• 10% in guinea pigs, no photoirritation observed (Guillot et al., 1985).
• 1% in rabbits, photoirritation observed (RIFM, 1978).
• 1, 2, 4 % in rabbits, photoirritation observed (RIFM, 1985a; 1985b).
• 0.01, 1, 10, 25, 50% in hairless mice, photoirritation observed at 10, 25, 50% (RIFM, 1978c).
Animal studies – photoallergy
2% in guinea pigs, no photoallergy observed, 1/10 showed sensitization (RIFM, 1985c).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/4

Page 257 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI)
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI)
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI) is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI) is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Guillot, J.P., Gonnet, J.F., Loquerie, J.F., Martini, M.C., Convert, P., and Cotte, J. (1985). A new method
for the assessment of phototoxic and photoallergic potentials by topical applications in the albino guinea
pig. J. Toxicol.-Cut. Ocu. Toxicol., 4(2), 117-133.
• Ogoshi, K., Tanaka, N., and Sekine, A. (1980). A study on the phototoxicity of musk type fragrances.
Unpublished. Presented at Society of Cosmetic Chemists, Japan. Report number 7465, 17 November.
• Ohkoshi, K., Watanabe, A., and Tanaka, N. (1981). Phototoxicity of musks in perfumery. J. Society
Cosmetic Chemists, Japan, 15(3), 207-213.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978a). Phototoxicity of synthetic musks. Unpublishedreport from Shiseido laboratories. Report number 4415, 26 August.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978b). Phototoxicity tests with 5-acetyl-1,1,2,3,3,6hexamethylindan in albino rabbits. Unpublished report from Quest International. Report number 8055, 1
January.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978c). Phototoxicity studies. RIFM report number 2042,
12 May.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985a). Photosensitization test with 2% and 4% 5-acetyl1,1,2,3,3,6-hexamethylindan in albino rabbits. Unpublished report from PFW Aroma Chemicals. Report
number 29705, 1 November.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985b). Photosensitization test with 1% 5-acetyl-2020 (Amendment 49)

3/4

Page 258 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl hexamethyl indan (AHMI)
1,1,2,3,3,6-hexamethylindan in albino rabbits. Unpublished report from PFW Aroma Chemicals. Report
number 29706, 1 November.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985c). Photosensitization test with 5-acetyl-1,1,2,3,3,6hexamethylindan (17179) in guinea pigs. Unpublished report from PFW Aroma Chemicals. Report number
29704, 1 November.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986). Phototoxicity testing in human subjects. RIFM
report number 5748, 19 December.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1987). Phototoxicity testing in human subjects. RIFM
report number 5743, 23 January.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

4/4

Page 259 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Angelica root oil

CAS-No.:8015-64-3
84775-41-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Angelica archangelica oil
Angelica archangelica root oil
Angelica root oil (Angelica archangelica L.)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
1978
2001
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.80 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.80 %

Category 7B

0.80 %

Category 3

0.80 %

Category 8

0.80 %

Category 4

0.80 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.80 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.80 %

Category 10B

0.80 %

Category 5C

0.80 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.80 %

Category 11B

0.80 %

Category 6

0.80 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 260 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Angelica root oil
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Angelica root oil. For more detailed information on
the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients in chapter 1 of the
Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Two human phototoxicity studies were conducted.
In one study, the test material at concentrations of 1% and 5% was applied to the backs of 30 malevolunteers for 48 hours, under occlusion. 23 hours after patch removal the sites were irradiated.
Observations were made at 72 and 96 hours after application. No phototoxic reactions were observed inany subjects with either 1 or 5% concentrations of the test material (RIFM, 1975a).
In a second study, the test material was applied neat to 13 male and female volunteers. Six hours later,
the test sites were exposed to UVA radiation. Positive reactions were observed in 5/13 subjects (Kaidbey
and Kligman, 1978, 1980).
Additional studies are:
• 4% on guinea pigs, UVA, photoirritation observed in all animals, 20/20 (Guillot, et al, 1985).
• 100% on hairless mice, UV, photoirritation observed (RIFM, 1974. Forbes, et al, 1977). 0.78, 1.56, 3.125,
6.25, 12.5, 25, 50% on hairless mice. UV. Photoirritation observed at concentrations of 1.56% and higher(RIFM, 1975b).
• 0.375, 0.75, and 1.5% on hairless mice. Photoirritation observed at all concentrations (RIFM, 1987).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 261 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Angelica root oil
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Angelica root oil andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Angelica root oil in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Angelica root oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• Forbes P.D., Urbach F., and Davies R.E. (1977). Phototoxicity testing of fragrance raw materials. Foodand Cosmetics Toxicology, 15, 55-60.
• Guillot, J.P., Gonnet, J.F., Loquerie, J.F., Martini, M.C., Convert, P., and Cotte, J. (1985). A new method
for the assessment of phototoxic and photoallergic potentials by topical applications in the albino guinea
pig. Journal of Toxicology: Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 4(2), 117-133.
• Kaidbey, K.H. and Kligman, A.M. (1978). Identification of topical photosensitizing agents in humans. JID
70(3), 149-151.
• Kaidbey, K.H. and Kligman, A.M. (1980). Identification of contact photosensitizers by human assay.
Current Concepts in Cutaneous Toxicity, 55-68. Academic Press, NY.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1974). Phototoxicity and irritation test of fragrance
materials in the mouse and miniature swine. RIFM report number 2037, 17 July.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1975a). Phototoxicity and irritation test of fragrance
materials in the mouse and miniature swine. RIFM report number 2038, 4 February.
• Research Institute for Fragrance materials, Inc. (1975b). Primary skin irritation and phototoxicity
evaluation in human subjects with fragrance materials. RIFM report number 15092, December.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1987). Phototoxicity dilution assay of angelica root oil inhairless mice. RIFM report number 5147, 26 May.
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 262 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bergamot oil expressed

CAS-No.:8007-75-889957-91-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
1992
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.40 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.40 %

Category 7B

0.40 %

Category 3

0.40 %

Category 8

0.40 %

Category 4

0.40 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.40 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.40 %

Category 10B

0.40 %

Category 5C

0.40 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.40 %

Category 11B

0.40 %

Category 6

0.40 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Bergamot oil expressed. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 263 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bergamot oil expressed
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
For qualities of the expressed oil in which the less volatile components have been concentrated by partial
or total removal of the terpene fraction, this limit should be reduced in proportion to the degree ofconcentration.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

These recommendations are based on the published literature on the phototoxicity of this material,summarized by D.L. Opdyke, Fd. Cosm. Toxicol. 11,1031 (1973) and other investigations published inContact Dermatitis 3,225 (1977).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Bergamot oil expressed andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Bergamot oil expressed in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Bergamot oil expressed is based on at least one of the following publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 264 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bergamot oil expressed• D.L. Opdyke, Fd. Cosm. Toxicol. 11,1031 (1973) and other investigations published in Contact Dermatitis
3,225 (1977).
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 265 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bitter orange peel oil expressed

CAS-No.:68916-04-1
72968-50-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Orange Peel Oil, Bitter (Citrus aurantium L. subsp amara L.)
Bitter orange oil (Citrus aurantium L. subsp. amara L.)
Citrus aurantium peel oil
Curacao peel oil (Citrus aurantium L.)
Daidai peel oil (Citrus aurantium L.)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
1992
2002
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

1.25 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

1.25 %

Category 7B

1.25 %

Category 3

1.25 %

Category 8

1.25 %

Category 4

1.25 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

1.25 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

1.25 %

Category 10B

1.25 %

Category 5C

1.25 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

1.25 %

Category 11B

1.25 %

Category 6

1.25 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 266 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bitter orange peel oil expressed

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Bitter orange peel oil expressed. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
For qualities of the expressed oil in which the less volatile components have been concentrated by partial
or total removal of the terpene fraction, this limit should be reduced in proportion to the degree ofconcentration.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:Human Studies: The material was tested for phototoxic potential in human volunteers (Kaidbey andKligman, 1980). Five μL/cm² of 100% bitter orange oil was applied to 2 cm² under occlusive tape. One cm
circular sites were exposed to visible light or 20 J/ cm² UVA. Reactions were read at 24 and 48 hours. All 8
subjects reacted.
Animal studies: The NOEL was based on studies conducted with pooled samples of bitter orange oil in
one miniature swine and hairless mice, which showed NOEL of 6.25%.
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety recommended that the skin contact level should be 1.25%,
incorporating a 5 fold uncertainty factor.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 267 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Bitter orange peel oil expressed

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Bitter orange peel oil expressed
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of Bitter orange peel oil expressed in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Bitter orange peel oil expressed is based on at least one of the following
publications:• P.D. Forbes, F. Urbach and R.E. Davies (1977). Phototoxicity testing of fragrance raw materials. Foodand Cosmetics Toxicology, 15, 55-60. Report number 1422.
• Kaidbey, K.H. and Kligman, A.M. (1980). Identification of contact photosensitizers by human assay.
Current Concepts in Cutaneous Toxicity, 55-68. Academic Press, NY. Report number 1995.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1972). Phototoxicity and irritation studies of fragrance
materials in hairless mice and miniature swine. RIFM report number 2034, May 26.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978). Phototoxicity and irritation studies of mice andpigs with fragrance materials. RIFM report number 2042, April 14.
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 268 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils

CAS-No.:Not applicable.
The scope of this Standard includes any CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance
ingredients.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1996
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 7B

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 3

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 80.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 4

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 10B

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 5C

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 11B

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 6

0.0015 % (5-MOP)

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing
essential oils. For more detailed information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the noteon phototoxic ingredients in chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
Where the Bergapten (5-Methoxypsoralen, (5-MOP)) content of all relevant oils present in a compound2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 269 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils
has been determined, it is recommended that for applications on areas of skin exposed to UV-light, thetotal level of Bergapten in the consumer products should not exceed 0.0015% (15 ppm). This upper
concentration level only applies to applications on skin exposed to UV-light, excluding rinse-off products
and incidental skin contact products as detailed in the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
Where the level of Bergapten has not been determined by appropriate methods, the limits specified in theguidelines on individual oils should apply. In those cases, where such oils are used in combination withother furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), the additive effect has to betaken into consideration and the concentration levels have to be reduced accordingly.
The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts),
expressed in % of their recommended upper concentration level in the finished consumer product, shallnot exceed 100. Restrictions for furocoumarin-containing fragrance ingredients (extracts) have been
recommended for:• Angelica root oil,
• Bergamot oil expressed,• Bitter orange oil expressed,• Cumin oil,
• Grapefruit oil expressed,• Lemon oil cold pressed,• Lime oil expressed,• Rue oil.
The following essential oils contain small amounts of phototoxic furocoumarins (typical levels areprovided in brackets):• Petitgrain Mandarin oil (50 ppm),• Tangerine oil cold pressed (50 ppm),• Parsley leaf oil (20 ppm).
These levels are not high enough to require special restrictions if used alone, but if used in combination
with one or the other furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), attention
should be paid that the total level of Bergapten in the consumer product does not exceed 15 ppm.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 270 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils
RIFM SUMMARIES:

These recommendations are based on the published phototoxic effects of Bergapten and the establisheddose-effect relationships (Young at al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. B,7, 231 (1990); Dubertret et al.ibid 7,
251 (1990), idem, ibid, 7, 362 (1990).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of Citrus oils and other furocoumarins
containing essential oils in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils is based on at least oneof the following publications:• Young at al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. B,7, 231 (1990).
• Dubertret et al. ibid 7, 251 (1990).
• Dubertret et al. ibid, 7, 362 (1990).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 271 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cumin oil

CAS-No.:8014-13-984775-51-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cumin seed oil
Cuminum cyminum (Cumin) seed oil
Cuminum cyminum L.
Cuminum cyminum oil
Oils, cumin (Cuminum cyminum)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
1986
2001
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.40 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.40 %

Category 7B

0.40 %

Category 3

0.40 %

Category 8

0.40 %

Category 4

0.40 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.40 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.40 %

Category 10B

0.40 %

Category 5C

0.40 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.40%

Category 11B

0.40 %

Category 6

0.40 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 272 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cumin oil

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Cumin oil. For more detailed information on theapplication of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients in chapter 1 of the
Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:The NOEL for phototoxicity is 50% based on a study in 23 volunteers patched under occlusion on the backfor 24 hours. Patches were removed after 10 minutes followed by irradiation with 16-20 J/cm2 of UVA.
Readings were made at 1, 24, 48 & 72 hours after irradiation. No photoirritation was observed (RIFM,
1986).
Additional studies considered are:• 100% in miniature swine, UV, distinct photoirritant effects were observed (RIFM 1972; Forbes et al.,1977)
• 100% in hairless mice, UV, distinct photoirritant effects were observed (RIFM 1972; Forbes et al., 1977).
• 100% and 25% in hairless mice, UV, no reactions at 25% 0/12, 6/12 reactions at 100% (RIFM, 1983).
• 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% in hairless mice, UV, no reactions 0/6 at 25%, 5/6 reactions at 50%, 6/6
reactions at 75% and 100% (RIFM, 1983).
• 30% in guinea pigs, UV, no reactions 0/10 (RIFM, 1984)• 3% and 10% in guinea pigs, UV, no reactions 0/10 at 3%, and 4/10 reactions at 10% (RIFM, 1984).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 273 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cumin oil

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cumin oil and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Cumin oil in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cumin oil is based on at least one of the publications listed below:• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986). Human phototoxicity study of cumin oil, tagetes
minuta absolute, thyme concrete and pentyl acetate. RIFM report number 4348, 21 August.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985). Cumin oil: A photoirritation test in humans.
Unpublished report from the Givaudan-Roure Corp. Report number 3877, 7 January.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1972). Phototoxicity and irritation tests of fragrance
materials in the hairless mice and miniature swine. Report number 2035, 26 July.
• P.D.Forbes, F.Urbach and R.E.Davies. (1977). Phototoxicity testing of fragrance raw materials. Food andCosmetics Toxicology, 15, 55-60. Report number 1422.
• K.H.Kaidbey and A.M.Kligman (1978). Identification of topical photosensitizing agents in humans. Journalof Investigative Dermatology, 70(3), 149-151. Report number 3090.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1983). Phototoxicity study of fragrance materials inhairless mice. RIFM report number 2043, 31 January.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1984). Determination of phototoxicity of cumin oil inguinea pigs. Unpublished report from the Givaudan-Roure Corp. Report number 3875, 23 February.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1984). Determination of phototoxicity of cumin oil inguinea pigs. Unpublished report from the Givaudan-Roure Corp. Report number 3876, 17 July.
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 274 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Grapefruit oil expressed

CAS-No.:8016-20-4
90045-43-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1992
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

4.0 %Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

4.0 %Category 7B

4.0 %Category 3

4.0 %Category 8

4.0 %Category 4

4.0 %Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

4.0 %Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

4.0 %Category 10B

4.0 %Category 5C

4.0 %Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

4.0 %Category 11B

4.0 %Category 6

4.0 %Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Grapefruit oil expressed. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 275 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Grapefruit oil expressed
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
For qualities of the expressed oil in which the less volatile components have been concentrated by partial
or total removal of the terpene fraction, this limit should be reduced in proportion to the degree ofconcentration.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

These recommendations are made in order to promote Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) considering
the large variations in the Bergapten content of commercial samples of Grapefruit oil expressed.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Grapefruit oil expressed andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Grapefruit oil expressed in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Grapefruit oil expressed is based on at least one of the following publications:• Young at al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. B,7, 231 (1990).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 276 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Grapefruit oil expressed• Dubertret et al. ibid 7, 251 (1990).
• Dubertret et al. ibid, 7, 362 (1990).
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 277 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lemon oil cold pressed

CAS-No.:8008-56-8
84929-31-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1992
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

2.0 %Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

2.0 %Category 7B

2.0 %Category 3

2.0 %Category 8

2.0 %Category 4

2.0 %Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

2.0 %Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

2.0 %Category 10B

2.0 %Category 5C

2.0 %Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

2.0 %Category 11B

2.0 %Category 6

2.0 %Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Lemon oil cold pressed. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 278 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lemon oil cold pressed
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
For qualities of the expressed oil in which the less volatile components have been concentrated by partial
or total removal of the terpene fraction, this limit should be reduced in proportion to the degree ofconcentration.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

These recommendations are based on results of RIFM on the phototoxicity of lemon oil cold pressed (Fd.
Cosm. Toxicol. 12,725 (1974), its low bergapten content (C.K. Shu et al. VI Int. Congress of Essential oils
1974) and the observed no-effect level of pooled samples in tests using the animal model.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Lemon oil cold pressed andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Lemon oil cold pressed in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Lemon oil cold pressed is based on at least one of the following publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 279 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lemon oil cold pressed• Fd. Cosm. Toxicol. 12,725 (1974).
• C.K. Shu et al. VI Int. Congress of Essential oils, 1974.
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 280 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lime oil expressed

CAS-No.:8008-26-2
90063-52-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
1992
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.70 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.70 %

Category 7B

0.70 %

Category 3

0.70 %

Category 8

0.70 %

Category 4

0.70 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.70 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.70 %

Category 10B

0.70 %

Category 5C

0.70 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.70 %

Category 11B

0.70 %

Category 6

0.70 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Lime oil expressed. For more detailed information on
the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients in chapter 1 of the
Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 281 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lime oil expressed
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
For qualities of the expressed oil in which the less volatile components have been concentrated by partial
or total removal of the terpene fraction, this limit should be reduced in proportion to the degree ofconcentration.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

These recommendations are based on results of RIFM on the phototoxicity of Lime oil expressed (Fd.
Cosm. Toxicol. 12, 731 (1974), its Bergapten content reported in J.A.O.A.C. 52, (4), 727 (1969) and theobserved no-effect level of pooled samples in tests using the animal model.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Lime oil expressed andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Lime oil expressed in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Lime oil expressed is based on at least one of the following publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 282 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Lime oil expressed• Fd. Cosm. Toxicol. 12, 731 (1974).
• J.A.O.A.C. 52, (4), 727 (1969).
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 283 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-methylanthranilate

CAS-No.:85-91-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl N-methylanthranilate
Benzoic acid, 2-(methylamino)-, methyl ester
Dimethyl anthranilate
2-Methylamino methyl benzoate
N-Methylanthranilic acid, methyl ester
Methyl 2-(methylamino)benzoate
Methyl 2-methylaminobenzoate
Methyl o-methylaminobenzoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1978
2001
2002
2006
2009
2015
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.10 %

Category 7A

0.50 %

Category 2

0.10 %

Category 7B

0.10 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.10 %

Category 4

0.10 %

Category 9

0.50 %

Category 5A

0.10 %

Category 10A

0.50 %

Category 5B

0.10 %

Category 10B

0.10 %

Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 284 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-methylanthranilate
Category 5D

0.10 %

Category 11B

0.10 %

Category 6

0.50 %

Category 12

No restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction – Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Methyl N-methylanthranilate. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

This material has been identified for having thepotential of forming nitrosamines in nitrosating
systems. Downstream users therefore have to be
notified of the presence of the material and its
potential, to be able to consider adequate
protective measures.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITY AND SYSTEMIC TOXICITY,
POTENTIAL OF NITROSAMINE FORMATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

A human phototoxicity study at 0.5% in 75% Ethanol/25% Diethyl phthalate (DEP) resulted in 0/26
reactions (RIFM, 2001). Another human phototoxicity study with concentrations of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5%
resulted in 0/29 reactions (RIFM, 1998). Several other phototoxicity studies showed phototoxic reactions at
1% and 5% (Kaidbey and Kligman, 1980; Letizia and Api, 2003; RIFM, 1999).
A human photosensitization study at 0.5% in 75% Ethanol/25% DEP resulted in 0/26 reactions (RIFM,
2001). Another human photosensitization study at 5.0% resulted in no photoallergic reactions. However,
14/18 phototoxic reactions were observed (RIFM, 1978a).
A phototoxicity study at 50% in Methanol and 100% on hairless mice produced reactions at both doselevels (RIFM, 1978b).
An in vitro phototoxicity assay using a human skin model (Skin2®) with concentrations of Methyl Nmethylanthranilate ranging from 0.05% to 25% in corn oil showed that the material was phototoxic at doselevels above 5% (Api, 1997).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 285 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-methylanthranilate
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl N-methylanthranilate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl N-methylanthranilate in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Methyl N-methylanthranilate according to the specification above
mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl N-methylanthranilate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl N-methylanthranilate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 286 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone

CAS-No.:93-08-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Acetonaphthone
β-Acetylnaphthalene
Cetone dEthanone, 1-(2-naphthalenyl)
β-Methyl naphthyl ketone
β-Naphthyl methyl ketone
Oranger crystals

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2004
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.20 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.20 %

Category 7B

0.20 %

Category 3

0.20 %

Category 8

0.20 %

Category 4

0.20 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.20 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.20 %

Category 10B

0.20 %

Category 5C

0.20 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.20 %

Category 11B

0.20 %

Category 6

0.20 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 287 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:Human Studies:
A human phototoxicity study with Methyl β-naphthyl ketone (concentrations of 0.1, 1 and 10% in 3:1
DEP:EOH) was conducted. No reactions indicative of primary irritation were observed in this study.
However, under irradiated conditions, Methyl β-naphthyl ketone at 10% in 3:1 DEP:EtOH produced
moderate erythema in 5 subjects. These responses were stronger than those seen for the irradiated blankpatch, which only produced slight to mild erythema. Under the conditions of the study, Methyl β-naphthyl
ketone at 10% in 3:1 DEP:EtOH showed evidence of phototoxicity. Erythema scores for Methyl β-naphthyl
ketone at 0.1% and 1.0% in 3:1 DEP:EtOH were similar to those seen for the blank patch under irradiatedconditions. These reactions were not indicative of phototoxic responses (RIFM, 2004).
Other Studies:
Methyl β-naphthyl ketone has been observed to absorb in the UV range of 290-400 nm and is positive in
the Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Assay (RIFM, 2002). However, it has been shown to be nonphototoxic in guinea pigs at concentrations up to 60% in 3:1 EtOH:DEP (RIFM, 2003).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 288 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl beta-naphthyl ketone
The IFRA Standard on Methyl β-naphthyl ketone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl β-naphthyl ketone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (2002). Methyl β-naphthyl ketone: Neutral red uptake
phototoxicity assay in BALB/C 3T3 mouse fibroblasts. RIFM report number 40279, May 30 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (2003). Topical photoallergy screening test of β-Methyl
naphthyl ketone in male albino hairless guinea pigs including primary irritation, phototoxicity and contact
hypersensitivity evaluations. RIFM report number 44882, June 9 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (2004). Evaluation of phototoxicity of Methyl β-naphthyl
ketone in humans. RIFM report number 45136, March 16 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 289 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rue oil

