D. Salvito

Explaining differences between bioaccumulation measurements in laboratory and field data through use of a probabilistic modeling approach.

In the regulatory context, bioaccumulation assessment is often hampered by substantial data uncertainty as well as by the poorly understood differences often observed between results from laboratory and field bioaccumulation studies. Bioaccumulation is a complex, multifaceted process, which calls for accurate error analysis. Yet, attempts to quantify and compare propagation of error in bioaccumulation metrics across species and chemicals are rare. Here, we quantitatively assessed the combined influence of physicochemical, physiological, ecological, and environmental parameters known to affect bioaccumulation for 4 species and 2 chemicals, to assess whether uncertainty in these factors can explain the observed differences among laboratory and field studies. The organisms evaluated in simulations including mayfly larvae, deposit-feeding polychaetes, yellow perch, and little owl represented a range of ecological conditions and biotransformation capacity. The chemicals, pyrene and the polychlorinated biphenyl congener PCB-153, represented medium and highly hydrophobic chemicals with different susceptibilities to biotransformation. An existing state of the art probabilistic bioaccumulation model was improved by accounting for bioavailability and absorption efficiency limitations, due to the presence of black carbon in sediment, and was used for probabilistic modeling of variability and propagation of error. Results showed that at lower trophic levels (mayfly and polychaete), variability in bioaccumulation was mainly driven by sediment exposure, sediment composition and chemical partitioning to sediment components, which was in turn dominated by the influence of black carbon. At higher trophic levels (yellow perch and the little owl), food web structure (i.e., diet composition and abundance) and chemical concentration in the diet became more important particularly for the most persistent compound, PCB-153. These results suggest that variation in bioaccumulation assessment is reduced most by improved identification of food sources as well as by accounting for the chemical bioavailability in food components. Improvements in the accuracy of aqueous exposure appear to be less relevant when applied to moderate to highly hydrophobic compounds, because this route contributes only marginally to total uptake. The determination of chemical bioavailability and the increase in understanding and qualifying the role of sediment components (black carbon, labile organic matter, and the like) on chemical absorption efficiencies has been identified as a key next steps.

Effects of the polycyclic musk HHCB on individual- and population-level endpoints in Potamopyrgus antipodarum.

Although the polycyclic musk 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta[gamma]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) is frequently detected in aquatic sediments, very little is known about its effects on sediment-feeding organisms. Effects of sediment-associated HHCB on growth, feeding rate, survival and reproduction in the gastropod Potamopyrgus antipodarum were measured in the laboratory. Snails were exposed to six nominal HHCB concentrations: 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 30 and 100microg g(-1) dry weight (dw) sediment. Adult survival and growth were not affected by HHCB. However, juvenile growth and survival, reproduction, time to first reproduction and adult feeding rate were more sensitive endpoints and declined with increasing HHCB concentration. Individual-level endpoints for P. antipodarum were integrated into a population model to investigate the effects of HHCB on population growth rate. Under otherwise favorable laboratory conditions, population growth rate was slightly (by ca. 2%), but not significantly, reduced with increasing HHCB exposure concentration. Model simulations were performed to explore the consequences of HHCB exposure under more ecologically realistic conditions (i.e., survival and reproduction of unexposed snails were markedly reduced relative to the laboratory). The results suggest that despite detectable effects of HHCB on individual-level endpoints measured in the laboratory, impacts on population dynamics of this deposit feeder are not likely to occur at environmentally relevant exposure concentrations.

Occurrence and ecological risk assessment of emerging organic chemicals in urban rivers: Guangzhou as a case study in China

Urban rivers may receive contamination from various sources including point sources like domestic sewage and nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff), resulting in contamination with various chemicals. This study investigated the occurrence of emerging organic contaminants (3 endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), and 17 pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)) in six urban rivers of a representative subtropical city, Guangzhou (southern China). Our results showed that EDCs and personal care products were frequently detected in the water phase and sediment phase. 4-nonylphenol (4-NP) was the most predominant compound with the highest concentration of 5050ng/L in the water phase and 14,400ng/g dry weight (dw) in the sediment. Generally, higher total concentrations of EDCs and PPCPs were detected in the four urban streams compared to the main stream Zhujiang River and the Liuxi River at the suburb area. A screening-level risk assessment showed that 4-nonylphenol and triclosan (TCS) pose potential risks to aquatic organisms in most sampling sites. For individual taxa, 4-NP may pose risks to various groups of aquatic organisms, while TCS only might pose high risks to algae. CAPSULE Higher contamination of EDCs and PPCPs was observed in rivers in urban area; 4-nonylphenol and triclosan showed RQs>1 in >70% of the reported area.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl anthranilate, CAS registry number 87-25-2

a Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677, USA b Department of Dermatology, Member RIFM Expert Panel, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY 10032, USA c Department of Occupational & Environmental Dermatology, Member RIFM Expert Panel, Malmo University Hospital, Sodra Forstadsgatan 101, Entrance 47, Malmo SE-20502, Sweden d Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Nebraska Lincoln, 230 Whittier Research Center, Lincoln, NE 68583-0857, USA e Department of Pathology, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Sao Paulo CEP 05508-900, Brazil f Department of Toxicology, Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Wuerzburg, Versbacher Str. 9, Würzburg 97078, Germany g Member RIFM Expert Panel, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97239, USA h Department of Biochemistry, Center in Molecular Toxicology, Member RIFM Expert Panel, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 638 Robinson Research Building, 2200 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-0146, USA i Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Dermatology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 6068507, Japan j Department of Comparative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Member RIFM Expert Panel, The University of Tennessee, 2407 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-4500, USA k Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245050, Tucson, AZ 85724-5050, USA

