Isopentylcyclohexanone 236

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) indicated
above; any other CAS number(s) used to identify this fragrance ingredient should be
considered 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: 2023 (Amendment 51) Previous Not applicable

Publications:
Implementation For new creation*: March 30, 2024

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

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 of

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 more
details 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 CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM OTHER SOURCES IN CHAPTER 1 OF
THE GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF IFRA
STANDARDS)
INTRINSIC PROPERTY DRIVING RISK DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMIC

MANAGEMENT: TOXICITY
RIFM SUMMARIES:
Maximum acceptable concentrations 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 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 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 Isopentylcyclohexanone and
recommends the concentrations for the 12 different product categories, which are the maximum acceptable
concentrations 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

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
aquatic risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 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

Isopentylcyclohexanone 236

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isopentylcyclohexanone 236

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isopentylcyclohexanone 236

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amendment 51 IFRA STANDARD

History: Publication date: 2023 (Amendment 51) Previous Not applicable

Implementation For new creation*: March 30, 2024

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

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 of

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES: NONE TO CONSIDER BEYOND TRACES (SEE

INTRINSIC PROPERTY DRIVING RISK DERMAL SENSITIZATION AND SYSTEMIC

Maximum acceptable concentrations are based on a comprehensive safety assessment, considering

EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE SAFETY RATIONALE / CONCLUSION:

2023 (Amendment 51) 2/3

2023 (Amendment 51) 3/3

You might also like