CAS-No.:8014-29-7
84929-47-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
1978
2001
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.15 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.15 %

Category 7B

0.15 %

Category 3

0.15 %

Category 8

0.15 %

Category 4

0.15 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

0.15 %

Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.15 %

Category 11B

0.15 %

Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Rue oil. For more detailed information on theapplication of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients in chapter 1 of the2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 290 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rue oil
Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
If the level of furocoumarins is unknown, the restriction level specified in this IFRA Standard applies.
Combination effects of phototoxic ingredients are only taken into consideration for the furocoumarincontaining fragrance ingredients (extracts) listed in the IFRA Standard of Citrus oils and otherfurocoumarins containing essential oils.
If combinations of furocoumarin-containing phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts) are used, the use
levels must be reduced accordingly. The sum of the concentrations of all furocoumarin-containing
phototoxic fragrance ingredients (extracts), expressed in % of their recommended upper concentrationlevel in the consumer product shall not exceed 100.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:This recommendation is based on the fact that Rue oil is known to contain psoralens and on the no-effectlevel of 0.8% found in hairless mice (P.D. Forbes, F. Urbach, R.E. Davis (1977), Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 15,
55-60 and communication from RIFM).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Rue oil and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Rue oil in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Rue oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• P.D. Forbes, F. Urbach, R.E. Davis (1977), Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 15, 55-60.
• IFRA Standard on Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 291 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Rue oil
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 292 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tagetes oil and absolute

CAS-No.:Prohibition of Tagetes erecta:
90131-43-4
8016-84-0
Restriction and Specification of Tagetes patula and Tagetes minuta:
91722-29-1
8016-84-0
91770-75-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of Tagetes erecta:
Tagetes erecta L.
Restriction and Specification of Tagetes patula and Tagetes minuta:
Tagetes absolute (Tagetes patula L.)
Tagetes patula absolute
Tagetes patula, ext.
Tagetes minuta absolute
Tagetes oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1986
2001
2015

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Tagetes erecta should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient in any finished product application. Only
Tagetes patula and Tagetes minuta should be used
as fragrance ingredients according to the
Restriction and Specification set in this Standard.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.010 %

Category 7A

0.10 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/4

Page 293 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tagetes oil and absolute
Category 2

0.010 %

Category 7B

0.010 %

Category 3

0.010 %

Category 8

0.010 %

Category 4

0.010 %

Category 9

0.10 %

Category 5A

0.010 %

Category 10A

0.10 %

Category 5B

0.010 %

Category 10B

0.010 %

Category 5C

0.010 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.010 %

Category 11B

0.010 %

Category 6

0.10 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Tagetes oil and absolute. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
The restriction only applies to Tagetes patula and Tagetes minuta.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The content of alpha-Terthienyl (Terthiophene,
CAS number 1081-34-1) in Tagetes patula andTagetes minuta oils and absolutes must not exceed
0.35 %.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/4

Page 294 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tagetes oil and absolute

Tagetes oils and absolutes obtained from Tagetes minuta L. (syn. Tagetes glandulifera Schrank andTagetes patula L.) were evaluated by RIFM (Letizia and Api, 2000).
A no effect level for phototoxicity of 0.05% was determined on humans using Egyptian Tagetes minuta(RIFM, 1986a).
The following studies have also been considered:• At 0.003% in guinea pigs, no observable effects, 0/10 (RIFM, 1985a).
• At 0.01% in guinea pigs, phototoxicity observed, 8/10 (RIFM, 1985b).
• At 100% in mice, phototoxicity was observed, 6/6 (RIFM,1986b).
• At 1% in mice, phototoxicity was observed, 6/6 (RIFM, 1986c).
• At 0.1% in mice, phototoxicity was observed, 6/6 (RIFM, 1986c).
• At 0.01% in mice, phototoxicity was observed, 2/6 (RIFM, 1986c).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:
The Restriction and Specification of this Standard is based on the recommendations from the ScientificCommittee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinions on the fragrance ingredients Tagetes minuta andTagetespatulaextracts
andessentialoils(phototoxicity
only)(SCCS/1551/15)(https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_172.pdf).
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed the SCCS Opinion SCCS/1551/15 for Tagetes minuta andTagetes Patula and recommends the limits for the 12 different product categories, which are the acceptable
use levels of Tagetes minuta and Tagetes Patula in the various product categories.
In addition, they recommend to use Tagetes minuta and Tagetes Patula according to the its specification
above mentioned.
The Prohibition of this Standard is based on the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP)
Opinion on Tagetes erecta, T. minuta and T. patula Extracts and Oils (phototoxicity only) (SCCP/0869/05)(https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_025d.pdf).
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety recommends not to use Tagetes erecta in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard Tagetes oil and absolute is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Tagetes oil and absolute is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
2020 (Amendment 49)

3/4

Page 295 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Tagetes oil and absolute(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Letizia C.S. and Api A.M (2000). A dermal safety evaluation of extracts from Tagetes plants used infragrances. The Toxicologist, 54(1), 397.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985a). Guinea Pig Phototoxicity Test. Unpublishedreport from Givaudan. Report number 3361, 17 December.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1985b). Guinea Pig Phototoxicity Test. Unpublishedreport from Givaudan. Report number 3362, 17 December.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986a). Human Photosensitization Test. RIFM report
number 1690, 21 November.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986b). Mouse Phototoxicity Test. RIFM report number
3828, 25 June.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986c). Mouse Phototoxicity Test. RIFM report number
4343, 31 July.
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinions on the fragrance ingredients Tagetes minuta
and Tagetes patula extracts and essential oils (phototoxicity only) (SCCS/1551/15)(https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_172.pdf).
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) Opinion on Tagetes erecta, T. minuta and T. patula
Extracts and Oils (phototoxicity only) (SCCP/0869/05)(https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_025d.pdf).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

4/4

Page 296 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Furfural

CAS-No.:98-01-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Formylfuran
Fural
Furaldehyde
2-Furaldehyde
2-Furancarbonal
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
Furfuraldehyde
α-Furfuraldehyde
2-Furylcarboxaldehyde
Pyromucic aldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2013

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0010 %Category 7A

0.0010 %Category 2

0.0010 %Category 7B

0.0010 %Category 3

0.0010 %Category 80.0010 %Category 4

0.0010 %Category 90.0010 %Category 5A

0.0010 %Category 10A

0.0010 %Category 5B

0.0010 %Category 10B

0.0010 %Category 5C

0.0010 %Category 11A

0.0010 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 297 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

FurfuralCategory 5D

0.0010 %Category 11B

0.0010 %Category 6

0.0010 %Category 12

0.050 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Furfural has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISKCARCINOGENICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Furfural, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Furfural and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Furfural in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Furfural is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Furfural is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 298 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Furfural• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on furfural, 27 March 2012.
(https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_083.pdf).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance to IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 299 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Estragole

CAS-No.:140-67-0
1407-27-877525-18-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Estragole
p-Allylanisole
4-Allylanisole
1-Allyl-4-methoxybenzene
Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)Chavicyl methyl ether
Isoanetholep-Methoxyallylbenzene
1-Methoxy-4-(2-propen-1-yl)benzene
Methyl chavicol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009
2015
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.00031 %Category 7A

0.00063 %Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.00063 %Category 3

0.00063 %Category 80.00021 %Category 4

0.014 %

Category 9

0.0041 %Category 5A

0.0022 %Category 10A

0.00094 %Category 5B

0.00063 %Category 10B

0.0022 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 300 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Estragole
Category 5C

0.00063 %Category 11A

0.00021 %Category 5D

0.00021 %Category 11B

0.00021 %Category 6

0.0019 %Category 12

0.11 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Estragole, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Estragole and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Estragole in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Estragole is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Estragole if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 301 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Estragole
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 302 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl eugenol

CAS-No.:93-15-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl eugenol
Eugenol methyl ether
Eugenyl methyl ether
Methyl eugenol ether
Allylveratrole
4-Allylveratrole
Veratrole methyl ether
4-Allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene
Benzene, 1,2-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)1,2-Dimethoxy-4-allylbenzene
1,2-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-benzene
3,4-Dimethoxyallylbenzene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2002
2015
2020

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.00042 %Category 7A

0.00042 %Category 2

0.0015 %Category 7B

0.00042 %Category 3

0.00042 %Category 80.000069 %Category 4

0.011 %

Category 90.0017 %Category 5A

0.0015 %Category 10A

0.00062 %Category 5B

0.00021 %Category 10B

0.0021 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 303 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl eugenol
Category 5C

0.00042 %Category 11A

0.000069 %Category 5D

0.000069 %Category 11B

0.000069 %Category 6

0.0010 %Category 12

0.066 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl eugenol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl eugenol and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl eugenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl eugenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl eugenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 304 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl eugenol
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 305 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-formylanthranilate

CAS-No.:41270-80-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzoic acid, 2-(formylamino)-, methyl ester
Methyl 2-(formylamino)benzoate
Methyl 2-formamidobenzoate
Methyl o-formamidobenzoate
N-Formylanthranilic acid, methyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.10 %

Category 7A

No Restriction

Category 2

0.10 %

Category 7B

0.10 %

Category 3

0.10 %

Category 8

0.10 %

Category 4

0.10 %

Category 9

No Restriction

Category 5A

0.10 %

Category 10A

No Restriction

Category 5B

0.10 %

Category 10B

0.10 %

Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

No Restriction

Category 5D

0.10 %

Category 11B

0.10 %

Category 6

0.10 %

Category 12

No Restriction

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 306 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-formylanthranilate
The Standard is set due to the phototoxic effects of Methyl N-formylanthranilate. For more detailed
information on the application of this Standard, please refer to the note on phototoxic ingredients inchapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards.
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

This material has been identified for having thepotential of forming nitrosamines in nitrosating
systems. Downstream users therefore have to be
notified of the presence of the material and its
potential, to be able to consider adequate
protective measures.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOTOXICITY, POTENTIAL OFNITROSAMINE FORMATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Phototoxicity effects of Methyl N-formylanthranilate have been assessed by read-across from Methyl Nmethylanthranilate. The following studies have been considered for the determination of the phototoxicity
potential of Methyl N-methylanthranilate:• A human phototoxicity study at 0.5% in 75% Ethanol/25% Diethyl phthalate (DEP) resulted in 0/26
reactions (RIFM, 2001). Another human phototoxicity study with concentrations of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5%
resulted in 0/29 reactions (RIFM, 1998). Several other phototoxicity studies showed phototoxic reactions at
1% and 5% (Kaidbey and Kligman, 1980; Letizia and Api, 2003; RIFM, 1999).
• A human photosensitization study at 0.5% in 75% Ethanol/25% DEP resulted in 0/26 reactions (RIFM,
2001). Another human photosensitization study at 5.0% resulted in no photoallergic reactions. However,
14/18 phototoxic reactions were observed (RIFM, 1978a).
• A phototoxicity study at 50% in Methanol and 100% on hairless mice produced reactions at both doselevels (RIFM, 1978b).
• An in vitro phototoxicity assay using a human skin model (Skin2®) with concentrations of Methyl Nmethylanthranilate ranging from 0.05% to 25% in corn oil showed that the material was phototoxic at doselevels above 5% (Api, 1997).
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl N-formylanthranilate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl N-formylanthranilate in the various product categories.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 307 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl N-formylanthranilate
In addition, they recommend to use Methyl N-formylanthranilate according to the specification above
mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl N-formylanthranilate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl N-formylanthranilate is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Api A.M. (1997). In vitro assessment of phototoxicity. In Vitro Toxicology: Journal of Molec. Cell. Toxicol.,10(3), 339-350.
• Kaidbey K.H. and Kligman A.M. (1980). Identification of contact photosensitizers by human assay. In
Current Concepts In Cutaneous Toxicity, Academic Press, New York, pages 55-68.
• Letizia C.S. and Api A.M. (2003). Evaluation of the phototoxic and photoallergenic potential of Methyl Nmethyl anthranilate. The Toxicologist, 72(S1), 378-379.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978a). Phototoxicity and contact photoallergy testing inhuman subjects. RIFM report number 1788, 18 January.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1978b). Phototoxicity and irritation studies of mice andpigs with fragrance materials. RIFM report number 2042, 13 April.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1998). Evaluation of phototoxicity of Dimethyl
anthranilate in humans. RIFM report number 34768, 8 December.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1999). Evaluation of phototoxicity of Dimethyl
anthranilate in humans. RIFM report number 34769, 20 July.
• Nitrosamine policy as contained in the EU Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC and its Amendments.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance to IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 308 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Thujone

CAS-No.:546-80-5
471-15-876231-76-0
1125-12-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Isopropyl-4-methylbicyclo[3.1.0]hexan-3-one
3-Thujanone, (1s,4r,5r)-(-)α-Thujone
β-Thujone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

0.24 %

Category 2

0.21 %

Category 7B

0.24 %

Category 3

0.032 %

Category 8

0.0053 %Category 4

1.4 %Category 9

0.13 %

Category 5A

0.095 %

Category 10A

0.13 %

Category 5B

0.032 %

Category 10B

0.22 %

Category 5C

0.016 %

Category 11A

0.0053 %Category 5D

0.0053 %Category 11B

0.0053 %Category 6

0.095 %

Category 12

9.5 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 309 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Thujone

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMThe natural contribution of Thujone is determined by the sum of the natural contributions of each of its
isomers.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISKNEUROTOXICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Thujone, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Thujone and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Thujone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Thujone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Thujone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 310 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Thujone(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 311 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT)

CAS-No.:88-29-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

7-Acetyl-6-ethyl-1,1,4,4-tetramethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene
Ethanone, 1-(3-ethyl-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-5,5,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)Versalide (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1977
1980
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT) should not
be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:NEUROTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin(AETT) and recommends not to use Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT) as or in fragrance ingredientsin any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT) is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT) is available at the RIFM Safety

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 312 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT)
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1979), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 17, 357-360.
• Spencer, P.S., Sterman, A.B et al. (1979), Neurotoxicology 1(1).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 313 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl isovaleryl

CAS-No.:13706-86-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

5-Methyl-2,3-hexanedione
2,3-Hexanedione, 5-methylAcetyl isopentanoyl

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Acetyl isovaleryl should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Acetyl isovaleryl andrecommends not to use Acetyl isovaleryl as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Acetyl isovaleryl is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Acetyl isovaleryl is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 314 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Acetyl isovaleryl• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J., Letizia, C. (1982), Food and Chemical Toxicology 20, 637.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 315 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Alantroot oil

CAS-No.:97676-35-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Alantroot oil (Inula helenium)
Elecampane oil
Inula helenium oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Alantroot oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Alantroot oil and recommends not
to use Alantroot oil as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Alantroot oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Alantroot oil is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 316 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Alantroot oil• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1976), Food and Chemical Toxicology 14, 307.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 317 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl heptine carbonate

CAS-No.:73157-43-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Allyl 2-octynoate
2-Octynoic acid
2-Propenyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1989
1999
2005
2007

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Allyl heptine carbonate should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Allyl heptine carbonate andrecommends not to use Allyl heptine carbonate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Allyl heptine carbonate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Allyl heptine carbonate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 318 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl heptine carbonate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 319 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl isothiocyanate

CAS-No.:57-06-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Allyl isosulfocyanate
Allyl thiocarbonimide
1-Propenal, 3-isothiocyanato2-Propenyl isothiocyanate
AITC

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Allyl isothiocyanate should not be used as afragrance ingredient.
Allyl isothiocyanate as such should not be used asa fragrance ingredient.
The natural extracts containing Allyl isothiocyanate
should not be used as substitutes for thissubstance.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMAllyl isothiocyanate can be found at relatively high levels in Mustard oil and Horseradish oil. The natural
extracts containing Allyl isothiocyanate should not be used as substitutes for this substance. This meansthat the use of Mustard oil and Horseradish oil cannot be considered safe and therefore both extracts
should not be used in fragrance mixtures until additional data is available and considered sufficient tosupport the safe use of these ingredients.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

INSUFFICIENT DATAEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/2

Page 320 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl isothiocyanate
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Allyl isothiocyanate andrecommends not to use Allyl isothiocyanate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Allyl isothiocyanate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Allyl isothiocyanate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/2

Page 321 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Amylcyclopentenone

CAS-No.:25564-22-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2-pentyl2-Pentyl-2-cyclopentenone
2-Pentylcyclopent-2-en-1-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1987
1994
2007

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Amylcyclopentenone should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Amylcyclopentenone andrecommends not to use Amylcyclopentenone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Amylcyclopentenone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Amylcyclopentenone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 322 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Amylcyclopentenone• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 323 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Anisylidene acetone

CAS-No.:943-88-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Butene-2-one, 4-(4-methoxyphenyl) ester
4-(p-methoxyphenyl)-3-butene-2-one
Methyl p-methoxycinnamyl ketone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Anisylidene acetone should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Anisylidene acetone andrecommends not to use Anisylidene acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Anisylidene acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Anisylidene acetone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 324 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Anisylidene acetone• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1975), Food and Chemical Toxicology 13, 456.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 325 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

cis-and trans-Asarone

CAS-No.:494-40-6
2883-98-9
5273-86-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

494-40-6:
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethoxy-5-(1-propen-1-yl)- (unspecified isomer)(E)-and (Z)-2,4,5-Trimethoxypropen-1-yl benzene
2883-98-9:α-Asaronetrans-Asarone
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethoxy-5-(1-propenyl)-, (E)trans-Isoasarone
5273-86-9:
ß-Asaronecis-ß-Asarone
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethoxy-5-(1-propenyl)-, (Z)cis-Isoasarone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:1991

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
December 1991
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

cis- and trans-Asarone as such should not be used
as fragrance ingredients.
The natural extracts containing cis- and transAsarone should not be used as substitutes for thissubstance.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

See notebox

Category 7A

See notebox

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/3

Page 326 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

cis-and trans-Asarone
Category 2

See notebox

Category 7B

See notebox

Category 3

See notebox

Category 8

See notebox

Category 4

See notebox

Category 9

See notebox

Category 5A

See notebox

Category 10A

See notebox

Category 5B

See notebox

Category 10B

See notebox

Category 5C

See notebox

Category 11A

See notebox

Category 5D

See notebox

Category 11B

See notebox

Category 6

See notebox

Category 12

See notebox

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
On the basis of established maximum concentration levels of this substance in commercially available
natural sources (like essential oils, extracts and absolutes), exposure to this substance from the use of
these oils and extracts (e.g. Calamus oils) is regarded acceptable as long as the level of cis- and transAsarone in the finished consumer product does not exceed 100ppm (0.01 %).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMThe natural contribution of cis-and trans-Asarone is determined by the sum of the natural contributions ofeach of its isomers.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISKCARCINOGENICITY

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis-and trans-Asarone andrecommends not to use cis-and trans-Asarone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
However, the presence of cis-and trans-Asarone in natural extracts used as ingredients in finishedconsumer products is tolerated only according to the upper concentration level mentioned in the Notebox if
the natural extracts are not being used to provide an alternative, indirect source of the banned substance.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/3

Page 327 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

cis-and trans-Asarone

REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis-and trans-Asarone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis-and trans-Asarone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• R.W. Wiseman, E.C. Miller et al. (1987), Cancer Res. 47,2275-2283.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

3/3

Page 328 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Benzene

CAS-No.:71-43-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

BenzolHistory:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1988

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Benzene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The level of Benzene has to be kept as low aspracticable and should never exceed 1 ppm in thefragrance compound/mixture or fragrance oil.
Since the introduction of the original Restriction on
the use of Benzene by IFRA in 1988, there havebeen significant changes in manufacturing
practices that permit the reduction of the maximum
permitted level of this substance. These include
use of technological improvements allowing
replacement of this solvent for the extraction offragrance materials and in eliminating its presence
as an impurity in alternative extraction solvents.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:CARCINOGENICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 329 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Benzene
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzene and recommends not touse Benzene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application other than described in theabove fragrance ingredient specification.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzene is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Monographs Vol 7, p. 203 (1974); Vol 29, p. 93 and391 (1982); Suppl. 7, p. 120 (1987).
• CSTEE (Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment), Opinion on the results of the
Risk Assessment of Benzene carried out in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 as adopted
on Feb., 6, 2003.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 330 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cyanide

CAS-No.:140-29-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzeneacetonitrile
Benzylnitrile
Phenylacetonitrile
Phenyl acetyl nitrile

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Benzyl cyanide as such should not be used as
fragrance ingredient.
The natural extracts containing Benzyl cyanide
should not be used as substitutes for thissubstance.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

See notebox

Category 7A

See notebox

Category 2

See notebox

Category 7B

See notebox

Category 3

See notebox

Category 8

See notebox

Category 4

See notebox

Category 9

See notebox

Category 5A

See notebox

Category 10A

See notebox

Category 5B

See notebox

Category 10B

See notebox

Category 5C

See notebox

Category 11A

See notebox

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/3

Page 331 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cyanide
Category 5D

See notebox

Category 11B

See notebox

Category 6

See notebox

Category 12

See notebox

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
On the basis of established maximum concentration levels of this substance in commercially available
natural sources (like essential oils and extracts), exposure to this substance from the use of these oils
and extracts is not significant and the use of these oils is authorized as long as the level of Benzyl
cyanide in the finished product does not exceed 0.01% (100 ppm).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:RELEASE OF CYANIDEDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzyl cyanide and recommends
not to use Benzyl cyanide as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
However, the presence of Benzyl cyanide in natural extracts used as ingredients in finished consumer
products is tolerated only according to the upper concentration level mentioned in the Notebox if the natural
extracts are not being used to provide an alternative, indirect source of the banned substance.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzyl cyanide is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzyl cyanide is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
2004 (Amendment 38)

2/3

Page 332 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Benzyl cyanide• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Potter et al., 2001, Food and Chemical Toxicology 39 (2), page 141-146.
• Potter et al., 2001, Food and Chemical Toxicology 39 (2), page 147-151.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

3/3

Page 333 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Benzylidene acetone

CAS-No.:122-57-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-one
3-Buten-2-one, 4-phenylBenzilideneacetone
Methyl styryl ketone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Benzylidene acetone should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Benzylidene acetone andrecommends not to use Benzylidene acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Benzylidene acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Benzylidene acetone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 334 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Benzylidene acetone
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1973), Food and Chemical Toxicology 11, 1021.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 335 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

Birch wood pyrolysate

CAS-No.:8001-88-5
68917-50-0
84012-15-7
85251-66-7
85940-29-0
91745-85-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of the crude material:
Birch tar oil, crude
Specification for the distillates:
Birch tar oil dephenolated
Birch tar oil rectified
Essence bouleau dephenolisée
Essence bouleau (Goudron) rect.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2013 (Amendment 47)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1996
2003

August 10, 2013For existing creation*:
August 10, 2014
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Birch wood pyrolysate should not be used as afragrance ingredient.
Crude birch wood (bark) pyrolysates (oils) derived
by pyrolysis (destructive distillation) of the wood orbark of Betula pubescens, Betula pendula, Betulalenta or Betula alba should not be used as afragrance ingredient for any finished productapplication. Only rectified (purified) Birch tar oils
being in compliance with the limitations forpolynuclear
aromatichydrocarbons(PAH)
established by this IFRA Standard should be used.