Fate and effects of acetyl cedrene in sediments inhabited by different densities of the deposit feeder, Capitella teleta

Fragrance materials, such as acetyl cedrene (AC), are of environmental concern because they are continuously released to aquatic systems down the drain. In the present study, Capitella teleta (formerly Capitella capitata species I) was exposed to AC-amended sediment at two population densities corresponding to 44,000 and 88,000 worms/m(2). The fate of AC in systems with worms was compared to that in identical systems without worms. We examined the toxicity of AC on worm survival, growth, and feeding rate, and quantified the fate of AC in exposure systems by mass balance. Worm survival was close to 100% in all treatments. Acetyl cedrene had some positive effects on worm growth, but not feeding, whereas density had negative effects on both growth and feeding rates. After 14 d, the sediment concentration of AC was reduced by 88 to 99% in the presence of worms, whereas sediment AC concentration was reduced by 13 to 31% or less in the absence of worms. Acetyl cedrene was detected in fecal pellets, at low concentrations compared to the initial concentration in the sediment, but not in worm tissue, suggesting that ingested AC is bioavailable to Capitella teleta and that worms can biotransform sediment-associated AC effectively.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Linalool, CAS registry number 78-70-6.

a Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677 USA b Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY 10032, USA c Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Occupational & Environmental Dermatology, Malmo University Hospital, Sodra Forstadsgatan 101, Entrance 47, Malmo SE-20502, Sweden d Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Nebraska Lincoln, 230 Whittier Research Center, Lincoln, NE 68583-0857 USA e Member RIFM Expert Panel, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Pathology, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Sao Paulo CEP 05508-900, Brazil f Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg, Versbacher Str. 9, Wurzburg 97078, Germany g Member RIFM Expert Panel, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97239 USA h Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Biochemistry, Center in Molecular Toxicology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 638 Robinson Research Building, 2200 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-0146, USA i Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Dermatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 6068507, Japan j Member RIFM Expert Panel, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Comparative Medicine, The University of Tennessee, 2407 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-4500, USA k Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245050, Tucson, AZ 85724-5050, USA

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, benzyl isobutyrate, CAS Registry Number 103-28-6

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, benzyl isobutyrate, CAS Registry Number 103-28-6 A.M. Api a, , D. Belsito , S. Bhatia , M. Bruze , P. Calow , M.L. Dagli , W. Dekant , A.D. Fryer , L. Kromidas , S. La Cava , J.F. Lalko , A. Lapczynski , D.C. Liebler , V.T. Politano , G. Ritacco , D. Salvito , T.W. Schultz , J. Shen , I.G. Sipes , B. Wall , D.K. Wilcox a a Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677, USA b Member RIFM Expert Panel, Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 161 Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY 10032, USA c Member RIFM Expert Panel, Malmo University Hospital, Department of Occupational & Environmental Dermatology, Sodra Forstadsgatan 101, Entrance 47, Malmo SE-20502, Sweden d Member RIFM Expert Panel, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA e Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Sao Paulo, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Pathology, Av. Prof. dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Sao Paulo CEP 05508-900, Brazil f Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Wuerzburg, Department of Toxicology, Versbacher Str. 9, 97078 Würzburg, Germany g Member RIFM Expert Panel, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97239, USA h Member RIFM Expert Panel, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry, Center in Molecular Toxicology, 638 Robinson Research Building, 2200 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-0146, USA i Member RIFM Expert Panel, The University of Tennessee, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Comparative Medicine, 2407 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-4500, USA j Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pharmacology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245050, Tucson, AZ 85724-5050, USA

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, borneol, CAS registry number 507-70-0.

a Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677, USA b Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY 10032, USA c Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Occupational & Environmental Dermatology, Malmo University Hospital, Sodra Forstadsgatan 101, Entrance 47, Malmo SE-20502, Sweden d Member RIFM Expert Panel, 230 Whittier Research Center, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0857, USA e Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pathology, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Sao Paulo CEP 05508-900, Brazil f Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg, Versbacher Str. 9, 97078 Würzburg, Germany g Member RIFM Expert Panel, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97239, USA h Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Biochemistry, Center in Molecular Toxicology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 638 Robinson Research Building, 2200 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232-0146, USA i Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Dermatology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 6068507, Japan j Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Comparative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Tennessee, 2407 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996-4500, USA k Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245050, Tucson, AZ 85724-5050, USA

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl dihydrojasmonate, CAS registry number 24851-98-7

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl dihydrojasmonate, CAS registry number 24851-98-7 A.M. Api a, D. Belsito b, S. Bhatia a, M. Bruze c, P. Calow d, M.L. Dagli e, W. Dekant f, A.D. Fryer g, L. Kromidas a,*, S. La Cava a, J.F. Lalko a, A. Lapczynski a, D.C. Liebler h, Y. Miyachi i, V.T. Politano a, G. Ritacco a, D. Salvito a, J. Shen a, T.W. Schultz j, I.G. Sipes k, B. Wall a, D.K. Wilcox a

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Linalyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 115-95-7.

Please cite this article as: A.M. Api, D. Belsito, S. Bhatia, M. Bruze, P. Calow, M.L. Dagli, W. Dekant, A.D. Fryer, L. Kromidas, S. La Cava, J.F. Lalko, A. Lapczynski, D.C. Liebler, Y. Miyachi, V.T. Politano, G. Ritacco, D. Salvito, J. Shen, T.W. Schultz, I.G. Sipes, B. Wall, D.K. Wilcox, RIFM FRAGRANCE INGREDIENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT, Linalyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 115-95-7, Food and Chemical Toxicology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.01.010.