2013 (Amendment 47)

1/2

Page 336 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

Birch wood pyrolysate
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Limit content of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH) resulting from the use of rectified oils
according to Good Manufacturing Practice.
Benzopyrene and 1,2-Benzanthracene are to be
used as markers for PAH. If used alone or in
combination with rectified Cade oil, rectified Styrax
oil or rectified Opoponax oil, the total concentrationof both of the markers should not exceed 1 ppb in
the final product.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:CARCINOGENICITY, GENOTOXICITY BY
RELEASE OF POLYNUCLEAR
HYDROCARBONS (PAH).

DRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Birch wood pyrolysate andrecommends not to use Birch wood pyrolysate (crude) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
In addition, they recommend to use Birch wood pyrolysate (distillates) according to the specification
mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Birch wood pyrolysate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Birch wood pyrolysate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2013 (Amendment 47)

2/2

Page 337 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Boldo oil

CAS-No.:8022-81-984649-96-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Boldo leaf oil (Peumus boldus Mol.)
Oil, boldo leaf
Peumus boldus oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Boldo oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Boldo oil and recommends not touse Boldo oil as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data isavailable and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Boldo oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Boldo oil if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety

2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 338 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Boldo oil
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 339 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

3-Bromo-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one

CAS-No.:76-29-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one, 3-bromo-1,7,7-trimethyl2-Bornanone, 3-bromo3-Bromobornan-2-one
3-Bromo-2-bornanone
3-Bromocamphor
Camphor bromide
Camphor, 3-bromo-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

3-Bromo-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one
should not be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Bromo-1,7,7trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one
andrecommends
not
to
use
3-Bromo-1,7,7trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until
additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 340 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

3-Bromo-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one
The IFRA Standard on 3-Bromo-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Bromo-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2-one if available at the
RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 341 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Bromostyrene

CAS-No.:103-64-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzene, (2-bromoethenyl)α-Bromo-ß-phenylethylene
ß-Bromostyrene
ß-Bromovinylbenzene
ω-Bromstyrene
Bromstyrol
Bromstyrolene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Bromostyrene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Bromostyrene and recommends
not to use Bromostyrene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 342 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Bromostyrene
The IFRA Standard on Bromostyrene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Bromostyrene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 343 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butylphenol

CAS-No.:98-54-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-tert-Butylphenol
4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl) phenol
1-Hydroxy-4-tert-butylbenzene
Phenol, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)Phenol, p-tert-butyl

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
2002

Not applicable

For existing creation*:
Not applicable*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

p-tert-Butylphenol should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION, DERMALDEPIGMENTATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-tert-Butylphenol andrecommends not to use p-tert-Butylphenol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-tert-Butylphenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-tert-Butylphenol is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 344 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

p-tert-Butylphenol
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1975), Food and Chemical Toxicology 12, 835.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 345 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

Cade oil

CAS-No.:8013-10-390046-02-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of the crude material:
Juniper tar
Specification for the distillates:
Juniper tar oil
Juniperus oxycedrus oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2013 (Amendment 47)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1990
2003

August 10, 2013For existing creation*:
August 10, 2014
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Cade oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
Crude cade oil derived by pyrolysis of the wood andtwigs of Juniperus oxycedrus L. should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient for any finished productapplication.
Only rectified (purified) cade oils being incompliance with the limitations for polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) established by thisIFRA Standard should be used.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Limit content of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH) resulting from the use of rectified oils
according to Good Manufacturing Practice.
Benzopyrene and 1,2-Benzanthracene are to be
used as markers for PAH. If used alone or in
combination with rectified Birch tar oils, rectified
Opoponax oil or rectified Styrax oil, the total
concentration of both of the markers should notexceed 1 ppb in the final product.
2013 (Amendment 47)

1/2

Page 346 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

Cade oil

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:CARCINOGENICITY, GENOTOXICITY BY
RELEASE OF POLYNUCLEAR
HYDROCARBONS (PAH).

DRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cade oil and recommends not to
use Cade oil (crude) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
In addition, they recommend to use Cade oil (distillates) according to the specification above mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cade oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cade oil if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2013 (Amendment 47)

2/2

Page 347 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Carvone oxide

CAS-No.:33204-74-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Carvone epoxide
1,6-Epoxy-p-menth-8-en-2-one
1-Methyl-4-(1-methylvinyl)-7-oxabicyclo[4.1.0]heptan-2-one
7-Oxabicyclo[4.1.0]heptan-2-one, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2003

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Carvone oxide should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Carvone oxide and recommends
not to use Carvone oxide as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Carvone oxide is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Carvone oxide is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 348 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Carvone oxide• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Letizia et al., 2000, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 38, Supplement 3, Special Issue IX, pages
S25-26.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 349 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Chenopodium oil

CAS-No.:8006-99-3
8024-11-1
89997-47-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

American wormseed oil
Chenopodium ambrosioides L. var anthelminticum

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Chenopodium oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Chenopodium oil andrecommends not to use Chenopodium oil as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application
until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Chenopodium oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Chenopodium oil if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 350 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Chenopodium oil
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 351 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamylidene acetone

CAS-No.:4173-44-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,5-Hexadien-2-one, 6-phenylMethyl 4-phenyl-1,3-butadienyl ketone
1-Phenyl-3,5-hexadien-5-one
6-Phenyl-3,5-hexadien-2-on

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Cinnamylidene acetone should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cinnamylidene acetone andrecommends not to use Cinnamylidene acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cinnamylidene acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cinnamylidene acetone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 352 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Cinnamylidene acetone
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 353 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Colophony

CAS-No.:8050-09-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Colophonium
Rosin

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1992
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Colophony should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Colophony and recommends not
to use Colophony as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Colophony is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Colophony is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 354 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Colophony
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Hausen. B.M. (1989), Contact Dermatitis (20), 41-50; 133-143; 295-301.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 355 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Costus root oil, absolute and concrete

CAS-No.:8023-88-990106-55-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Costus root essential oil, absolute and concrete (Saussurea lappa Clarke)
Oils, costus
Saussurea lappa root oil
Spiral flag oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
1998
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Costus root oil, absolute and concrete should not be
used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Costus root oil, absolute andconcrete and recommends not to use Costus root oil, absolute and concrete as or in fragrance ingredientsin any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Costus root oil, absolute and concrete is based on at least one of the following
publications:2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 356 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Costus root oil, absolute and concrete• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Costus root oil, absolute and concrete is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke D.L. (1974), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 12, 867.
• Mitchell J.C. and Epstein W.L (1974), Archives of Dermatology, 110, 871-872.
• Foussereau, J., Muller J.C. and Benezra C. (1975), Contact Dermatitis, 1, 223-230.
• Epstein, W.L., Reynolds G.W. and Rodriguez, E. (1980), Archives of Dermatology, 116, 59-60.
• Cheminat, A., Benezra, C., Farral M.J. and Frechet, J.M.J. (1981), Canadian Journal of Chemistry, 59,
1405-1414.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 357 of 709

Amendment 4

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclamen alcohol

CAS-No.:4756-19-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-(4-Isopropylphenyl)-2-methylpropan-1-ol
3-(p-Isopropyl)phenyl-2-methyl-1-propanol
Benzenepropanol, .β.-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

1980 (Amendment 4)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1977
1978

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Cyclamen alcohol should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Cyclamen alcohol should not be used as afragrance ingredient as such, but a level of up to
1.5% in Cyclamen aldehyde (CAS number 103-957) is accepted.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclamen alcohol andrecommends not to use Cyclamen alcohol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application
other than described in the above fragrance ingredient specification.
REFERENCES:

1980 (Amendment 4)

1/2

Page 358 of 709

Amendment 4

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclamen alcohol
The IFRA Standard on Cyclamen alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclamen alcohol is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• D.L.J. Opdyke (1979), Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 17, 267.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

1980 (Amendment 4)

2/2

Page 359 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk alphaCAS-No.:63697-53-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Musk alpha1,3-Dibromo-2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-methyl-benzene
Benzene,1,3-dibromo-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2- methoxy-4-methyl-6-nitro-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk alpha should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk alpha and recommends not
to use Musk alpha as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data isavailable and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Musk alpha is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk alpha if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 360 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk alpha• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 361 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk KS

CAS-No.:62265-99-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,3-Dibromo-2-methoxy-4-methyl-5-nitrobenzene
Benzene, 1,3-dibromo-2-methoxy-4-methyl-5-nitro1,3-Dibromo-2-methoxy-5-nitro-6-methylbenzene
2,4-Dibromo-3-methoxy-6-nitrotoluene
2,6-Dibromo-3-methyl-4-nitroanisole
6-Nitro-2,4-dibromo-3-methoxytoluene
Bromorose
Musk KS (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk KS should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk KS and recommends not touse Musk KS as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data isavailable and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 362 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk KSThe IFRA Standard on Musk KS is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk KS if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 363 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene

CAS-No.:3591-42-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzene, (2,2-dichloro-1-methylcyclopropyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene
not be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

shouldEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,2-Dichloro-1methylcyclopropylbenzene and recommends not to use 2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene as or infragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data is available and consideredsufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 364 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

2,2-Dichloro-1-methylcyclopropylbenzene• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 365 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dienals

CAS-No.:764-40-9
142-83-6
80466-34-8
5910-85-0
30361-28-5
6750-03-4
2363-88-4
13162-46-4
21662-16-825152-84-5
30361-29-6
4313-03-5
20432-40-0
4488-48-6
5577-44-6
5910-87-2
The scope of the Standard covers but is not limited to the list of CAS numbers enumerated
above (including all their geometric isomers).

Synonyms:

Including but not limited to:
2,4-Pentadienal
2,4-Hexadienal
2,4-Heptadienal
2,4-Octadienal
2,4-Nonadienal
2,4-Decadienal
2,4-Undecadienal
2,4-Dodecadienaltrans,trans-2,4-Decadienaltrans,trans-2,4-Undecadienal
2,4-Heptadien-1-al(including all geometric isomers)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

RECOMMENDATION:

2013 (Amendment 47)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 10, 2013For existing creation*:
August 10, 2014
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
This IFRA Standard represents the group of 2-4-Dienals and replaces the existing
individual IFRA Standards for the materials listed above. This new group also
includes any other 2,4-Dienals.
PROHIBITION

2013 (Amendment 47)

1/2

Page 366 of 709

Amendment 47

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dienals
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2,4-Dienals should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

2,4-Decadienal (CAS number 2363-88-4) has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

INSUFFICIENT DATAEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,4-Dienals and recommends not
to use 2,4-Dienals as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data isavailable and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,4-Dienals is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,4-Dienals if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2013 (Amendment 47)

2/2

Page 367 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Diethyl maleate

CAS-No.:141-05-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Butenedioic acid (2Z)-, diethyl ester
Ethyl maleate
Maleic acid, diethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1975
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Diethyl maleate should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Diethyl maleate and recommends
not to use Diethyl maleate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Diethyl maleate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Diethyl maleate is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 368 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Diethyl maleate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1976), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 14, 443.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 369 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde

CAS-No.:6248-20-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzaldehyde, 2,4-dihydroxy-3-methyl4-Formyl-2-methylresorcinol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
1989
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde should not be
used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,4-Dihydroxy-3methylbenzaldehyde and recommends not to use 2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde as or in fragrance
ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 370 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dihydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford, R.A. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 303.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 371 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin

CAS-No.:17874-34-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 8-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4,6-dimethylButolia

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
1981
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin should not be
used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOSENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin
and recommends not to use 4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 372 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

4,6-Dimethyl-8-tert-butylcoumarin• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1980), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 18, 671.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 373 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol

CAS-No.:40607-48-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

6,7-Dihydrogeraniol
2-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol andrecommends not to use 3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 374 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-2-octen-1-ol• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford et al., 1992, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 30, Supplement, Special Issue VIII, page 19S.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 375 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethyl citraconate

CAS-No.:617-54-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Butenedioic acid, 2-methyl-, dimethyl ester, (2Z)Dimethyl methyl maleate
Methylmaleic acid, dimethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1976
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Dimethyl citraconate should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Dimethyl citraconate andrecommends not to use Dimethyl citraconate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Dimethyl citraconate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Dimethyl citraconate is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 376 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethyl citraconate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1976), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 14, 749.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 377 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Diphenylamine

CAS-No.:122-39-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzeneamine, N-phenyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Diphenylamine should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:TOXICITY, TERATOGENICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Diphenylamine and recommends
not to use Diphenylamine as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Diphenylamine is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Diphenylamine is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 378 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

DiphenylamineK., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, 1978, Food and Cosmetics Toxicology, Volume 16, Supplement 1, Special Issue IV, page 723727.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 379 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E)

CAS-No.:18485-38-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2015 (Amendment 48)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 10, 2015

For existing creation*:
August 10, 2016
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E) should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E)
and recommends not to use 2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E) is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E) if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2015 (Amendment 48)

1/2

Page 380 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Dodecadien-1-ol, (2E, 4E)
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2015 (Amendment 48)

2/2

Page 381 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine carbonate)

CAS-No.:e.g.:
10031-92-2
This IFRA Standard covers CAS numbers of any esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl
octine carbonate, CAS number 111-80-8).

Synonyms:

Ethyl 2-nonynoate
Ethyl octine carbonate
Ethyl octyne carbonate
2-Nonynoic acid, ethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine
carbonate) should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
For Methyl octine carbonate (CAS Number 111-808), please refer to the IFRA Restricted Standard
Methyl octine carbonate.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except
Methyl octine carbonate) and recommends not to use Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine
carbonate) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data is available
and considered sufficient to support its safe use.

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 382 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine carbonate)
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine carbonate) is based on at least oneof the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Esters of 2-Nonynoic acid (except Methyl octine carbonate) if available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 383 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine carbonate)

CAS-No.:e.g.:
10484-32-9
10519-20-7
This IFRA Standard covers CAS numbers of any esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl
heptine carbonate, CAS number 111-12-6).

Synonyms:

10484-32-9:
Amyl heptine carbonate
2-Octynoic acid, pentyl ester
Pentyl 2-octynoic acid
Vert de violette
10519-20-7:
Ethyl heptine carbonate
Ethyl 2-octynoate
2-Octynoic acid, ethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine
carbonate) should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
For Methyl heptine carbonate (CAS number 111-126), please refer to the IFRA Restricted Standard
Methyl heptine carbonate.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 384 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine carbonate)
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except
Methyl heptine carbonate) and recommends not to use Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine
carbonate) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional data is available
and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine carbonate) is based on at least
one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Esters of 2-Octynoic acid (except Methyl heptine carbonate) if available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 385 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl acrylate

CAS-No.:140-88-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Ethyl propenoate
2-Propenoic acid, ethyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Ethyl acrylate should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ethyl acrylate and recommends
not to use Ethyl acrylate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ethyl acrylate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ethyl acrylate is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 386 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl acrylate
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1975), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 13, 801.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 387 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetate

CAS-No.:110-80-5 (ether)111-15-9 (acetate)
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

110-80-5 (ether):Ethylene glycol ethyl ether
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethanol, 2-ethoxyCellosolve
Oxitol
111-15-9 (acetate):
Ethylene glycol ethyl ether acetate
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Ethyl cellosolve acetate
Ethanol, 2-ethoxy-, acetate
1-Acetoxy-2-ethoxyethane

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetateshould not be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 388 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetate
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
and its acetate and recommends not to use Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetate as or infragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetate is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and its acetate is available at the RIFM
Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• NIOSH, 1983, Current Intelligence bulletin, No. 39, page 1-20.
• EPA, 1984b, EPA/540/1-86/052; PB86-134632.
• ECETOC, 1985, ECETOC Technical Report, 17.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 389 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate

CAS-No.:109-86-4 (ether)110-49-6 (acetate)
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

109-86-4 (ether):Ethylene glycol methyl ether
2-Methoxyethanol
Ethanol, 2-methoxyMethyl cellosolve
110-49-6 (acetate):
Ethylene glycol methyl ether acetate
2-Methoxyethanol acetate
2-Methoxyethyl acetate
Methyl cellosolve acetate
Ethanol, 2-methoxy-, acetate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetateshould not be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 390 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ethylene glycol monomethyl
ether and its acetate and recommends not to use Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate as or infragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate is available at the
RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• NIOSH, 1983, Current Intelligence bulletin, No. 39, page 1-20.
• EPA, 1984b, EPA/540/1-86/052; PB86-134632.
• ECETOC, 1985, ECETOC Technical Report, 17.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 391 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Fig leaf absolute

CAS-No.:68916-52-9
90028-74-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Ficus carica absolute
Fig leaf absolute (Ficus carica)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Fig leaf absolute should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION, PHOTOTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Fig leaf absolute andrecommends not to use Fig leaf absolute as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Fig leaf absolute is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Fig leaf absolute is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 392 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Fig leaf absolute• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J., Letizia, C. (1982), Food and Chemical Toxicology 20, 691.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 393 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

Furfuryl alcohol

CAS-No.:98-00-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Furancarbinol
2-Furanmethanol
Furfuralcohol
Furfuryl alcohol
α-Furylcarbinol
2-Furylcarbinol
2-Furylmethanol
2-Hydroxymethylfuran

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2015 (Amendment 48)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2009

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Furfuryl alcohol should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
The natural extracts containing Furfuryl alcoholshould not be used as substitutes for thissubstance.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Furfuryl alcohol has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
Those contributions from other sources like Coffee extracts or certain types of Cade oil have been
evaluated. On the basis of the established maximum level of Furfuryl alcohol in these commerciallyavailable natural sources, exposure to this substance from the use of these oils and extracts is not
significant and not regarded of concern from a consumer safety point of view.
For more information, please also refer to the note on contributions from other sources in Chapter 1 of the
Guidance for the use of IFRA Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2015 (Amendment 48)

1/2

Page 394 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

Furfuryl alcohol
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

INSUFFICIENT DATAEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Furfuryl alcohol and recommends
not to use Furfuryl alcohol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Furfuryl alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Furfuryl alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2015 (Amendment 48)

2/2

Page 395 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Furfurylidene acetone

CAS-No.:623-15-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Buten-2-one, 4-(2-furanyl)Furfuralacetone
4-(2-Furyl)-3-buten-2-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Furfurylidene acetone should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Furfurylidene acetone andrecommends not to use Furfurylidene acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Furfurylidene acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Furfurylidene acetone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 396 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Furfurylidene acetone• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 397 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Geranyl nitrile

CAS-No.:5146-66-7
5585-39-7
31983-27-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(2E)-3,7-dimethylocta-2,6-dienenitrile
3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienenitrile
Geranonitrile (isomer unspecified)2,6-Octadienenitrile, 3,7-dimethylCitranile (commercial name)
Citralva (commercial name)
Geranitrile (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2006

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Geranyl nitrile should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:GENOTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:
The material has been reviewed by the Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety with the conclusion that it should
not be used as a fragrance ingredient, or in fragrance ingredients above unavoidable trace levels until
additional data is available and considered sufficient to support the safe use of these ingredients.

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 398 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Geranyl nitrile
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Geranyl nitrile is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Geranyl nitrile if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 399 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Heptenal

CAS-No.:18829-55-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

beta-Butylacrolein
3-Butylacrolein(E)-2-Hepten-1-al
2-Heptenal, (E)-History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1985
1989
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

trans-2-Heptenal should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for trans-2-Heptenal andrecommends not to use trans-2-Heptenal as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on trans-2-Heptenal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on trans-2-Heptenal is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 400 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Heptenal• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford, R.A. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 331.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 401 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Hexadien-1-ol

CAS-No.:111-28-4
17102-64-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Hydroxy-2,4-hexadieneHexa-2,4-dien-1-ol
Sorbic alcohol
Sorbyl alcohol
Hexadienol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2015 (Amendment 48)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 10, 2015

For existing creation*:
August 10, 2016
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2,4-Hexadien-1-ol should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,4-Hexadien-1-ol andrecommends not to use 2,4-Hexadien-1-ol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application
until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:

2015 (Amendment 48)

1/2

Page 402 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

2,4-Hexadien-1-ol
The IFRA Standard on 2,4-Hexadien-1-ol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,4-Hexadien-1-ol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2015 (Amendment 48)

2/2

Page 403 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hexahydrocoumarin

CAS-No.:700-82-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 3,4,5,6,7,8-hexahydroCoumarin, hexahydroCoumarin, 3,4,5,6,7,8-hexahydro1-Cyclohexene-1-propanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, d-lactone
3,4,5,6,7,8-Hexahydro-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Hexahydrocoumarin should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hexahydrocoumarin andrecommends not to use Hexahydrocoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hexahydrocoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 404 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hexahydrocoumarin• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hexahydrocoumarin if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 405 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal

CAS-No.:67746-30-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,1-Diethoxy-trans-2-hexene(E)-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal
2-Hexene, 1,1-diethoxy-, (2E)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1985
1989
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetaland recommends not to use trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 406 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Hexenal diethyl acetal• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford, R.A. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 345.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 407 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal

CAS-No.:18318-83-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,1-Dimethoxy-trans-2-hexene
2-Hexene, 1,1-dimethoxy-, (2E)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1985
1989
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetaland recommends not to use trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 408 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

trans-2-Hexenal dimethyl acetal• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford, R.A. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 347.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 409 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol

CAS-No.:13393-93-6
26266-77-3
1333-89-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Abitol (mixture of different hydroabietyl alcohols)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
1976
1995

May 6, 2004

For existing creation*:
May 6, 2005
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol should
not be used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hydroabietyl alcohol,
Dihydroabietyl alcohol and recommends not to use Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol as or infragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol is available at the RIFM

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 410 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroabietyl alcohol, Dihydroabietyl alcohol
Safety Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• RIFM Monograph 323, Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 12, 919-921 (1974).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 411 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroquinone monoethyl ether

CAS-No.:622-62-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Ethoxy-4-hydroxybenzene
p-Ethoxyphenol
Phenol, 4-ethoxy4-Ethoxyphenol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1982
1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Hydroquinone monoethyl ether should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DEPIGMENTATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hydroquinone monoethyl ether
and recommends not to use Hydroquinone monoethyl ether as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hydroquinone monoethyl ether is based on at least one of the following
publications:2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 412 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroquinone monoethyl ether• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hydroquinone monoethyl ether is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• E. Frenk, (1969), Arch. Klin. Exp. Derm. 235, 16.
• E. Frenk (1970), Ann. Derm. Syph (Paris) 97, 287.
• E. Frenk & F. Ott (1971), Journal of Investigative Dermatology 56, 287.
• W. Wohlrab and R.P. Zaumseil (1976), Derm. Monatsschr. 162, 908.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 413 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroquinone monomethyl ether

CAS-No.:150-76-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Hydroxyanisolep-Hydroxyanisole
4-Methoxyphenol
p-Methoxyphenol
Phenol, p-methoxy-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Hydroquinone monomethyl ether should not be
used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DEPIGMENTATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Hydroquinone monomethyl ether
and recommends not to use Hydroquinone monomethyl ether as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Hydroquinone monomethyl ether is based on at least one of the following
publications:2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 414 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Hydroquinone monomethyl ether• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Hydroquinone monomethyl ether is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• E. Frenk, (1969), Arch. Klin. Exp. Derm. 235, 16.
• E. Frenk (1970), Ann. Derm. Syph (Paris) 97, 287.
• E. Frenk & F. Ott (1971), Journal of Investigative Dermatology 56, 287.
• W. Wohlrab and R.P. Zaumseil (1976), Derm. Monatsschr. 162, 908.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 415 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isophorone

CAS-No.:78-59-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 3,5,5-trimethylIsoacetophorone
3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:2008

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Isophorone as such should not be used as
fragrance ingredient.
Natural extracts containing Isophorone should not
be used as substitutes for this substance.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

See notebox

Category 7A

See notebox

Category 2

See notebox

Category 7B

See notebox

Category 3

See notebox

Category 8

See notebox

Category 4

See notebox

Category 9

See notebox

Category 5A

See notebox

Category 10A

See notebox

Category 5B

See notebox

Category 10B

See notebox

Category 5C

See notebox

Category 11A

See notebox

Category 5D

See notebox

Category 11B

See notebox

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 416 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isophorone
Category 6

See notebox

Category 12

See notebox

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
On the basis of established maximum concentration levels of this substance in commercially available
natural sources (like essential oils and extracts), exposure to this substance from the use of these oils
and extracts is not significant and the use of these oils is authorized as long as the level of Isophorone in
the finished product does not exceed 0.0013%.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:The dose response for preputial gland carcinoma was identified as the critical effect for deriving an oral
exposure threshold. Thus the NOAEL for preputial gland carcinoma from the 2-year US-NTP
carcinogenicity study was determined to be 250 mg/kg/day.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that over a life-time, an individual could
consume 40 µg/l (0.04 mg/l) Isophorone and would have no more than a one-in-a-million increased
chance of developing cancer as a direct result of ingesting water containing this chemical. According to the
EPA, drinking water consumption is 2 l/day. As such, 40 µg/l X 2l/day consumption = 80 µg/person/day.
Using a 60 kg bodyweight/person the Reference Dose (RfD) can be derived for humans as, 80/60 = 1.33
µg/kg/day.
This dose was used in the Creme RIFM Model to derive the acceptable safe use of 0.0013% in the final
product.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isophorone and recommends not
to use Isophorone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
However, the presence of Isophorone in natural extracts used as ingredients in finished consumer products
is tolerated only according to the upper concentration level mentioned in the Notebox if the natural extracts
are not being used to provide an alternative, indirect source of the banned substance.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 417 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Isophorone
The IFRA Standard on Isophorone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isophorone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 418 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

6-Isopropyl-2-decalol

CAS-No.:34131-99-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Decahydro-6-isopropyl-2-naphthol
Decahydro-6-(1-methylethyl)-2-naphthalenol
6-Isopropyl-2-decahydronaphthalenol
6-Isopropyldecalol
2-Naphthalenol, decahydro-6-(1-methylethyl)DecatolHistory:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
1989
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

6-Isopropyl-2-decalol should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 6-Isopropyl-2-decalol andrecommends not to use 6-Isopropyl-2-decalol as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 419 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

6-Isopropyl-2-decalol
The IFRA Standard on 6-Isopropyl-2-decalol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 6-Isopropyl-2-decalol is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Ford, R.A., (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 367.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 420 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Massoia bark oil

CAS-No.:85085-26-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cryptocarya massoio oil
Cryptocarya massoy bark extract
Cryptocarya massoy, ext.
Massoia bark oil (Cryptocarya massoio)

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Massoia bark oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Massoia bark oil andrecommends not to use Massoia bark oil as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Massoia bark oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Massoia bark oil if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 421 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Massoia bark oil• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 422 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

Massoia lactone

CAS-No.:54814-64-1
51154-96-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Decen-1,5-lactone(-)-2-Decenoic acid, 5-hydroxy, δ-lactone(R)-5,6-Dihydro-6-pentyl-2H-pyran-2-one
5,6-Dihydro-6-pentyl-2H-pyran-2-one
5-Hydroxy-2-decenoic acid δ-lactone
2H-Pyran-2-one, 5,6-dihydro-6-pentyl-, (R)Massoi lactone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2015 (Amendment 48)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2008

August 10, 2015

For existing creation*:
August 10, 2016
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Massoia lactone should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Massoia lactone andrecommends not to use Massoia lactone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:

2015 (Amendment 48)

1/2

Page 423 of 709

Amendment 48

IFRA STANDARD

Massoia lactone
The IFRA Standard on Massoia lactone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Massoia lactone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2015 (Amendment 48)

2/2

Page 424 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxycoumarin

CAS-No.:531-59-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 7-methoxyHerniarin

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1979
1989

August 16, 2008

For existing creation*:
August 16, 2009
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

7-Methoxycoumarin as such should not be used as
fragrance ingredient.
The natural extracts containing 7-Methoxycoumarinshould not be used as substitutes for thissubstance.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

See notebox

Category 7A

See notebox

Category 2

See notebox

Category 7B

See notebox

Category 3

See notebox

Category 8

See notebox

Category 4

See notebox

Category 9

See notebox

Category 5A

See notebox

Category 10A

See notebox

Category 5B

See notebox

Category 10B

See notebox

Category 5C

See notebox

Category 11A

See notebox

Category 5D

See notebox

Category 11B

See notebox

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/3

Page 425 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxycoumarin
Category 6

See notebox

Category 12

See notebox

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
On the basis of established maximum concentration levels of this substance in commercially available
natural sources (like essential oils, extracts and absolutes), exposure to this substance from the use of
these oils and extracts is regarded acceptable as long as the level of 7-Methoxy-coumarin in the finishedproduct does not exceed 0.01% (100 ppm).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION,
PHOTOSENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 7-Methoxycoumarin andrecommends not to use 7-Methoxycoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
However, the presence of 7-Methoxycoumarin in natural extracts used as ingredients in finished consumer
products is tolerated only according to the upper concentration level mentioned in the Notebox if the natural
extracts are not being used to provide an alternative, indirect source of the banned substance.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 7-Methoxycoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 7-Methoxycoumarin if available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/3

Page 426 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxycoumarin• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• R.A. Ford et al. (1988), Fd. Chem. Toxic. 26, 375.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

3/3

Page 427 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

α-Methyl anisylidene acetone

CAS-No.:104-27-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-1-penten-3-one
p-Methoxystyryl ethyl ketonealpha-Methylanisalacetone
α-Methylanisalacetone
1-(4-Methoxyphenyl)-1-penten-3-one
1-Penten-3-one, 1-(4-(methoxyphenyl))Ethone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1977
1980
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

α-Methyl anisylidene acetone should not be used asa fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for α-Methyl anisylidene acetone andrecommends not to use α-Methyl anisylidene acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 428 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

α-Methyl anisylidene acetone
The IFRA Standard on α-Methyl anisylidene acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on α-Methyl anisylidene acetone is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1979), Food and Chemical Toxicology 17, 863.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 429 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

6-Methylcoumarin

CAS-No.:92-48-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 6-methyl
6-Methyl-2h-1-benzopyran-2-one
6-Methylbenzopyrone
6-Methyl coumarin
6-Methyl-cis-o-coumarinic lactone
5-Methyl-2-hydroxyphenylpropenoic acid lactone
Toncarine (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1978
1980
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

6-Methylcoumarin should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOSENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 6-Methylcoumarin andrecommends not to use 6-Methylcoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 430 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

6-Methylcoumarin
The IFRA Standard on 6-Methylcoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 6-Methylcoumarin is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Kaidbay, K.H. &. Kligman, A.M. (1978), Contact Dermatitis 4, No 5, 277.
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1979), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 17, 275.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 431 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methylcoumarin

CAS-No.:2445-83-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 7-methyl7-Methyl-2-H-1-benzopyran-2-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

7-Methylcoumarin should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION,
PHOTOSENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 7-Methylcoumarin andrecommends not to use 7-Methylcoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 7-Methylcoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 7-Methylcoumarin is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 432 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methylcoumarin• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J., Letizia, C.S. (1982), Food and Chemical Toxicology 20, 747.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 433 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl crotonate

CAS-No.:623-43-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Butenoic acid, methyl ester, (E)Methyl trans-2-butenoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1978
1980
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Methyl crotonate should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl crotonate andrecommends not to use Methyl crotonate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl crotonate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl crotonate is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 434 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl crotonate
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1979), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 17, 865.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 435 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin

CAS-No.:87-05-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 7-ethoxy-4-methylCoumarin, 7-ethoxy-4-methyl7-Ethoxy-4-methylcoumarin
4-Methyl-7-ethoxybenzopyrone
Maraniol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOSENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin andrecommends not to use 4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin is based on at least one of the following publications:2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 436 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-Methyl-7-ethoxycoumarin if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 437 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde

CAS-No.:5406-12-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzenepropanal, 4-methylp-Methyldihydrocinnamaldehyde
p-Methylhydrocinnamaldehyde
3-(4-Methylphenyl)propanal
3-p-Tolylpropionaldehyde

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1987
1994
2002
2007

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde should not be
used as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde
and recommends not to use p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde is based on at least one of the following
publications:2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 438 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 439 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl methacrylate

CAS-No.:80-62-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl 2-methacrylate, 2-(methoxycarbonyl)-1-propene
Methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, methyl ester
MMA

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Methyl methacrylate should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Methyl methacrylate has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl methacrylate andrecommends not to use Methyl methacrylate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 440 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl methacrylate
The IFRA Standard on Methyl methacrylate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl methacrylate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 441 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile

CAS-No.:53153-66-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Nonenenitrile, 3-methylCitgrenile (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980
1983
2007

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile andrecommends not to use 3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 442 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-2(3)-nonenenitrile• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 443 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk moskene

CAS-No.:116-66-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1,1,3,3,5-Pentamethyl-4,6-dinitroindane
1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-1,1,3,3,5-pentamethyl-4,6,-dinitro-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2005

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk moskene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk moskene and recommends
not to use Musk moskene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Musk moskene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk moskene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 444 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk moskene• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 445 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Musk ambrette

CAS-No.:83-66-9The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzene, 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3,5-dinitro1-tert-Butyl-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzene
4-tert-Butyl-3-methoxy-2,6-dinitrotoluene
6-tert-Butyl-3-methyl-2,4-dinitroanisole
1-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzene
2,6-Dinitro-3-methoxy-1-methyl-4-tert-butylbenzene
2,6-Dinitro-3-methoxy-4-tert-butyltoluene
2,4-Dinitro-3-methyl-6-tert-butylanisole

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1981
1994
1995
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk ambrette should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:PHOTOSENSITIZATION, NEUROTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk ambrette and recommends
not to use Musk ambrette as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 446 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Musk ambrette
The IFRA Standard on Musk ambrette is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk ambrette is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Spencer, P.S., Bischoff-Fenton, M.C., Moreno, O.M., Opdyke D.L. and Ford, R.A. (1984), Toxicology andApplied Pharmacology 75, 571.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 447 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk tibetene

CAS-No.:145-39-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-tert-Butyl-2,6-dinitro-3,4,5-trimethylbenzene
Benzene, 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3,4,5-trimethyl-2,6-dinitro-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2005

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk tibetene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk tibetene and recommends
not to use Musk tibetene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Musk tibetene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk tibetene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 448 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Musk tibetene• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 449 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Musk xylene

CAS-No.:81-15-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,4,6-Trinitro-1,3-methyl-5-tert-butylbenzene
1-tert-Butyl-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene
Benzene, 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitroMusk xylol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Musk xylene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
Musk xylene can be present in Musk ketone as animpurity. Please refer to the IFRA Specification
Standard on Musk ketone.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:VPVBDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk xylene and recommends
not to use Musk xylene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:

2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 450 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Musk xylene
The IFRA Standard on Musk xylene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk xylene is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• PBT draft Addendum to the final report (2005) of the Risk Assessment (PBT assessment), January 2008
(theNetherlands
National
Institutefor
PublichealthandEnvironment,
RIVM)(https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/cb2b7fc5-8af1-46df-a1c0-7bf8335162a0).
• ECHA (European Chemicals Agency, Member State Committee, Substances of Very High Concern
support document for identification of 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene, Adopted on October 8, 2008(https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/909dd42e-2554-4f59-911a-729a2da1d529).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 451 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Nitrobenzene

CAS-No.:98-95-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzene, nitro
Nitrobenzol
Mirbane oil

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1974
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Nitrobenzene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:ACUTE TOXICITY, SKIN TOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Nitrobenzene and recommends
not to use Nitrobenzene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Nitrobenzene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Nitrobenzene is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 452 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Nitrobenzene• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Christensen, H.E., Toxic Substances List, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1972), p.
369.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 453 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone

CAS-No.:25677-40-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cyclohexanone, 2-pentylidene-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1979
1983
2002

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone should not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone
and recommends not to use 2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finishedproduct application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 454 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

2-Pentylidene cyclohexanone
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. and Letizia, C. (1982), Food and Chemical Toxicology, 20, 797.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 455 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Phenyl acetone

CAS-No.:103-79-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzyl methyl ketone
Methyl benzyl ketone
2-Propanone, 1-phenyl

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Phenyl acetone should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Phenyl acetone and recommends
not to use Phenyl acetone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Phenyl acetone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Phenyl acetone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 456 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Phenyl acetone• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 457 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Phenyl benzoate

CAS-No.:93-99-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzoic acid, phenyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Phenyl benzoate should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Phenyl benzoate andrecommends not to use Phenyl benzoate as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application
until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Phenyl benzoate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Phenyl benzoate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 458 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Phenyl benzoate
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 459 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Pseudoionone

CAS-No.:141-10-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Citrylideneacetone
2,6-Dimethylundeca-2,6,8-trien-10-one
6,10-Dimethyl-3,5,9-undecatrien-2-one
3,5,9-Undecatrien-2-one, 6,10-dimethyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1979
1987
1989

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Pseudoionone should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Pseudoionone should not be used as fragrance
ingredient as such, but a level of up to 2% as animpurity in Ionones is accepted.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Pseudoionone and recommends
not to use Pseudoionone as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application other thandescribed in the above fragrance ingredient specification.
REFERENCES:

2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 460 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Pseudoionone
The IFRA Standard on Pseudoionone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Pseudoionone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke D.L.J. (1975), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 13, 549.
• Ford R.A. et al. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 311.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 461 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Pseudo methylionones

CAS-No.:26651-96-7
72968-25-3
1117-41-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,6-Dimethyldodeca-2,6,8-trien-10-one
7,11-Dimethyl-4,6,10-dodecatrien-3-one
7,11-Dimethyldodeca-4,6,10-trien-3-one
4,6,10-Dodecatrien-3-one, 7,11-dimethyl3,6,10-Trimethylundeca-3,5,9-trien-2-one

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1979
1989
2002
2006

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Pseudo methylionones should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Pseudo methylionones should not be used as
fragrance ingredient as such, but a level of up to
2% as an impurity in Methylionones is accepted.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Pseudo methylionones andrecommends not to use Pseudo methylionones as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished productapplication other than described in the above fragrance ingredient specification.
2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 462 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Pseudo methylionones

REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Pseudo methylionones is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Pseudo methylionones is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment
Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Opdyke, D.L.J. (1975), Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 13, 863.
• Ford R.A. et al. (1988), Food and Chemical Toxicology 26, 305 and 413.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 463 of 709

Amendment 45

IFRA STANDARD

Quinoline

CAS-No.:91-22-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Benzazine
2,3-Benzopyridine
Benzo(b)pyridine
Chinoleine
Leucoline
Quinoleine

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2010 (Amendment 45)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 11, 2010

For existing creation*:
August 11, 2011
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Quinoline should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:CARCINOGENICITY, MUTAGENICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Quinoline and recommends not
to use Quinoline as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Quinoline is based on at least one of the following publications:2010 (Amendment 45)

1/2

Page 464 of 709

Amendment 45

IFRA STANDARD

Quinoline• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Quinoline is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Commission Directive 2009/2/EC (31st ATP to Directive 67/548/EEC).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2010 (Amendment 45)

2/2

Page 465 of 709

Amendment 17

IFRA STANDARD

Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole

CAS-No.:94-59-7
120-58-1
94-58-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

94-59-7:
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)3,4-Methylene dioxyallylbenzene
4-Allyl-1,2-methylene dioxybenzene
5-Allyl-1,3-benzodioxole
Safrol120-58-1:
1,2-Methylenedioxy-4-propenylbenzene
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)5-Prop-1-en-1-yl-1,3-benzodioxole
Iso-safrole
94-58-6:
1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-propyl3,4-Methylenedioxypropylbenzene
5-Propyl-1,3-benzodioxole

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

1987 (Amendment 17)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:

1976

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / RESTRICTIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Safrole, Isosafrole and/or Dihydrosafrole as suchshould not be used as fragrance ingredients.
The natural extracts containing Safrole, Isosafrole
and/or Dihydrosafrole should not be used as
substitutes for these ingredients.

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):

1987 (Amendment 17)

1/3

Page 466 of 709

Amendment 17

IFRA STANDARD

Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole
Category 1

See notebox

Category 7A

See notebox

Category 2

See notebox

Category 7B

See notebox

Category 3

See notebox

Category 8

See notebox

Category 4

See notebox

Category 9

See notebox

Category 5A

See notebox

Category 10A

See notebox

Category 5B

See notebox

Category 10B

See notebox

Category 5C

See notebox

Category 11A

See notebox

Category 5D

See notebox

Category 11B

See notebox

Category 6

See notebox

Category 12

See notebox

Fragrance ingredient restriction - Note box
On the basis of established maximum concentration levels of this substance in commercially available
natural sources (like essential oils, extracts and absolutes), exposure to this substance from the use of
these oils and extracts is regarded acceptable as long as the total concentration of Safrole, Isosafroleand Dihydrosafrole in the finished consumer product does not exceed 0.01%.
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:CARCINOGENICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Safrole, Isosafrole andDihydrosafrole and recommends not to use Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole as or in fragrance
ingredients in any finished product application.
However, the presence of Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole in natural extracts used as ingredients infinished consumer products is tolerated only according to the upper concentration level mentioned in the
Notebox if the natural extracts are not being used to provide an alternative, indirect source of the banned
substance.

1987 (Amendment 17)

2/3

Page 467 of 709

Amendment 17

IFRA STANDARD

Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole

REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Safrole, Isosafrole and Dihydrosafrole is available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014)(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Conclusions of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology of the EEC on Safrole and on the similarity ofthe biological activity of these substances (Scientific Committee of Cosmetology of the EEC, opinion
reached on September 2, 1980; Communication to the EEC Commission ENV/521/79 and IARC
Monograph Vol. 10, 1976, 231-244).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

1987 (Amendment 17)

3/3

Page 468 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Santolina oil

CAS-No.:84961-58-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2008 (Amendment 43)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

2006

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Santolina oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:INSUFFICIENT DATADRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Santolina oil and recommends
not to use Santolina oil as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application until additional
data is available and considered sufficient to support its safe use.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Santolina oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Santolina oil if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2008 (Amendment 43)

1/2

Page 469 of 709

Amendment 43

IFRA STANDARD

Santolina oil
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2008 (Amendment 43)

2/2

Page 470 of 709

Amendment 10

IFRA STANDARD

Savin oil

CAS-No.:Prohibition of Savin oil:8024-00-8
90046-04-1
Specification of Savin oil:
68916-94-990046-03-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Prohibition of Savin oil:
Juniperus sabina L.
Specification of Savin oil:
Juniperus phoenicea L.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

1982 (Amendment 10)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:1980

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Savin oil should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.
Savin oil prepared from Juniperus sabina L. should
not be used as a fragrance ingredient.
Only oils obtained from Juniperus phoenicea L.
should be used, under the conditions set in thefragrance ingredient specification mentioned below.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

In the absence of an international standard, thefollowing specificiations for oils of Juniperus
phoenicea L. are proposed:- Density d 20/20 0,864 - 0,873- Refraction n 20 D 1,4700 - 1,4720- Rotation alpha 20 D -1° - +4°- Acid value 0,4 - 1- Ester value 2,5 - 7
1982 (Amendment 10)

1/2

Page 471 of 709

Amendment 10

IFRA STANDARD

Savin oil
- Ester value after acetylation 10 - 23
- Solubility 0.5-6 vol. in alcohol 96%, beyond that
opalescence on dilution.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:ACUTE TOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Savin oil and recommends not to
use Savin oil (Juniperus sabina L. ) as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application.
In addition, they recommend to use Savin oil (Juniperus phoenicea L.) according to the specification
mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Savin oil is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Savin oil is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• R.E. Gosselin, H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith & M.N. Gleason (1976), Clinical Toxicology of Commercial
Products, 4th ed., Section II, p. 153, Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

1982 (Amendment 10)

2/2

Page 472 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Toluene

CAS-No.:108-88-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

ToluolMethylbenzol
Methylbenzene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

May 6, 2004

For existing creation*:
May 6, 2005
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITION / SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Toluene should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The level of Toluene has to be kept as low aspracticable and should never exceed 100 ppm inthe fragrance compound/mixture or fragrance oil.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:LIVER TOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Toluene and recommends not to
use Toluene as or in fragrance ingredients in any finished product application other than described in theabove fragrance ingredient specification.
REFERENCES:

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/2

Page 473 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

TolueneThe IFRA Standard on Toluene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Toluene is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Cosmetic Ingredient Review, Journal of the American College of Toxicology JACT 6 (1) 1987.
• IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Monographs Vol 47, p .79 (1989); Vol 71 p. 829(1999).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

2/2

Page 474 of 709

Amendment 39

IFRA STANDARD

Sclareol

CAS-No.:515-03-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Labd-14-ene-8,13-diol
1-Naphthalenepropanol,decahydro-alpha-ethenyl-2-hydroxy- alpha,2,5,5,8apentamethyl-,(1R-(1-alpha(R*),2-beta,4a-beta,8a-alpha))-History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2005 (Amendment 39)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1986

November 12, 2005

For existing creation*:
November 12, 2006
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Sclareol used as a fragrance ingredient shouldhave a minimum purity of 98%.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Sclareol is found in natural extracts, but its natural contributions are not relevant for the fragrance
ingredient specification mentioned above.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2005 (Amendment 39)

1/2

Page 475 of 709

Amendment 39

IFRA STANDARD

Sclareol
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Sclareol. Based on their expert
judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Sclareol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Sclareol if available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1975a). Repeated Insult Patch Test with Sclareol. RIFM
report number 45024, June 17. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1975b). Repeated Insult Patch Test with Sclareol. RIFM
report number 45025, June 18. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1979a). Report on Human Maximization Studies. RIFM
report number 1697, April 20. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1979b). Report on Human Maximization Studies. RIFM
report number 1697, November 6. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1981). Report on Human Maximization Studies. RIFM
report number 1792, March 18. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (1986). Report on Human Maximization Studies. RIFM
report number 3100, January 15. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2005 (Amendment 39)

2/2

Page 476 of 709

Amendment 28

IFRA STANDARD

Pinacea derivatives

CAS-No.:Not applicable.
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Derivatives from the Pine Family

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

1994 (Amendment 28)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1976

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Essential oils (e.g. Turpentine oil) and isolates (e.g.
delta-3-Carene) derived from the Pinacea family,
including Pinus and Abies genera, should only be
used when the level of peroxides is kept to thelowest practicable level, for instance by adding
antioxidants at the time of production. Suchproducts should have a peroxide value of less than
10 millimoles peroxide per liter, determinedaccording to the IFRA analytical methodology forthe determination of the peroxide value, which canbe downloaded from the IFRA website(www.ifrafragrance.org).

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE FRAGRANCE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:
1994 (Amendment 28)

1/2

Page 477 of 709

Amendment 28

IFRA STANDARD

Pinacea derivatives
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Pinacea derivatives. Based on
their expert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification
mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Pinacea derivatives is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Pinacea derivatives is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 11, 1053 (1973); 16, 843 (1978);16, 853 (1978).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

1994 (Amendment 28)

2/2

Page 478 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Nootkatone

CAS-No.:4674-50-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

5,6-Dimethyl-8-isopropenylbicyclo(4.4.0)dec-1-en-3-one
4a,5-Dimethyl-1,2,3,4,4a,5,6,7-octahydro-7-keto-3-isopropenylnaphthalene
4betaH,5alpha-Eremorphila-1(10),11-dien-2-one(4R-(4alpha,4a alpha,6beta))-4,4a,5,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,4a-dimethyl-6-(1methylvinyl)naphthalen-2(3H)-one
4,4a,5,6,7,8-Hexahydro-6-isopropenyl-4,4a-dimethyl-2(3H)-naphthalenone
2(3H)-Naphthalenone, 4,4a,5,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,4a-dimethyl-6-(1-methylethenyl)-,(4R,4aS,6R)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2006 (Amendment 40)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1980

December 11, 2006

For existing creation*:
December 11, 2007
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Nootkatone used as a fragrance ingredient should
be at least 98% pure, with a melting point of atleast 32°C. Lower purity grades may not be used
as a fragrance ingredient.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

Nootkatone is found in natural extracts, but its natural contributions are not relevant for the fragrance
ingredient specification mentioned above.
2006 (Amendment 40)

1/2

Page 479 of 709

Amendment 40

IFRA STANDARD

Nootkatone

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Nootkatone. Based on theirexpert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Nootkatone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Nootkatone is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 1971. Sensitization and irritation study of nootkatone.
Unpublished report from Givaudan, May 24, Report number 41820.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 1977. Report on human maximization studies. RIFM
report number 1702, June 6c.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 1978. Report on human maximization studies. RIFM
report number 1698, January 13a.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 1979. Report on human maximization studies. RIFM
report number 1775, September 11.
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 2005. Repeated insult patch test with nootkatone.
Unpublished report from Bedoukian Research, Inc., May 11. Report number 46155.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2006 (Amendment 40)

2/2

Page 480 of 709

Amendment 29

IFRA STANDARD

Limonene

CAS-No.:138-86-3
7705-14-8
5989-27-5
5989-54-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

p-Mentha-1,8-diene
1-methyl-4-prop-1-en-2-ylcyclohexene
1-Methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)cyclohexene
1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-1-cyclohexene
4-Isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexene
Cyclohexene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)Dipentene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

1995 (Amendment 29)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Oxidation products of Limonene, especiallyhydroperoxides, have been demonstrated to bepotent sensitizers.
d-, l- and dl-Limonene and natural products
containing substantial amounts of it, should only be
used when the level of (hydro)peroxides is kept tothe lowest practical level, for instance by adding
antioxidants at the time of production. The additionof 0.1% BHT or α-Tocopherol for example has
shown great efficiency. Such products should havea peroxide value of less than 20 millimoles per liter,
determined according to the IFRA analyticalmethod for the determination of the peroxide value,
which can be downloaded from the IFRA website(www.ifrafragrance.org).

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials
must not only comply with IFRA Standards but
1995 (Amendment 29)

1/2

Page 481 of 709

Amendment 29

IFRA STANDARD

Limonenemust also be recognized as safe as a flavoring
ingredient as defined by the IOFICode of Practice (www.iofi.org). For more details
see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE FRAGRANCE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Limonene. Based on their expert
judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Limonene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Limonene if available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• D.L.J. Opdyke, Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 13; 825 (1975).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

1995 (Amendment 29)

2/2

Page 482 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Linalool

CAS-No.:78-70-6
126-90-9
126-91-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

78-70-6 (Linalool):
1,6-Octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl2,6-Dimethyl-2,7-octadien-6-ol
2,7-Octadien-6-ol, 2,6-dimethyl3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol
3,7-Dimethylocta-1,6-dien-3-ol
Coriandrol
Licareol
Linalyl alcohol
126-90-9 (d-Linalool):(S)-3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol
1,6-Octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (S)126-91-0 (l-Linalool):(R)-3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol
1,6-Octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (R)-History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2004 (Amendment 38)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

May 6, 2004

For existing creation*:
May 6, 2005
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Oxidation products of Linalool, especiallyhydroperoxides, have been demonstrated to bepotent sensitizers.
d-, l- and dl-Linalool and natural products
containing substantial amounts of it, should only be
used when the level of (hydro)peroxides is kept tothe lowest practical level, for instance by adding
antioxidants at the time of production. The additionof 0.1% BHT or α-Tocopherol for example has
shown great efficiency. Such products should havea peroxide value of less than 20 millimoles per liter,

2004 (Amendment 38)

1/3

Page 483 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Linalooldetermined according to the IFRA analyticalmethod for the determination of the peroxide value,
which can be downloaded from the IFRA website(www.ifrafragrance.org).
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE FRAGRANCE MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

Natural products known to be rich in Linalool include bois de rose, coriander or ho wood oil.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONEXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Linalool. Based on their expert
judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Linalool is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Linalool is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• M.Skold, A.Borje, M.Matura and A.-T.Karlberg., 2002. Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing
capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hyperperoxide. Contact Dermatitis, 46(5),267-272.
2004 (Amendment 38)

2/3

Page 484 of 709

Amendment 38

IFRA STANDARD

Linalool• M.Skold, A.Borje, M.Matura and A.-T.Karlberg., 2002. Sensitization studies on the fragrance chemical
linalool, with respect to auto-oxidation. Contact Dermatitis, 46 (Suppl. 4), 20.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2004 (Amendment 38)

3/3

Page 485 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl esters

CAS-No.:Not applicable.
The scope of this Standard includes any CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance
ingredients.

Synonyms:

Not applicable.

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

1977

Not applicable.

For existing creation*:
Not applicable.
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Allyl esters should only be used when the level offree Allylalcohol in the ester is less than 0.1%. This
recommendation is based on the delayed irritantpotential of Allylalcohol.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:IRRITATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Allyl esters. Based on their expert
judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.

2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 486 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl esters
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Allyl esters is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Allyl esters is available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Fd. Cosmet, Toxicol, 15,611-21 (1977).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 487 of 709

Amendment 45

IFRA STANDARD

Musk ketone

CAS-No.:81-14-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-(4-tert-Butyl-2,6-dimethyl-3,5-dinitrophenyl) ethanone
4'-tert-butyl-2',6'-dimethyl-3',5'-dinitroacetophenone
3,5-Dinitro-2,6-dimethyl-4-tert-butylacetophenone
1-[4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-2,6-dimethyl-3,5-dinitrophenyl]ethanone
Ethanone, 1-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2,6-dimethyl-3,5-dinitrophenyl]-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2010 (Amendment 45)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

January 11, 2011

For existing creation*:January 11, 2012
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

Musk xylene (CAS number 81-15-2), which has
been prohibited for use in fragrance compounds forenvironmental reasons (vPvB), can be present in
Musk ketone as an impurity.
Musk ketone should only be used if it contains lessthan 0.1% of Musk xylene.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:SEE FRAGRANCE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONDRIVING

RISK2010 (Amendment 45)

1/2

Page 488 of 709

Amendment 45

IFRA STANDARD

Musk ketone

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Musk ketone. Based on theirexpert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its specification mentioned
above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Musk ketone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Musk ketone if available at the RIFM Safety Assessment Sheet
Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• PBT draft Addendum to the final report (2005) of the Risk Assessment (PBT assessment), January 2008
(theNetherlands
National
Institutefor
PublichealthandEnvironment,
RIVM)(https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/cb2b7fc5-8af1-46df-a1c0-7bf8335162a0).
• ECHA (European Chemicals Agency, Member State Committee, Substances of Very High Concern
support document for identification of 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene, Adopted on October 8, 2008(https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/909dd42e-2554-4f59-911a-729a2da1d529).
• IFRA Standard on Musk xylene.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2010 (Amendment 45)

2/2

Page 489 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Propenylguaethol

CAS-No.:94-86-063477-41-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-Ethoxy-2-hydroxy-4-propenylbenzene
2-Ethoxy-5-prop-1-en-1-ylphenol
2-Ethoxy-5-propenylphenol
3-Propenyl-6-ethoxyphenol
6-Ethoxy-m-anol
Phenol, 2-ethoxy-5-(1-propenyl)Vanitrope (commercial name)
Isosafroeugenol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.18 %

Category 7A

0.32 %

Category 2

0.053 %

Category 7B

0.32 %

Category 3

0.11 %

Category 8

0.071 %

Category 4

0.99 %

Category 90.75 %

Category 5A

0.25 %

Category 10A

0.75 %

Category 5B

0.21 %

Category 10B

3.7 %Category 5C

0.25 %

Category 11A

0.071 %

Category 5D

0.071 %

Category 11B

0.071 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 490 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Propenylguaethol
Category 6

0.58 %

Category 12

58 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Propenylguaethol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Propenylguaethol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Propenylguaethol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Propenylguaethol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Propenylguaethol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 491 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Propenylguaethol
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 492 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol

CAS-No.:2785-87-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-propyl4-Propyl-ortho-methoxyphenol
4-Propylguaicol
5-Propyl-ortho-hydroxyanisole
Dihydroeugenol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.13 %

Category 7A

1.5 %Category 2

0.039 %

Category 7B

1.5 %Category 3

0.78 %

Category 8

0.062 %

Category 4

0.73 %

Category 9

1.4 %Category 5A

0.19 %

Category 10A

1.4 %Category 5B

0.19 %

Category 10B

5.1 %Category 5C

0.19 %

Category 11A

0.062 %

Category 5D

0.062 %

Category 11B

0.062 %

Category 6

0.43 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 493 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 494 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methoxy-4-propylphenol(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 495 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Bisabolol

CAS-No.:515-69-523089-26-1
23178-88-3
78148-59-1
76738-75-5
72691-24-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(R*,R*)-.α.,4-Dimethyl-.α.-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)cyclohex-3-ene-1-methanol
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, .α.,4-dimethyl-.α.-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-, (R*,R*)6-Methyl-2-(4-methyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-5-hepten-2-ol
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1- yl)3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1- yl)-, (αS,1S)3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1- yl)-, (αR,1R)3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1- yl)-, (αR,1S)3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1- yl)-, (αS,1R)alpha-Bisabolol
Bisabolol
Bisabolol nat. roh (Candela-Öl) (Commercial name)Dragosantol (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.42 %

Category 7A

3.0 %Category 2

0.13 %

Category 7B

3.0 %Category 3

2.5 %Category 8

0.20 %

Category 4

2.4 %Category 9

4.6 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 496 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Bisabolol
Category 5A

0.60 %

Category 10A

4.6 %Category 5B

0.60 %

Category 10B

17 %Category 5C

0.60 %

Category 11A

0.20 %

Category 5D

0.20 %

Category 11B

0.20 %

Category 6

1.4 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Bisabolol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Bisabolol and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of alpha-Bisabolol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Bisabolol is based on at least one of the following publications:2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 497 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Bisabolol• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Bisabolol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 498 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Tolyl alcohol

CAS-No.:589-18-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(4-Methylphenyl)methanol
Benzenemethanol, 4-methylp-Methylbenzyl alcoholp-Tolualcohol
4-(Hydroxymethyl)toluene
4-Methylbenzyl alcohol
4-Tolylcarbinol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.048 %

Category 7A

0.048 %

Category 2

0.048 %

Category 7B

0.048 %

Category 3

0.048 %

Category 8

0.016 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

0.53 %

Category 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

0.53 %

Category 5B

0.048 %

Category 10B

0.048 %

Category 5C

0.048 %

Category 11A

0.016 %

Category 5D

0.016 %

Category 11B

0.016 %

Category 6

0.048 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 499 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Tolyl alcohol

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Tolyl alcohol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Tolyl alcohol and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of p-Tolyl alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Tolyl alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Tolyl alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 500 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Tolyl alcohol(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 501 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol

CAS-No.:536-60-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(4-Isopropylphenyl)methanol
Benzenemethanol, 4-(1-methylethyl)p-iso-Propylbenzyl alcoholp-Cymen-7-ol
Cumin alcohol
Cuminic alcohol
Cuminol
Cuminyl alcohol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.45 %

Category 7A

0.80 %

Category 2

0.14 %

Category 7B

0.80 %

Category 3

0.40 %

Category 8

0.21 %

Category 4

2.5 %Category 9

2.0 %Category 5A

0.64 %

Category 10A

2.0 %Category 5B

0.64 %

Category 10B

4.8 %Category 5C

0.64 %

Category 11A

0.21 %

Category 5D

0.21 %

Category 11B

0.21 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 502 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol
Category 6

1.5 %Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 503 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 504 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol

CAS-No.:24048-14-4
185019-19-6
58001-88-0
58001-87-9
1373932-23-0
1018832-07-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

24048-14-4:
2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dienol
5,9-Undecadien-1-ol, 2,6,10-trimethylDihydroapofarnesol
Profarnesol
185019-19-6 and 58001-88-0:(E)-2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol
58001-87-9:(Z)-2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol
1373932-23-0:(2R,5E)-2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol
1018832-07-9:(2S, 5E)-2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.21 %

Category 7A

2.4 %Category 2

0.062 %

Category 7B

2.4 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 505 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol
Category 3

1.2 %Category 8

0.12 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.3 %Category 5A

0.29 %

Category 10A

8.1 %Category 5B

0.29 %

Category 10B

8.1 %Category 5C

0.29 %

Category 11A

4.5 %Category 5D

0.29 %

Category 11B

4.5 %Category 6

0.68 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol has been reported to be found in natural extracts but only at tracelevels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1ol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 506 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien1-ol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,6,10-Trimethylundeca-5,9-dien-1-ol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 507 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cedrene

CAS-No.:11028-42-5
469-61-4
546-28-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify these fragrance ingredients should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

11028-42-5:
Cedr-8-ene
469-61-4:α-Cedrene
Cedr-8-ene
1H-3a,7-Methanoazulene, 2,3,4,7,8,8a-hexahydro-3,6,8,8-tetramethyl-, (3R-(3-α,3a-β,8a-α)]546-28-1:
β.-Cedrene
1H-3a,7-Methanoazulene, octahydro-3,8,8-trimethyl-6-methylene-, [3R(3alpha,3abeta,7beta,8aalpha)]Cedr-8(15)-ene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

3.1 %Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

3.1 %Category 3

1.6 %Category 8

0.16 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

11 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 508 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

CedreneCategory 5B

0.38 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

5.8 %Category 5D

0.38 %

Category 11B

5.8 %Category 6

0.88 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMThe natural contribution of Cedrene is determined by the sum of the natural contributions of each of its
isomers.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cedrene, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cedrene and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Cedrene in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 509 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

CedreneThe IFRA Standard on Cedrene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cedrene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 510 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol

CAS-No.:17488-65-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Buten-2-ol, 4-phenyl4-Phenylbut-3-en-2-ol
Methyl styryl carbinol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.22 %

Category 7A

2.5 %Category 2

0.066 %

Category 7B

2.5 %Category 3

1.3 %Category 8

0.13 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.4 %Category 5A

0.32 %

Category 10A

8.7 %Category 5B

0.32 %

Category 10B

8.7 %Category 5C

0.32 %

Category 11A

4.8 %Category 5D

0.32 %

Category 11B

4.8 %Category 6

0.73 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 511 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 512 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-ol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 513 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Longifolene

CAS-No.:475-20-7
16846-09-6
19067-29-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4,8,8-Trimethyl-9-methylenedecahydro-1,4-methanoazulene
1,4-Methanoazulene, decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-methylene-)
1,4-Methanoazulene, decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-methylene-, [1S-(1α,3αβ,4α,8aβ)]1,4-Methanoazulene, decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-methylene-, (1R,3αS,4R,8αR)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

3.1 %Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

3.1 %Category 3

1.6 %Category 8

0.16 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

11 %Category 5B

0.38 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

5.8 %Category 5D

0.38 %

Category 11B

5.8 %Category 6

0.88 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 514 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Longifolene
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Longifolene, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Longifolene and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Longifolene in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Longifolene is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Longifolene if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 515 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Longifolene(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 516 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone

CAS-No.:3658-77-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3(2H)-Furanone, 4-hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl2,5-Dimethyl-4-hydroxy-2,3-dihydrofuran-3-one
4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethylfuran-3(2H)-one
Dimethylhydroxy furanone
Strawberry furanone
Furaneol (Commercial name)
Neofuraneol (Commercial name)
Pineapple compound (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.52 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.52 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.021 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.49 %

Category 5B

0.064 %

Category 10B

1.8 %Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.021 %

Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.021 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 517 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone
Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)furanone, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)furanone and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 518 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-Hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 519 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Farnesal

CAS-No.:19317-11-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,6,10-Dodecatrienal, 3,7,11-trimethyl3,7,11-Trimethyl dodecatrien-2,6,10-al-1
3,7,11-Trimethyl-2,6,10-dodecatrienal
3,7,11-Trimethyldodeca-2,6,10-trienal

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

0.34 %

Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

0.34 %

Category 3

0.11 %

Category 8

0.051 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

0.57 %

Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

0.57 %

Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

0.051 %

Category 5D

0.051 %

Category 11B

0.051 %

Category 6

0.11 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 520 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Farnesalfragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Farnesal, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Farnesal and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Farnesal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Farnesal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Farnesal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 521 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Farnesal
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 522 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-al

CAS-No.:41448-29-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,6-Nonadien-1-al, 3,7-dimethyl3,7-Dimethylnona-2,6-dienal
Ethyl citral

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.11 %

Category 7A

1.2 %Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

1.2 %Category 3

0.65 %

Category 8

0.051 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

0.16 %

Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

0.16 %

Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.15 %

Category 11A

0.051 %

Category 5D

0.051 %

Category 11B

0.051 %

Category 6

0.16 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 523 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-alCategories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-al,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-aland recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-al in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-al is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-al if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 524 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadien-1-alaquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 525 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal

CAS-No.:762-26-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4,8-Decadienal, 5,9-dimethyl5,9-Dimethyldeca-4,8-dienal
Geraldehyde (Commercial name)
Geranyl Acetaldehyde (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.074 %

Category 7A

1.1 %Category 2

0.16 %

Category 7B

1.1 %Category 3

0.074 %

Category 8

0.025 %

Category 4

3.0 %Category 9

2.5 %Category 5A

0.76 %

Category 10A

2.5 %Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

4.6 %Category 5C

0.074 %

Category 11A

0.025 %

Category 5D

0.025 %

Category 11B

0.025 %

Category 6

0.074 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 526 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 527 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 528 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal

CAS-No.:55722-59-3
1754-00-3
72203-98-6
72203-97-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,6-Octadienal, 3,7-dimethyl3,7-Dimethylocta-3,6-dienal(E)-3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal(Z)-3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal
Isocitral (Commercial name)
Isogeranial (Commercial name)
Isoneral (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.54 %

Category 7A

0.12 %

Category 2

0.16 %

Category 7B

0.12 %

Category 3

0.030 %

Category 8

0.010 %

Category 4

3.0 %Category 9

0.79 %

Category 5A

0.76 %

Category 10A

0.79 %

Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

4.2 %Category 5C

0.030 %

Category 11A

0.010 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 529 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal
Category 5D

0.010 %

Category 11B

0.010 %

Category 6

1.3 %Category 12

53 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESCONTRIBUTIONSFROMThe natural contribution of 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal is determined by the sum of the naturalcontributions of each of its isomers.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITY

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 530 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,7-Dimethyl-3,6-octadienal
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 531 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellal

CAS-No.:106-23-05949-05-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

106-23-0:
2,3-Dihydrocitral
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octenal
3,7-Dimethyloct-6-enal
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethylCitronellal Extra (Commercial name)
Rhodinal (Commercial name)5949-05-3:
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (3S)I-Citronellal

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.41 %

Category 7A

0.077 %

Category 2

0.16 %

Category 7B

0.077 %

Category 3

0.026 %

Category 8

0.017 %

Category 4

0.49 %

Category 9

1.4 %Category 5A

0.33 %

Category 10A

1.4 %Category 5B

0.051 %

Category 10B

2.3 %2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 532 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellal
Category 5C

0.10 %

Category 11A

0.017 %

Category 5D

0.017 %

Category 11B

0.017 %

Category 6

0.82 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Citronellal, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Citronellal and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof Citronellal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Citronellal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Citronellal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 533 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellal
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 534 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal

CAS-No.:71077-31-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4,9-Decadienal, 4,8-dimethylAldehyde DMD (Commercial name)Floral Super (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.042 %

Category 7A

0.48 %

Category 2

0.013 %

Category 7B

0.48 %

Category 3

0.25 %

Category 8

0.020 %

Category 4

0.24 %

Category 9

0.46 %

Category 5A

0.060 %

Category 10A

0.46 %

Category 5B

0.060 %

Category 10B

1.7 %Category 5C

0.060 %

Category 11A

0.020 %

Category 5D

0.020 %

Category 11B

0.020 %

Category 6

0.14 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 535 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 536 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 537 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

cis,trans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol

CAS-No.:5502-75-013828-37-0
13674-19-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(4-propan-2-ylcyclohexyl)methanol
4-(1-methylethyl)-cyclohexanemethanol
4-Isopropylcyclohexylmethanol(4-Isopropylcyclohexyl)methanol
Reaction mass of trans-4-(isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol and cis-4(isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol
cis-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanoltrans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol
Cyclohexanemethanol, 4-(1-methylethyl)-, cis
Cyclohexanemethanol, 4-(1-methylethyl)-, transp-Menthan-7-ol
cis-p-Menthan-7-oltrans-p-Menthan-7-ol
Mayol (commercial name)Meĳiff (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.25 %

Category 7A

0.13 %

Category 2

0.39 %

Category 7B

0.13 %

Category 3

0.099 %

Category 8

0.049 %

Category 4

4.7 %Category 9

0.39 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 538 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

cis,trans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol
Category 5A

1.2 %Category 10A

0.39 %

Category 5B

0.15 %

Category 10B

1.1 %Category 5C

0.20 %

Category 11A

0.049 %

Category 5D

0.049 %

Category 11B

0.049 %

Category 6

0.0099 %Category 12

28 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for cis,trans-4(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis,trans-4(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories,
which
are
the
maximum
acceptableconcentrationsofcis,trans-4(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol in the various product categories.

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 539 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

cis,trans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis,trans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis,trans-4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexanemethanol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 540 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol

CAS-No.:67634-03-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-(4-Isopropylcyclohexyl)propan-1-ol
Cyclohexaneethanol, .β.-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)Rodipol C (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.26 %

Category 7A

0.26 %

Category 2

0.39 %

Category 7B

0.26 %

Category 3

0.26 %

Category 8

0.086 %

Category 4

6.4 %Category 9

4.9 %Category 5A

0.52 %

Category 10A

4.9 %Category 5B

0.26 %

Category 10B

1.0 %Category 5C

0.26 %

Category 11A

0.086 %

Category 5D

0.086 %

Category 11B

0.086 %

Category 6

0.26 %

Category 12

20 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 541 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.methylcyclohexanethanol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.methylcyclohexanethanol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories,
which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol in thevarious product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 542 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(Isopropyl)-.beta.-methylcyclohexanethanol• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 543 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethyl-

CAS-No.:68480-15-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(2,4-Dimethylcyclohexyl)methanol
2,4-Dimethylcyclohexanemethanol

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0013 %Category 7A

0.0013 %Category 2

0.39 %

Category 7B

0.0013 %Category 3

0.0013 %Category 80.00043 %Category 4

0.0013 %Category 9

3.1 %Category 5A

1.3 %Category 10A

3.1 %Category 5B

0.0013 %Category 10B

0.0013 %Category 5C

0.0013 %Category 11A

0.00043 %Category 5D

0.00043 %Category 11B

0.00043 %Category 6

0.0013 %Category 12

0.0013 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 544 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethylwith IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethyl-,which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4dimethyl- and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethyl- in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethyl- is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethyl- if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 545 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexanemethanol, 2,4-dimethylaquaticrisk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 546 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol

CAS-No.:107898-54-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Penten-2-ol, 3,3-dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)(+/-) trans-3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-cyclopent-3-en-1-yl)pent-4-en-2-ol
Mysantol (Commercial name)Polysantol (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.031 %

Category 7A

0.63 %

Category 2

0.057 %

Category 7B

0.63 %

Category 3

0.25 %

Category 8

0.091 %

Category 4

1.1 %Category 9

1.7 %Category 5A

0.27 %

Category 10A

1.7 %Category 5B

0.27 %

Category 10B

4.0 %Category 5C

0.27 %

Category 11A

0.091 %

Category 5D

0.091 %

Category 11B

0.091 %

Category 6

0.031 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 547 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol is based on atleast one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol if
available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 548 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

3,3-Dimethyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten-2-ol(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 549 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol

CAS-No.:65113-99-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Cyclopentene-1-butanol, .α.,.β.,2,2,3-pentamethyl3-Methyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethylcyclopent-3-en-1-yl)pentan-2-ol
a,b,2,2,3-Pentamethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butanol
Sandal Series G (Commercial name)
Sandalore (Commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.21 %

Category 7A

2.4 %Category 2

0.062 %

Category 7B

2.4 %Category 3

1.2 %Category 8

0.12 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.3 %Category 5A

0.29 %

Category 10A

8.1 %Category 5B

0.29 %

Category 10B

8.1 %Category 5C

0.29 %

Category 11A

4.5 %Category 5D

0.29 %

Category 11B

4.5 %Category 6

0.68 %

Category 12

No Restriction

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 550 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)3-methylpentan-2-ol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3methylpentan-2-ol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol is based on at least one of
the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol if available atthe
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 551 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

5-(2,2,3-Trimethyl-3-cyclopentenyl)-3-methylpentan-2-ol
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 552 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde

CAS-No.:65114-03-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Methyl-4-(2,2,3-trimethylcyclopent-3-en-1-yl)butanal
3-Cyclopentene-1-butanal, α,2,2,3-tetramethylFlorenza (commercial name)Santafleur (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.038 %

Category 7A

0.44 %

Category 2

0.011 %

Category 7B

0.44 %

Category 3

0.23 %

Category 8

0.023 %

Category 4

0.21 %

Category 9

0.42 %

Category 5A

0.054 %

Category 10A

1.5 %Category 5B

0.054 %

Category 10B

1.5 %Category 5C

0.054 %

Category 11A

0.83 %

Category 5D

0.054 %

Category 11B

0.83 %

Category 6

0.13 %

Category 12

No Restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 553 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3ene-1-butyraldehyde, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha,2,2,3Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different
product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of alpha,2,2,3Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde is based on at least one of
the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde if available atthe
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19
2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 554 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

alpha,2,2,3-Tetramethylcyclopent-3-ene-1-butyraldehyde(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 555 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Isobutyl N-methylanthranylate

CAS-No.:65505-24-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Benzoic acid, 2-(methylamino)-, 2-methylpropyl ester
Isobutyl 2-(methylamino)benzoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The material has been identified for having thepotential of forming nitrosamines in nitrosating
systems. Downstream users therefore have to be
notified of the presence of the material and its
potential, to be able to consider adequate
protective measures.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:POTENTIAL OF NITROSAMINE FORMATIONDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 556 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

Isobutyl N-methylanthranylate
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isobutyl N-methylanthranylate.
Based on their expert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its
specification mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isobutyl N-methylanthranylate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isobutyl N-methylanthranylate if available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(doi:
10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.p df).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september- 2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Nitrosamine policy as contained in the EU Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC and its Amendments.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 557 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methyltetrahydroquinoline

CAS-No.:91-61-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

6-Methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline
Quinoline, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6-methyl1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-methylquinoline
Tetrahydro-p-methylquinoline

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The material has been identified for having thepotential of forming nitrosamines in nitrosating
systems. Downstream users therefore have to be
notified of the presence of the material and its
potential, to be able to consider adequate
protective measures.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:POTENTIAL OF NITROSAMINE FORMATIONDRIVING

RISK2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 558 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

p-Methyltetrahydroquinoline
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Methyltetrahydroquinoline.
Based on their expert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredient according to its
specification mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on p- Methyltetrahydroquinoline is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p- Methyltetrahydroquinoline if available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Nitrosamine policy as contained in the EU Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC and its Amendments.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 559 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4-methylquinoline

CAS-No.:19343-78-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline
Quinoline, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4-methyl1,2,3,4-Tetrahydrolepidine
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4-methylquinoline

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2009 (Amendment 44)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

August 7, 2009

For existing creation*:
August 7, 2010
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

SPECIFICATIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

The material has been identified for having thepotential of forming nitrosamines in nitrosating
systems. Downstream users therefore have to be
notified of the presence of the material and its
potential, to be able to consider adequate
protective measures.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:POTENTIAL OF NITROSAMINE FORMATIONDRIVING

RISK2009 (Amendment 44)

1/2

Page 560 of 709

Amendment 44

IFRA STANDARD

1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4-methylquinoline
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4methylquinoline. Based on their expert judgement, they recommend to use the fragrance ingredientaccording to its specification mentioned above.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4- methylquinoline is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-4- methylquinoline if available at the RIFM Safety
Assessment Sheet Database:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Aug;82 Suppl:S1-S19 (doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.014).
(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• IDEA project (International Dialogue for the Evaluation of Allergens) Final Report on the QRA2: Skin
Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fragrance Ingredients, September 30, 2016(http://www.ideaproject.info/uploads/Modules/Documents/qra2-dossier-final--september-2016.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21:1301-1308.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Nitrosamine policy as contained in the EU Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC and its Amendments.
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2009 (Amendment 44)

2/2

Page 561 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one

CAS-No.:5471-51-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

p-Hydroxybenzylacetone
1-p-Hydroxyphenyl-3-butanone
2-Butanone, 4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)4-(p-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone
Raspberry ketone
Corps N 112 (commercial name)Frambinon (commercial name)
Oxanone (commercial name)
Oxyphenylon (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2020 (Amendment 49)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable.

February 10, 2021

For existing creation*:
February 10, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.68 %

Category 7A

0.41 %

Category 2

1.0 %Category 7B

0.41 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

1.0 %Category 9

1.0 %Category 5A

1.0 %Category 10A

1.0 %Category 5B

0.14 %

Category 10B

1.0 %Category 5C

0.27 %

Category 11A

0.045 %

Category 5D

0.045 %

Category 11B

0.045 %

2020 (Amendment 49)

1/3

Page 562 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one
Category 6

0.82 %

Category 12

78 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels.
INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:DRIVINGRISK

DEPIGMENTATIONRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2020 (Amendment 49)

2/3

Page 563 of 709

Amendment 49

IFRA STANDARD

4-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-one• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2020 (Amendment 49)

3/3

Page 564 of 709

Amendment 50

IFRA STANDARD

Mintlactone

CAS-No.:13341-72-5
38049-04-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Mintlactone2(4H)-Benzofuranone, 5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl3,6-Dimethyl-5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-1-benzofuran-2(4H)-one
3,6-Dimethyl-5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-2(4H)benzo-furanone
5,6,7,7a-Tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-(4H)-benzofuran-2-one
Dehydroxymenthofurolactone
Menthofurolactone
Mint furanone
2(4H)-Benzofuranone, 5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-, (6R,7aR)(-)-Mintlactone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2021 (Amendment 50)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

August 30, 2021

For existing creation*:
July 30, 2022
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

Mintlactone should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:GENOTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:
The material Mintalctone has been reviewed by the Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety with the conclusionthat it cannot be safely used as a fragrance ingredient. If the substance is found as an impurity in other2021 (Amendment 50)

1/2

Page 565 of 709

Amendment 50

IFRA STANDARD

Mintlactone
fragrance ingredients, leading to trace level presence in finished products, please check the latest versionof the Guidance to the IFRA Standards for the respective IFRA procedure.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Mintlactone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Mintlactone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2021 (Amendment 50)

2/2

Page 566 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate

CAS-No.:116044-44-1
116126-82-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate(2-endo,3-exo)-Ethyl 3-(1-methylethyl)bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylate(2-endo,3-exo)-Ethyl 3-isopropylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylate
Bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylic acid, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, ethyl ester, (2-endo,3-exo)Ethyl (2S,3S)-3-isopropylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylate
3-(1-Methyl ethyl) bicyclo(2.2.1) hept-5-ene-2-carboxylic acid ethyl ester
Bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylic acid, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, ethyl ester, (2-exo,3-endo)Ethyl (2R,3R)-3-isopropylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-ene-2-carboxylate
Herbanate (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.15 %

Category 7A

0.61 %

Category 2

0.050 %

Category 7B

0.61 %

Category 3

0.45 %

Category 8

0.080 %

Category 4

0.94 %

Category 9

1.8 %Category 5A

0.24 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.24 %

Category 10B

0.15 %

Category 5C

0.24 %

Category 11A

0.080 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 567 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate
Category 5D

0.080 %

Category 11B

0.080 %

Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2carboxylate, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2carboxylate and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 568 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl isopropyl bicycloheptene-2-carboxylate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 569 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde

CAS-No.:33885-52-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde.alpha.,.alpha.,6,6-Tetramethyl-2-norpinene-2-propionaldehyde.alpha.,.alpha.,6,6-Tetramethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-propionaldehyde.α.,.α.,6,6-Tetramethyl-2-norpinene-2-propionaldehyde.α.,.α.,6,6-Tetramethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-propionaldehyde
3-(6,6-Dimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-en-2-yl)-2,2-dimethylpropanal
Bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-propanal, .alpha.,.alpha.,6,6-tetramethylBicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-propanal, .α.,.α.,6,6-tetramethylPIBA (commercial name)
Pinyl iso butyraldehyde (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0014 %Category 7A

0.0041 %Category 2

0.11 %

Category 7B

0.0041 %Category 3

0.0014 %Category 80.00046 %Category 4

1.3 %Category 9

0.087 %

Category 5A

0.019 %

Category 10A

0.0096 %Category 5B

0.0014 %Category 10B

0.13 %

Category 5C

0.0014 %Category 11A

0.00046 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 570 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde
Category 5D

0.00046 %Category 11B

0.00046 %Category 6

0.0014 %Category 12

25 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2propionaldehyde, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2propionaldehyde and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde in the various
product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde if available at the
RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 571 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Tetramethyl bicyclo-2-heptene-2-propionaldehyde• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 572 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol

CAS-No.:70788-30-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol
1-(Trimethylcyclohexyl)-hexanol
2,2,6-Trimethyl-alpha-propylcyclohexanepropanol
2,2,6-Trimethyl-α-propylcyclohexanepropanol
Cyclohexanepropanol, 2,2,6-trimethyl-.alpha.-propylCyclohexanepropanol, 2,2,6-trimethyl-.α.-propylNorlimbanol (commercial name)
Norlimbanol Dextrol (commercial name)
Timberol (commercial name)Karmawood (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.17 %

Category 7A

0.51 %

Category 2

0.071 %

Category 7B

0.51 %

Category 3

0.51 %

Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

1.3 %Category 9

2.6 %Category 5A

0.34 %

Category 10A

0.68 %

Category 5B

0.34 %

Category 10B

4.7 %Category 5C

0.34 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 573 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol
Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

Category 6

0.17 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3hexanol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3hexanol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 574 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-hexanol• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 575 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol

CAS-No.:139504-68-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol
1-(2-tert-Butylcyclohexyl)oxybutan-2-ol
1-[(2-tert-Butylcyclohexyl)oxy]butan-2-ol
1-(2-t.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol
1-(2-t-Butylcyclohexyl)oxybutan-2-ol
1-[(2-t-Butylcyclohexyl)oxy]butan-2-ol
Amber Core (commercial name)Coramber (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.24 %

Category 7A

2.7 %Category 2

0.071 %

Category 7B

2.7 %Category 3

1.4 %Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

1.3 %Category 9

2.6 %Category 5A

0.34 %

Category 10A

4.5 %Category 5B

0.34 %

Category 10B

9.3 %Category 5C

0.34 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 576 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol
Category 6

0.75 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2butanol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2butanol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 577 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2-tert.-Butyl cyclohexyloxy)-2-butanol
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 578 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal

CAS-No.:1891-67-4
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal
2,6-Octadienal, 3,6,7-trimethyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.011 %

Category 7A

0.011 %

Category 2

0.032 %

Category 7B

0.011 %

Category 3

0.023 %

Category 8

0.011 %

Category 4

0.60 %

Category 9

0.24 %

Category 5A

0.15 %

Category 10A

0.011 %

Category 5B

0.034 %

Category 10B

2.4 %Category 5C

0.069 %

Category 11A

0.011 %

Category 5D

0.011 %

Category 11B

0.011 %

Category 6

0.011 %

Category 12

80 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 579 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 580 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,6,7-Trimethyl-2,6-octadienal
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 581 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one

CAS-No.:74338-72-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one
Claritone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.34 %

Category 7A

3.9 %Category 2

0.10 %

Category 7B

3.9 %Category 3

2.0 %Category 8

0.16 %

Category 4

1.9 %Category 9

3.7 %Category 5A

0.48 %

Category 10A

10 %Category 5B

0.48 %

Category 10B

13 %Category 5C

0.48 %

Category 11A

0.16 %

Category 5D

0.16 %

Category 11B

0.16 %

Category 6

0.45 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 582 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3one and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 583 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6-octen-3-one(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 584 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile

CAS-No.:916887-53-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile
2-Cyclohexylidene-2-o-tolylacetonitrile
Benzeneacetonitrile, alpha-cyclohexylidene-2-methylBenzeneacetonitrile, α-cyclohexylidene-2-methylPetalia (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.066 %

Category 7A

0.99 %

Category 2

0.027 %

Category 7B

0.99 %

Category 3

0.33 %

Category 8

0.043 %

Category 4

0.52 %

Category 9

1.0 %Category 5A

0.13 %

Category 10A

0.066 %

Category 5B

0.13 %

Category 10B

3.6 %Category 5C

0.13 %

Category 11A

0.043 %

Category 5D

0.043 %

Category 11B

0.043 %

Category 6

0.066 %

Category 12

66 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 585 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Cyclohexylidene-2-orthotolylacetonitrile, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Cyclohexylidene-2-orthotolylacetonitrile and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 586 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Cyclohexylidene-2-ortho-tolylacetonitrile
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 587 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl and Methyl furaneol

CAS-No.:27538-09-6
27538-10-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Ethyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylfuran-3-one
Ethyl furaneol
Methyl furaneol
2-Ethyl-4-hydroxy-5-methyl-3(2H)-furanone
3(2H)-Furanone, 5-ethyl-4-hydroxy-2-methyl5-Ethyl-4-hydroxy-2-methyl-3(2H)-furanone
5-Ethyl-4-hydroxy-2-methylfuran-3(2H)-one
2-Ethyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylfuran-3(2H)-one3(2H)-Furanone, 2-ethyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylHomofuraneol
Maltarome (commercial name)
Homofuronol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.52 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.52 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.021 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.98 %

Category 5B

0.064 %

Category 10B

1.8 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 588 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl and Methyl furaneol
Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.021 %

Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.021 %

Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Ethyl and Methyl furaneol, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Ethyl and Methyl furaneol andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Ethyl and Methyl furaneol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Ethyl and Methyl furaneol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Ethyl and Methyl furaneol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 589 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Ethyl and Methyl furaneol
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 590 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one

CAS-No.:16429-07-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one
2-Hexylidenecyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone, 2-hexylidene-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.023 %

Category 7A

0.26 %

Category 2

0.0069 %Category 7B

0.26 %

Category 3

0.14 %

Category 8

0.014 %

Category 4

0.13 %

Category 9

0.25 %

Category 5A

0.033 %

Category 10A

0.90 %

Category 5B

0.033 %

Category 10B

0.90 %

Category 5C

0.033 %

Category 11A

0.50 %

Category 5D

0.033 %

Category 11B

0.50 %

Category 6

0.076 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 591 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 592 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Hexylidenecyclohexan-1-one
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 593 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methyl-2-pentenal

CAS-No.:623-36-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Methyl-2-pentenal
2-Methylpent-2-enal
2-Pentenal, 2-methyl2,4-Dimethylcrotonaldehyde
α-Methyl-β-ethylacroleinalpha-Methyl-beta-ethylacrolein

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0014 %Category 7A

0.016 %

Category 2

0.00041 %Category 7B

0.016 %

Category 3

0.0083 %Category 80.00067 %Category 4

0.0077 %Category 9

0.015 %

Category 5A

0.0020 %Category 10A

0.054 %

Category 5B

0.0020 %Category 10B

0.054 %

Category 5C

0.0020 %Category 11A

0.00067 %Category 5D

0.00067 %Category 11B

0.00067 %Category 6

0.0045 %Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 594 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methyl-2-pentenal
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Methyl-2-pentenal, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Methyl-2-pentenal andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Methyl-2-pentenal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Methyl-2-pentenal is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Methyl-2-pentenal if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 595 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Methyl-2-pentenal(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 596 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Octen-4-one

CAS-No.:4643-27-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Octen-4-one
Butyl propenyl ketone
Oct-2-en-4-one
Propenyl butyl ketone
Strawbinone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0085 %Category 7A

0.096 %

Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.096 %

Category 3

0.051 %

Category 8

0.0050 %Category 4

0.047 %

Category 9

0.092 %

Category 5A

0.012 %

Category 10A

0.33 %

Category 5B

0.012 %

Category 10B

0.33 %

Category 5C

0.012 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

Category 5D

0.012 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

0.028 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 597 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Octen-4-one
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2-Octen-4-one, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2-Octen-4-one and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 2-Octen-4-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2-Octen-4-one is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2-Octen-4-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 598 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2-Octen-4-one• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 599 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl lavender ketone

CAS-No.:67801-33-6
67633-95-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl lavender ketone
2-Nonanone, 3-(hydroxymethyl)3-(Hydroxymethyl)nonan-2-one
Herbal ketone
2-Acetyl-1-octanol
1-Hydroxydecan-3-one
3-Decanone, 1-hydroxy
1-Hydroxy-3-decanone
Ethyl hydroxyheptyl ketone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.015 %

Category 7A

0.17 %

Category 2

0.0044 %Category 7B

0.17 %

Category 3

0.088 %

Category 8

0.0086 %Category 4

0.082 %

Category 9

0.16 %

Category 5A

0.021 %

Category 10A

0.57 %

Category 5B

0.021 %

Category 10B

0.57 %

Category 5C

0.021 %

Category 11A

0.32 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 600 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl lavender ketone
Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.32 %

Category 6

0.048 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl lavender ketone, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl lavender ketone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl lavender ketone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl lavender ketone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl lavender ketone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 601 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl lavender ketone
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 602 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one

CAS-No.:81786-74-5
81786-73-4
86115-11-9
81786-75-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one
2-Heptanone, 3,5,6,6-tetramethyl-4-methylene3,5,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-methyleneheptan-2-one
3,5,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-methylideneheptan-2-one(Z)-3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one
3-Hepten-2-one, 3,4,5,6,6-pentamethyl-, (Z)3-Hepten-2-one, 3,4,5,6,6-pentamethyl(E)-3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one
3-Hepten-2-one, 3,4,5,6,6-pentamethyl-, (E)Koavone (commercial name)
Acetyl Diisoamylene (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0095 %Category 7A

0.086 %

Category 2

0.10 %

Category 7B

0.086 %

Category 3

0.019 %

Category 8

0.0032 %Category 4

1.9 %Category 9

0.39 %

Category 5A

0.26 %

Category 10A

0.39 %

Category 5B

0.029 %

Category 10B

2.6 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 603 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one
Category 5C

0.0095 %Category 11A

0.0032 %Category 5D

0.0032 %Category 11B

0.0032 %Category 6

0.0095 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2one, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en2-one and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one is based on at least one of the following
publications:2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 604 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3,4,5,6,6-Pentamethylhept-3-en-2-one if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 605 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile

CAS-No.:53243-60-0
53243-59-7
93893-89-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile
2-Pentenenitrile, 3-methyl-5-phenyl- (isomer unspecified)(Z)-3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile
2-Pentenenitrile, 3-methyl-5-phenyl-, (Z)(E)-3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile
2-Pentenenitrile, 3-methyl-5-phenyl-, (E)Citronitrile (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.021 %

Category 7A

0.24 %

Category 2

0.0062 %Category 7B

0.24 %

Category 3

0.12 %

Category 8

0.0097 %Category 4

0.12 %

Category 9

0.23 %

Category 5A

0.029 %

Category 10A

0.81 %

Category 5B

0.029 %

Category 10B

0.81 %

Category 5C

0.029 %

Category 11A

0.0097 %Category 5D

0.0097 %Category 11B

0.0097 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 606 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile
Category 6

0.065 %

Category 12

65 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile,which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2enenitrile and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 607 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Methyl-5-phenylpent-2-enenitrile
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 608 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Octen-2-one

CAS-No.:1669-44-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Octen-2-one
Oct-3-en-2-one
Methyl hexenyl ketone
1-Hexenyl methyl ketone

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0085 %Category 7A

0.096 %

Category 2

0.0025 %Category 7B

0.096 %

Category 3

0.051 %

Category 8

0.0050 %Category 4

0.047 %

Category 9

0.092 %

Category 5A

0.012 %

Category 10A

0.33 %

Category 5B

0.012 %

Category 10B

0.33 %

Category 5C

0.012 %

Category 11A

0.18 %

Category 5D

0.012 %

Category 11B

0.18 %

Category 6

0.028 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 609 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Octen-2-one
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 3-Octen-2-one, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 3-Octen-2-one and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 3-Octen-2-one in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Octen-2-one is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Octen-2-one if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 610 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Octen-2-one
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 611 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethyl octenone

CAS-No.:2550-11-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Dimethyl octenone
4,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-3-one
6-Octen-3-one, 4,7-dimethyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.18 %

Category 7A

0.55 %

Category 2

0.10 %

Category 7B

0.55 %

Category 3

0.37 %

Category 8

0.12 %

Category 4

1.9 %Category 9

1.5 %Category 5A

0.48 %

Category 10A

0.73 %

Category 5B

0.37 %

Category 10B

2.4 %Category 5C

0.48 %

Category 11A

0.12 %

Category 5D

0.12 %

Category 11B

0.12 %

Category 6

0.18 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 612 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethyl octenone
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Dimethyl octenone, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Dimethyl octenone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Dimethyl octenone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Dimethyl octenone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Dimethyl octenone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 613 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Dimethyl octenone(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 614 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isopentylcyclohexanone

CAS-No.:16587-71-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Isopentylcyclohexanone
4-(1,1-Dimethylpropyl)cyclohexanone
4-t-Amylcyclohexanone
4-tert-Amylcyclohexanone
4-tert-Pentylcyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone, 4-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)p-tert Amyl cyclohexanone
Orris hexanone
4-(2-Methylbutan-2-yl)cyclohexan-1-one
Orivone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.027 %

Category 7A

0.24 %

Category 2

0.0080 %Category 7B

0.24 %

Category 3

0.16 %

Category 8

0.013 %

Category 4

0.15 %

Category 9

0.29 %

Category 5A

0.038 %

Category 10A

0.061 %

Category 5B

0.038 %

Category 10B

1.1 %Category 5C

0.038 %

Category 11A

0.013 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 615 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isopentylcyclohexanone
Category 5D

0.013 %

Category 11B

0.013 %

Category 6

0.061 %

Category 12

61 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isopentylcyclohexanone, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isopentylcyclohexanone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Isopentylcyclohexanone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isopentylcyclohexanone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isopentylcyclohexanone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 616 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isopentylcyclohexanone
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 617 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Woody furan

CAS-No.:351343-77-6
338735-71-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Woody furan
2,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyldecahydro-2H-indeno[4,5-b]furan
Decahydro-2,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-2H-indeno[4,5-b]furan
8H-Indeno(4,5-B)furan,2,3,3a,4,5,5a,6,7,8a,9-decahydro-2,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl (mixture ofisomers)
1H-Indene, 2,3,3a,4,5,7a-hexahydro-1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-6-(2-propenyl)Trisamber (commercial name)Tris amber super (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.17 %

Category 7A

1.9 %Category 2

0.050 %

Category 7B

1.9 %Category 3

1.0 %Category 8

0.080 %

Category 4

0.94 %

Category 9

1.8 %Category 5A

0.24 %

Category 10A

4.1 %Category 5B

0.24 %

Category 10B

6.6 %Category 5C

0.24 %

Category 11A

0.080 %

Category 5D

0.080 %

Category 11B

0.080 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 618 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Woody furan
Category 6

0.56 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Woody furan, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Woody furan and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Woody furan in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Woody furan is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Woody furan if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 619 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Woody furan
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 620 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate

CAS-No.:2705-87-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate
2-Propen-1-yl cyclohexanepropionate
Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropanoate
Allyl beta-cyclohexylpropionate
Allyl β-cyclohexylpropionate
Allyl cyclohexanepropionate
Allyl cyclohexylpropionate
Allyl hexahydrophenylpropionate
Cyclohexanepropionic acid, 2-propenyl ester
Prop-2-enyl 3-cyclohexylpropanoate
Cyclohexylpropionic acid allyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

For new creation*:

Previous
Publications:Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION / SPECIFICATIONRECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.085 %

Category 7A

0.70 %

Category 2

0.025 %

Category 7B

0.70 %

Category 3

0.35 %

Category 8

0.040 %

Category 4

0.47 %

Category 90.92 %

Category 5A

0.12 %

Category 10A

0.7 %Category 5B

0.12 %

Category 10B

3.3 %Category 5C

0.12 %

Category 11A

0.040 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 621 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate
Category 5D

0.040 %

Category 11B

0.040 %

Category 6

0.28 %

Category 12

No restriction

FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SPECIFICATION:

According to the IFRA Specification Standard ofAllyl esters, Allyl esters should only be used when
the level of free Allylalcohol in the ester is less than
0.1%. This recommendation is based on the
delayed irritant potential of Allylalcohol.
Please also refer to the IFRA Specification
Standard Allyl esters.

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate, which
can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate in the various product categories.

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 622 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate
In addition, they recommend to use Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate according to the specification above
mentioned.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Allyl 3-cyclohexylpropionate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 623 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal

CAS-No.:60763-41-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal
α-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal[2-(Diethoxymethyl)hept-1-en-1-yl]benzene
1,1-Diethoxy-2-amyl-3-phenyl-2-propene
1,1-Diethoxy-2-amyl-3-phenylacrolein
2-Diethoxymethyl-1-phenylhept-1-ene
Benzene, [2-(diethoxymethyl)-1-heptenyl]2-(Diethoxymethyl)hept-1-enylbenzene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.063 %

Category 7A

0.72 %

Category 2

0.019 %

Category 7B

0.72 %

Category 3

0.38 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.35 %

Category 9

0.69 %

Category 5A

0.089 %

Category 10A

2.5 %Category 5B

0.089 %

Category 10B

2.5 %Category 5C

0.089 %

Category 11A

1.4 %Category 5D

0.089 %

Category 11B

1.4 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 624 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal
Category 6

0.21 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl
acetal, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde
diethyl acetal and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 625 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde diethyl acetal
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 626 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal

CAS-No.:91-87-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal
α-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetalalpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde dimethyl acetal
α-Amylcinnamaldehyde dimethyl acetal[2-(Dimethoxymethyl)hept-1-en-1-yl]benzene
1,1-Dimethoxy-2-amyl-3-phenyl-2-propene
1,1-Dimethoxy-2-benzylideneheptane
alpha-Amyl-beta-phenylacrolein dimethyl acetal
α-Amyl-β-phenylacrolein dimethyl acetalalpha-Pentylcinnamaldehyde dimethyl acetal
α-Pentylcinnamaldehyde dimethyl acetal
Benzene, [2-(dimethoxymethyl)-1-heptenyl][2-(Dimethoxymethyl)-1-heptenyl]benzene

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.063 %

Category 7A

0.72 %

Category 2

0.019 %

Category 7B

0.72 %

Category 3

0.38 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.35 %

Category 9

0.69 %

Category 5A

0.089 %

Category 10A

2.5 %Category 5B

0.089 %

Category 10B

2.5 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 627 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal
Category 5C

0.089 %

Category 11A

1.4 %Category 5D

0.089 %

Category 11B

1.4 %Category 6

0.21 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde
dimethyl acetal, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde
dimethyl acetal and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal is based on at least one of thefollowing publications:2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 628 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Amylcinnamicaldehyde dimethyl acetal if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 629 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile

CAS-No.:10461-98-0
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile
α-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile.delta.1,.alpha.-Cyclohexaneacetonitrile, .alpha.-phenyl.δ.1,.α.-Cyclohexaneacetonitrile, .α.-phenyl2-Cyclohexylidene-2-phenylacetonitrile
Benzeneacetonitrile, alpha-cyclohexylideneBenzeneacetonitrile, α-cyclohexylidenePeonile (commercial name)
Rosinile (commercial name)Sensinile (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.052 %

Category 7A

0.94 %

Category 2

0.027 %

Category 7B

0.94 %

Category 3

0.47 %

Category 8

0.043 %

Category 4

0.52 %

Category 9

1.0 %Category 5A

0.13 %

Category 10A

2.9 %Category 5B

0.13 %

Category 10B

3.6 %Category 5C

0.13 %

Category 11A

0.043 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 630 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile
Category 5D

0.043 %

Category 11B

0.043 %

Category 6

0.052 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for alpha-Cyclohexylidene
benzeneacetonitrile, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment
Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for alpha-Cyclohexylidene
benzeneacetonitrile and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are
the maximum acceptable concentrations of alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile in the various
product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 631 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

alpha-Cyclohexylidene benzeneacetonitrile• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 632 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate

CAS-No.:155514-23-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate
Hex-5-en-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate
Butanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 5-hexen-1-yl ester
Fructate (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.12 %

Category 7A

1.3 %Category 2

0.034 %

Category 7B

1.3 %Category 3

0.69 %

Category 8

0.068 %

Category 4

0.64 %

Category 9

1.3 %Category 5A

0.16 %

Category 10A

4.5 %Category 5B

0.16 %

Category 10B

4.5 %Category 5C

0.16 %

Category 11A

2.5 %Category 5D

0.16 %

Category 11B

2.5 %Category 6

0.38 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 633 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 634 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

5-Hexen-1-yl 2-methylbutanoate• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 635 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvyl acetate

CAS-No.:97-42-71205-42-1
1134-95-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Carvyl acetate
2-Cyclohexen-1-ol, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate
5-Isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl acetate
p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-yl acetate
p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-ol, acetate
2-Cyclohexen-1-ol, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate, cis5-Isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl acetate, cisp-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-ol, acetate, cisl-1-p-Mentha-6,8(9)-dien-2-yl acetate
cis-Carvyl acetate
laevo-Carvyl acetate
1-Carvyl acetate
cis-2-Methyl-5-(1-methylvinyl)cyclohex-2-en-1-yl acetate
2-Cyclohexen-1-ol, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate, trans5-Isopropenyl-2-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl acetate, transp-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-ol, acetate, transtrans-Carvyl acetate(E)-Carvyl acetate
Carvyl acetate E

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.042 %

Category 7A

0.48 %

Category 2

0.013 %

Category 7B

0.48 %

Category 3

0.25 %

Category 8

0.025 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 636 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvyl acetate
Category 4

0.24 %

Category 9

0.46 %

Category 5A

0.060 %

Category 10A

1.7 %Category 5B

0.060 %

Category 10B

1.7 %Category 5C

0.060 %

Category 11A

0.92 %

Category 5D

0.060 %

Category 11B

0.92 %

Category 6

0.14 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Carvyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Carvyl acetate and recommends
the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Carvyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 637 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvyl acetate
The IFRA Standard on Carvyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Carvyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 638 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Heptenyl acetate

CAS-No.:1576-78-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

cis-3-Heptenyl acetate(Z)-Hept-3-enyl acetate
3-Hepten-1-ol, acetate, (Z)Hept-3-en-1-yl acetate
3-Hepten-1-yl acetate(Z)-3-hepten-1-yl acetate
Violana (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

0.037 %

Category 5D

0.037 %

Category 11B

0.037 %

Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 639 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Heptenyl acetate

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for cis-3-Heptenyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis-3-Heptenyl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of cis-3-Heptenyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis-3-Heptenyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis-3-Heptenyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 640 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Heptenyl acetate(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 641 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate

CAS-No.:35154-45-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate(Z)-Hex-3-enyl isovalerate
Hex-3-en-1-yl 3-methylbutanoate
Isovaleric acid, 3-hexenyl ester, (z)(Z)-3-Hexen-1-yl isovalerate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

1.8 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

0.037 %

Category 5D

0.037 %

Category 11B

0.037 %

Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 642 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 643 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl isovalerate(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 644 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate

CAS-No.:67633-96-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate
Carbonic acid, 3-hexenyl methyl ester, (Z)cis-3-Hexenyl carbonate
cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate
Hex-3-en-1-yl methyl carbonate
Methyl cis-3-hexenyl carbonate(Z)-3-Hexen-1-yl methyl carbonate
Liffarome (commercial name)Leafovert (commercial name)Vertelione (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.10 %

Category 7A

1.1 %Category 2

0.030 %

Category 7B

1.1 %Category 3

0.60 %

Category 8

0.047 %

Category 4

0.56 %

Category 9

1.1 %Category 5A

0.14 %

Category 10A

3.9 %Category 5B

0.14 %

Category 10B

3.9 %Category 5C

0.14 %

Category 11A

0.047 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 645 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate
Category 5D

0.047 %

Category 11B

0.047 %

Category 6

0.33 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 646 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Hexenyl methyl carbonate• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 647 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Nonenyl acetate

CAS-No.:13049-88-2
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

cis-3-Nonenyl acetate(Z)-3-Nonenyl acetate
3-Nonen-1-ol, acetate, (3Z)(Z)-3-Nonen-1-yl acetate
Acetic acid 3-nonenyl ester
Pear acetate (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.037 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

0.037 %

Category 5D

0.037 %

Category 11B

0.037 %

Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 648 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Nonenyl acetate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for cis-3-Nonenyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for cis-3-Nonenyl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of cis-3-Nonenyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on cis-3-Nonenyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on cis-3-Nonenyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 649 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

cis-3-Nonenyl acetate• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 650 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellyl acetate

CAS-No.:150-84-5
67601-05-2
141-11-7
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Citronellyl acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-yl acetate
3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-yl acetate
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate
Acetic acid, citronellyl ester
laevo-Citronellyl acetate
3,7-Dimethyloct-6-enyl acetate
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, 1-acetate (3S)6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate (S)(S)-3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1-yl acetate(-)-3,7-dimethyloct-6-enyl acetatealpha-Citronellyl acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-(6-or 7-)octen-1-yl acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-(6-or 7-)octen-1-yl ethanoate
3,7-Dimethyloct-7-en-1-yl acetate
7-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-7-octen-1-yl acetate
3,7-Dimethyl-7-octen-1-yl ethanoate(S)-3,7-Dimethyloct-7-enyl acetate
Rhodinyl acetate
Rhodinyl ethanoate
L-Citronellyl acetate (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.49 %

Category 7A

2.4 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 651 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellyl acetate
Category 2

0.15 %

Category 7B

2.4 %Category 3

2.0 %Category 8

0.23 %

Category 4

2.7 %Category 9

5.4 %Category 5A

0.70 %

Category 10A

0.41 %

Category 5B

0.70 %

Category 10B

16 %Category 5C

0.70 %

Category 11A

0.23 %

Category 5D

0.23 %

Category 11B

0.23 %

Category 6

0.82 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Citronellyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 652 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Citronellyl acetate
The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Citronellyl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Citronellyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Citronellyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Citronellyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 653 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecanone

CAS-No.:2550-52-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cyclohexadecanone
Homoexaltone
Isomuscone (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.25 %

Category 7A

7.4 %Category 2

0.23 %

Category 7B

7.4 %Category 3

4.4 %Category 8

0.37 %

Category 4

4.3 %Category 9

8.4 %Category 5A

1.1 %Category 10A

0.98 %

Category 5B

1.1 %Category 10B

13 %Category 5C

1.1 %Category 11A

0.37 %

Category 5D

0.37 %

Category 11B

0.37 %

Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 654 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecanone
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cyclohexadecanone, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclohexadecanone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cyclohexadecanone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cyclohexadecanone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclohexadecanone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 655 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecanone(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 656 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecenone

CAS-No.:3100-36-588642-03-95365-06-0
2550-59-6
5120-20-7
854373-71-0
854373-70-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Cyclohexadecenone
Cyclohexadec-2-en-1-one
Cyclohexadec-8(7)-en-1-one
8-Cyclohexadecen-1-one, (8E)
(Z)-Cyclohexadec-8-enone
7-Cyclohexadecen-1-one
8-Cyclohexadecen-1-one
Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one mixture of cis and trans isomer
Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one
8-Cyclohexadecen-1-one, (8Z)
8-Cyclohexadecen-1-one, (Z)(Z)-8-Cyclohexadecen-1-one
8-Cyclohexadecenone
cis-Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-on
8-cis-Cyclohexadecen-1-on
7-Cyclohexadecen-1-one, (7Z)
7-Cyclohexadecen-1-one, (7E)
(E)-Cyclohexadec-7-enone
Globanone (commercial name)
Aurelione (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

RECOMMENDATION:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 657 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecenone
Category 1

0.43 %

Category 7A

3.5 %Category 2

0.23 %

Category 7B

3.5 %Category 3

2.2 %Category 8

0.14 %

Category 4

4.3 %Category 9

8.4 %Category 5A

1.1 %Category 10A

7.3 %Category 5B

1.1 %Category 10B

30 %Category 5C

0.43 %

Category 11A

0.14 %

Category 5D

0.14 %

Category 11B

0.14 %

Category 6

0.43 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Cyclohexadecenone, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 658 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Cyclohexadecenone
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Cyclohexadecenone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Cyclohexadecenone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Cyclohexadecenone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Cyclohexadecenone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 659 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol

CAS-No.:60241-53-4
60241-52-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol
Cyclohexanepropanol, α-ethyl-2,2,6-trimethylCyclohexanepropanol, alpha-ethyl-2,2,6-trimethylalpha-Ethyl-2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanepropanol
α-Ethyl-2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanepropanol.alpha.,.beta.,2,2,6-Pentamethylcyclohexanepropanol.α.,.β.,2,2,6-Pentamethylcyclohexanepropanol
3-Methyl-4-(2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexyl)butan-2-ol
4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-methylbutan-2-ol
Cyclohexanepropanol, .α.,.β.,2,2,6-pentamethylCyclohexanepropanol, .alpha.,.beta.,2,2,6-pentamethylMethyltetrahydroionol
Iso-methyl tetrahydroionol
Madranol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.096 %

Category 7A

2.7 %Category 2

0.071 %

Category 7B

2.7 %Category 3

1.4 %Category 8

0.032 %

Category 4

1.3 %Category 9

2.6 %Category 5A

0.34 %

Category 10A

3.4 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 660 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol
Category 5B

0.34 %

Category 10B

9.3 %Category 5C

0.096 %

Category 11A

0.032 %

Category 5D

0.032 %

Category 11B

0.032 %

Category 6

0.096 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3pentanol, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3pentanol and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 661 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol
The IFRA Standard on 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-3-pentanol if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 662 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD(Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane

CAS-No.:58567-11-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:(Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane
Cyclododecane, (ethoxymethoxy)Formaldehyde cyclododecyl ethyl acetal
Amber decane
Amberwood
2-Cyclododecyl propanol
Amberwood F (commercial name)
Boisambrene forte (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.27 %

Category 7A

3.1 %Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

3.1 %Category 3

1.6 %Category 8

0.13 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

11 %Category 5B

0.38 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.38 %

Category 11A

0.13 %

Category 5D

0.13 %

Category 11B

0.13 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 663 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD(Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane
Category 6

0.49 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for (Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane,which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for (Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of (Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on (Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on (Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 664 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD(Ethoxymethoxy)-cyclododecane
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 665 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal

CAS-No.:62439-42-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal
Heptanal, 6-hydroxy-2,6-dimethyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.22 %

Category 7A

1.8 %Category 2

0.066 %

Category 7B

1.8 %Category 3

1.3 %Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.4 %Category 5A

0.32 %

Category 10A

0.91 %

Category 5B

0.32 %

Category 10B

8.7 %Category 5C

0.32 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

Category 6

0.73 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 666 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanalwith IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanaland recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 667 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

6-Hydroxy-2,6-dimethylheptanal(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 668 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isobutyl cinnamate

CAS-No.:122-67-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Isobutyl cinnamate
2-Methylpropyl 3-phenylpropenoate
2-Methylpropyl beta-phenylacrylate
2-Methylpropyl β-phenylacrylate
2-Methylpropyl cinnamate
2-Propenoic acid, 3-phenyl-, 2-methylpropyl ester
Isobutyl 3-phenylacrylate
Isobutyl 3-phenylpropenoate
Isobutyl beta-phenylacrylate
Labdanol
3-Phenylpropenoic acid isobutyl ester
2-methylpropyl (E)-3-phenylprop-2-enoate

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.22 %

Category 7A

2.5 %Category 2

0.066 %

Category 7B

2.5 %Category 3

1.3 %Category 8

0.11 %

Category 4

1.2 %Category 9

2.4 %Category 5A

0.32 %

Category 10A

0.55 %

Category 5B

0.32 %

Category 10B

0.55 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 669 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isobutyl cinnamate
Category 5C

0.32 %

Category 11A

0.11 %

Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

0.11 %

Category 6

0.73 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isobutyl cinnamate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isobutyl cinnamate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Isobutyl cinnamate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isobutyl cinnamate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isobutyl cinnamate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 670 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isobutyl cinnamate
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 671 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenyl acetate

CAS-No.:93-29-8
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Isoeugenyl acetate
2-Methoxy-4-prop-1-en-1-ylphenyl acetate
2-Methoxy-4-propenylphenyl acetate
4-Acetoxy-3-methoxy-1-(1-propen-1-yl)benzene
Acetisoeugenol
Acetyl isoeugenol
Isoeugenol acetate
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)-, acetate
1-Acetoxy-2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene
Acetic acid isoeugenyl ester

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.18 %

Category 7A

0.061 %

Category 2

0.053 %

Category 7B

0.061 %

Category 3

0.061 %

Category 8

0.020 %

Category 4

0.99 %

Category 9

0.20 %

Category 5A

0.25 %

Category 10A

0.061 %

Category 5B

0.061 %

Category 10B

0.45 %

Category 5C

0.082 %

Category 11A

0.020 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 672 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenyl acetate
Category 5D

0.020 %

Category 11B

0.020 %

Category 6

0.020 %

Category 12

16 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Isoeugenyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Isoeugenyl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Isoeugenyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Isoeugenyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Isoeugenyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 673 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Isoeugenyl acetate
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 674 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate

CAS-No.:68966-86-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate
Bicyclo[2.2.2]oct-5-ene-2-carboxylic acid, 1(or 4)-methyl-4(or 1)-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl
ester
Methyl 4(or 1)-isopropyl-1(or 4)-methylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-5-ene-2-carboxylate
Mahagonat (commercial name)
Poivrol (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.17 %

Category 7A

0.85 %

Category 2

0.050 %

Category 7B

0.85 %

Category 3

0.85 %

Category 8

0.080 %

Category 4

0.94 %

Category 9

1.8 %Category 5A

0.24 %

Category 10A

2.0 %Category 5B

0.24 %

Category 10B

6.6 %Category 5C

0.24 %

Category 11A

0.080 %

Category 5D

0.080 %

Category 11B

0.080 %

Category 6

0.17 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 675 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-Methyl-1-propan-2ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-Methyl-1-propan-2ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different productcategories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of 4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct2-ene-8-carboxylate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate is based on at least
one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate if available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 676 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-Methyl-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[2.2.2]oct-2-ene-8-carboxylate
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 677 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl vanillyl ether

CAS-No.:5533-03-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methyl vanillyl ether
2-Methoxy-4-(methoxymethyl)phenol
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(methoxymethyl)4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzyl methyl ether
Mevanyl (commercial name)
Vani-White (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.065 %

Category 7A

0.065 %

Category 2

0.080 %

Category 7B

0.065 %

Category 3

0.065 %

Category 8

0.022 %

Category 4

1.5 %Category 9

2.9 %Category 5A

0.38 %

Category 10A

5.8 %Category 5B

0.065 %

Category 10B

11 %Category 5C

0.065 %

Category 11A

0.022 %

Category 5D

0.022 %

Category 11B

0.022 %

Category 6

0.065 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 678 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl vanillyl ether
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methyl vanillyl ether, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methyl vanillyl ether andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methyl vanillyl ether in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methyl vanillyl ether is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methyl vanillyl ether if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 679 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methyl vanillyl ether• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 680 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Myraldyl acetate

CAS-No.:72403-67-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Myraldyl acetate3(or 4)-(4-Methylpenten-3-yl)cyclohex-3-ene-1-methyl acetate
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, 3(or 4)-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-, acetate4(or 3)-(4-Methyl-3-pentenyl)-3-cyclohexenylmethyl acetate & isomers

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.077 %

Category 7A

0.88 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.88 %

Category 3

0.46 %

Category 8

0.045 %

Category 4

0.43 %

Category 90.84 %

Category 5A

0.11 %

Category 10A

3.0 %Category 5B

0.11 %

Category 10B

3.0 %Category 5C

0.11 %

Category 11A

1.7 %Category 5D

0.11 %

Category 11B

1.7 %Category 6

0.25 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 681 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Myraldyl acetate
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Myraldyl acetate, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Myraldyl acetate andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Myraldyl acetate in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Myraldyl acetate is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Myraldyl acetate if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 682 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Myraldyl acetate
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 683 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)

CAS-No.:68991-96-8
68991-97-9
68738-96-5
68738-94-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, octahydro-8,8-dimethylDimethyloctahydro-2-naphthaldehyde
Octahydro-8,8-dimethyl-2-naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
Octahydro-8,8-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, octahydro-5,5-dimethylOctahydro-5,5-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-5,5-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-5,5-dimethyl5,5-Dimethyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2-naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-8,8-dimethyl-2-naphthaldehyde
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-8,8-dimethyl8,8-Dimethyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2-naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
Melafleur (commercial name)
Cyclemone A (commercial name)
Cyclomeral (commercial name)
Cyclomyral (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.38 %

Category 7A

4.4 %Category 2

0.11 %

Category 7B

4.4 %Category 3

2.3 %Category 8

0.23 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 684 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)
Category 4

2.1 %Category 9

4.2 %Category 5A

0.54 %

Category 10A

15 %Category 5B

0.54 %

Category 10B

15 %Category 5C

0.54 %

Category 11A

8.3 %Category 5D

0.54 %

Category 11B

8.3 %Category 6

1.3 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2carbaldehyde (mixed isomers), which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 685 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers)
categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrations of Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) is based on atleast one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Octahydro-dimethylnaphthalene-2-carbaldehyde (mixed isomers) if
available
at
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 686 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-Cresol

CAS-No.:106-44-5
1319-77-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

106-44-5:
p-Cresol
1-Hydroxy-4-methylbenzene
1-Methyl-4-hydroxybenzene
4-Cresol
4-Methylphenol
para-Cresol
p-Cresylic acid
Phenol, 4-methylp-Hydroxytoluene
p-Methylphenol
1319-77-3:
Cresols
Cresol (mixed isomers)
Cresol, pure
Methylphenol
Mixed cresols
Phenol, methyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0050 %Category 7A

0.0050 %Category 2

0.0050 %Category 7B

0.0050 %Category 3

0.0050 %Category 80.0017 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 687 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-CresolCategory 4

0.0050 %Category 9

0.0050 %Category 5A

0.0050 %Category 10A

0.0050 %Category 5B

0.0050 %Category 10B

0.0050 %Category 5C

0.0050 %Category 11A

0.0017 %Category 5D

0.0017 %Category 11B

0.0017 %Category 6

0.0050 %Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:SEE ANNEX ON
OTHER SOURCESINTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DEPIGMENTATIONDRIVING

RISKCONTRIBUTIONSFROMRIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for p-Cresol, which can be downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for p-Cresol and recommends theconcentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable concentrationsof p-Cresol in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 688 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

p-Cresol
The IFRA Standard on p-Cresol is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on p-Cresol if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 689 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Phenoxyacetaldehyde

CAS-No.:2120-70-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Phenoxyacetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde, phenoxyCortex aldehyde 50
2-Phenoxyacetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde, 2-phenoxy-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.045 %

Category 7A

0.24 %

Category 2

0.014 %

Category 7B

0.24 %

Category 3

0.27 %

Category 8

0.021 %

Category 4

0.25 %

Category 9

0.49 %

Category 5A

0.064 %

Category 10A

0.48 %

Category 5B

0.064 %

Category 10B

1.8 %Category 5C

0.064 %

Category 11A

0.021 %

Category 5D

0.021 %

Category 11B

0.021 %

Category 6

0.15 %

Category 12

No restriction

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 690 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Phenoxyacetaldehyde
FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Phenoxyacetaldehyde, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Phenoxyacetaldehyde andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Phenoxyacetaldehyde in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Phenoxyacetaldehyde is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Phenoxyacetaldehyde if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 691 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Phenoxyacetaldehyde• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 692 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvomenthone

CAS-No.:499-70-759471-80-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Carvomenthone
trans-p-Menthan-2-one
p-Menthan-2-one
trans-5-Isopropyl-2-methylcyclohexan-1-one
5-Isopropyl-2-methylcyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, transTetrahydrocarvone
Cyclohexanone, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.0019 %Category 7A

0.0019 %Category 2

0.0019 %Category 7B

0.0019 %Category 3

0.0019 %Category 80.00064 %Category 4

1.9 %Category 9

0.054 %

Category 5A

0.079 %

Category 10A

0.0019 %Category 5B

0.0019 %Category 10B

0.0019 %Category 5C

0.019 %

Category 11A

0.00064 %Category 5D

0.00064 %Category 11B

0.00064 %2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 693 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvomenthone
Category 6

0.027 %

Category 12

0.0019 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Carvomenthone, which can be
downloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Carvomenthone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Carvomenthone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Carvomenthone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Carvomenthone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety
Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 694 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Carvomenthone
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 695 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone

CAS-No.:98-53-3
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone
para-tert-Butylcyclohexanone
p-tert-Butylcyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.027 %

Category 7A

0.26 %

Category 2

0.0080 %Category 7B

0.26 %

Category 3

0.16 %

Category 8

0.013 %

Category 4

0.15 %

Category 9

0.29 %

Category 5A

0.038 %

Category 10A

0.13 %

Category 5B

0.038 %

Category 10B

0.52 %

Category 5C

0.038 %

Category 11A

0.013 %

Category 5D

0.013 %

Category 11B

0.013 %

Category 6

0.088 %

Category 12

58 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 696 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMICTOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 697 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

4-tert-Butylcyclohexanone
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 698 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene

CAS-No.:53767-86-5
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene
1-Octene, 7-methoxy-3,7-dimethyl-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.000010 %Category 7A

0.000010 %Category 2

0.000010 %Category 7B

0.000010 %Category 3

0.000010 %Category 80.0000033 %Category 40.000010 %Category 9

0.0042 %Category 5A

0.042 %

Category 10A

0.000010 %Category 5B

0.000010 %Category 10B

0.61 %

Category 5C

0.000010 %Category 11A

0.0000033 %Category 5D

0.0000033 %Category 11B

0.0000033 %Category 6

0.000010 %Category 12

0.1 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 699 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:SYSTEMIC TOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene,
which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene
and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum
acceptable concentrations of 7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene if available at the RIFM Fragrance
Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 700 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloct-1-ene(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 701 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxycyclododecane

CAS-No.:2986-54-1
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

Methoxycyclododecane
Cyclododecane, methoxyCyclododecyl methyl ether
Palisandin

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.000010 %Category 7A

0.012 %

Category 2

0.023 %

Category 7B

0.012 %

Category 3

0.0015 %Category 80.0000033 %Category 4

0.43 %

Category 9

0.026 %

Category 5A

0.018 %

Category 10A

0.0092 %Category 5B

0.0046 %Category 10B

0.16 %

Category 5C

0.000010 %Category 11A

0.0000033 %Category 5D

0.0000033 %Category 11B

0.0000033 %Category 6

0.000010 %Category 12

0.18 %FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts of2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 702 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxycyclododecane
fragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:SYSTEMIC TOXICITYDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for Methoxycyclododecane, which canbedownloaded
from
the
RIFM
Fragrance
Material
SafetyAssessment
Center:http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for Methoxycyclododecane andrecommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptableconcentrations of Methoxycyclododecane in the various product categories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on Methoxycyclododecane is based on at least one of the following publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on Methoxycyclododecane if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 703 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

Methoxycyclododecane
aquatic
risk
assessment.
Environ(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).

ToxicolChem.

2002;21:1301-1308

Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 704 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran

CAS-No.:10599-70-9
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran
1-(2,5-Dimethyl-3-furyl)ethanone
2,5-Dimethyl-3-acetylfuran
Ethanone, 1-(2,5-dimethyl-3-furanyl)-

History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

August 30, 2023

For existing creation*:
July 30, 2024
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.

RECOMMENDATION:

PROHIBITIONFRAGRANCE INGREDIENT PROHIBITION:

3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran should not be used as afragrance ingredient.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:GENOTOXICITYDRIVING

RISK

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:
The material 3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran has been reviewed by the Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety withthe conclusion that it cannot be safely used as a fragrance ingredient. If the material is found as an impurity
in other fragrance ingredients, leading to trace level presence in finished products, please check the latest
version of the Guidance to the IFRA Standards for the respective IFRA procedure.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran is based on at least one of the following publications:2023 (Amendment 51)

1/2

Page 705 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 3-Acetyl-2,5-dimethylfuran if available at the RIFM Fragrance Material
Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquaticrisk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
• Takasu, S. et al. 2022, Comprehensive evaluation of general toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of
3 acetyl 2,5 dimethylfuran using gpt delta rats (P-70)• Kamatsu, T et al. 2021. Development of a new quantitative structure-activity relationship model for
predicting Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals using StarDrop™ autoModeller™. Genes andEnvironment 43 (16).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org

2023 (Amendment 51)

2/2

Page 706 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)-

CAS-No.:358331-95-0357650-26-1
847144-75-6
The scope of this Standard includes, but is not limited to the CAS number(s) indicatedabove; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should beconsidered in scope as well.

Synonyms:

2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)(2E,5Z)-5,6,7-Trimethylocta-2,5-dien-4-one
2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E,5Z)2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E,5E)(2E,5E)-5,6,7-Trimethylocta-2,5-dien-4-one
Pomarose (commercial name)History:

Publication date:

Implementation
dates:

2023 (Amendment 51)

Previous
Publications:

For new creation*:

Not applicable

March 30, 2024

For existing creation*:
October 30, 2025
*These dates apply to the supply of fragrance mixtures (formulas) only, not to thefinished consumer products in the marketplace.
RESTRICTION

RECOMMENDATION:

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT (%):
Category 1

0.019 %

Category 7A

0.22 %

Category 2

0.0057 %Category 7B

0.22 %

Category 3

0.12 %

Category 8

0.011 %

Category 4

0.11 %

Category 9

0.21 %

Category 5A

0.027 %

Category 10A

0.75 %

Category 5B

0.027 %

Category 10B

0.75 %

Category 5C

0.027 %

Category 11A

0.42 %

Category 5D

0.027 %

Category 11B

0.42 %

2023 (Amendment 51)

1/3

Page 707 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)Category 6

0.063 %

Category 12

No restriction

FLAVOR REQUIREMENTS:

Due to the possible ingestion of small amounts offragrance ingredients from their use in products in
Categories 1 and 6, materials must not only comply
with IFRA Standards but must also be recognized
as safe as a flavoring ingredient as defined by the
IOFI Code of Practice (www.iofi.org). For moredetails see chapter 1 of the Guidance for the use of
IFRA Standards.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES:NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE
ALSO THE SECTION ON CONTRIBUTIONSFROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRASTANDARDS)

INTRINSICPROPERTY
MANAGEMENT:

DERMAL SENSITIZATIONDRIVINGRISK

RIFM SUMMARIES:

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, consideringvarious endpoints. Depending on the outcome of the safety assessment, it might be one or more
endpoint(s) that will drive the derivation of the concentration levels. If more than one endpoint is of
relevance, the maximum acceptable concentrations for each product category are derived from comparing
maximum permitted level per endpoint consideration (e.g. dermal sensitization and/or systemic toxicity).
Such maximum acceptable concentrations correspond to the lowest level obtained per category.
Additional information is available in the RIFM safety assessment for 2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-,(2E)-, which can be downloaded from the RIFM Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center:
http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/.
EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:The Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety reviewed all the available data for 2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7trimethyl-, (2E)- and recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are themaximum acceptable concentrations of 2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)- in the various productcategories.
REFERENCES:
The IFRA Standard on 2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)- is based on at least one of the following
publications:• The RIFM Safety Assessment on 2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)- if available at the RIFM
Fragrance Material Safety Assessment Center: http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com• Api A.M., Belsito D., Bruze M., Cadby P., Calow P., Dagli M. L., Dekant W., Dent M., Ellis G., Fryer A. D.,
2023 (Amendment 51)

2/3

Page 708 of 709

Amendment 51

IFRA STANDARD

2,5-Octadien-4-one, 5,6,7-trimethyl-, (2E)Fukayama M., Griem P., Hickey C., Kromidas L., Lalko J., Liebler D.C., Miyachi Y., Politano V.T., Renskers
K., Ritacco G., Salvito D., Schultz T.W., Sipes I. G., Smith B., Vitale D., Wilcox D.K. (2015). Criteria for the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients.
Food
Chem
Toxicol.
2015
Aug;82
Suppl:S1-S19(http://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Criteria_Document_Final.pdf).
• Salvito D.T., Senna R. J., Federle T.W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials foraquatic
risk
assessment.
EnvironToxicolChem.
2002;21:1301-1308(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069318).
Additional information on the application of IFRA Standards is available in the Guidance for the use of IFRA
Standards, publicly available at www.ifrafragrance.org.

2023 (Amendment 51)

3/3

Page 709 of 709

More on IFRA
ifrafragrance.org
Online IFRA Standards Libraryifrastandards.org