Metabolism of methyl n-amyl ketone (2-heptanone) and its binding to DNA of rat liver in vivo and in vitro

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-tridecanone, CAS Registry Number 593-08-8

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Tridecanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, photoirritation/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that 2-tridecanone is not expected to be genotoxic and provide a calculated Margin of Exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that there are no safety concerns for 2-tridecanone for skin sensitization under the current declared levels of use. The photoirritation/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet/visible (UV/Vis) spectra; 2-tridecanone is not expected to be photoirritating/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to 2-tridecanone is below the TTC (0.47 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 2-Tridecanone was found not to be Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-decanone, CAS Registry Number 693-54-9

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 2-Decanone was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) show that 2-decanone is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across analog 2-heptanone (CAS # 110-43-0) provide a calculated margin of exposure (MOE) > 100 for the repeated dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity endpoints. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the dermal sensitization threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm²); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; 2-decanone is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. For the local respiratory endpoint, a calculated MOE >100 was provided by the read-across analog 4-methyl-2-pentanone (CAS # 108-10-1). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; for the hazard assessment based on the screening data, 2-decanone is not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards. For the risk assessment, 2-decanone was not able to be risk screened as there were no reported volumes of use for either North America or Europe in the 2015 IFRA Survey.

Airborne concentrations of volatile organic compounds in neonatal incubators

OBJECTIVE

To identify and quantify airborne volatile organic compounds (VOCs) inside neonatal incubators during various modes of operation within the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) environment.

STUDY DESIGN

Air samples were taken from 10 unoccupied incubators in four operational settings along with ambient air samples using air sampling canisters. The samples were analyzed following EPA TO-15 using a Tekmar AutoCan interfaced to Agilent 6890 Gas Chromatograph with a 5973 Mass Spectrometer calibrated for 60 EPA TO-15 method target compounds. Non-target compounds were tentatively identified using mass spectral interpretation and with a mass spectral library created by National Institute for Standards and Technology.

RESULT

Two non-target compounds, 2-heptanone and n-butyl acetate, were found at elevated concentrations inside the incubators compared with ambient room air samples. Increase in temperature and addition of humidity produced further increased concentrations of these compounds. Their identities were verified by mass spectra and relative retention times using authentic standards. They were quantified using vinyl acetate and 2-hexanone as surrogate standards.

CONCLUSION

The emission pattern of these two compounds and background measurements indicate that they originate inside the incubator. There is evidence that exposure to some VOCs may adversely impact the fetal and developing infants' health. Currently, as there is no definitive information available on the effects of acute or chronic low-level exposure to these compounds in neonates, future studies evaluating the health effects of neonatal exposure to these VOCs are needed.

Methods for testing compounds for DNA adduct formation

This article, based on a presentation on DNA adduct detection given at a Genetic Toxicology Association workshop, is an overview of methods used for testing compounds for DNA adduct formation. A DNA adduct study may be initiated on a case by case basis when there are conflicting results within the standard battery of genetic toxicology tests or when tumors are detected in the animal bioassay for nongenotoxic compounds. Methods for adduct detection include the 32P-postlabeling assay, the use of radioactive test chemicals, physicochemical methods, and immunoassays. Of these, the 32P-postlabeling assay and the use of radiochemicals are discussed in greater detail, since only these two methods are readily applicable to test a compound for the formation of uncharacterized DNA adducts. The other methods are applicable to those adducts that have been chemically characterized or that contain a fluorophore or electrochemically active groups. Evaluation of mutagenic and carcinogenic risk from DNA adducts would require the understanding of various parameters, including the chemical nature, quantity and stability of adducts, proliferation rates for target cells to fix adducts into mutations, mutagenic and repair efficiencies of adducts, and the extent of modifications in critical genes. Since such data cannot be readily obtainable, the toxicological risk from uncharacterized adducts is difficult to assess.

The lack of binding of methyl-n-amyl ketone (MAK) to rat liver DNA as demonstrated by direct binding measurements, and 32P-postlabeling techniques

It has been reported that 14C-labeled methyl-n-amyl ketone (MAK, 2-heptanone) is able to bind spontaneously, in vitro, to isolated rat liver DNA to the extent of 400 pmol/mg DNA; and that 14C-MAK, when given by gavage to female Fischer 344 rats, resulted in HPLC chromatograms of isolated, hydrolyzed liver DNA in which some radiolabel was not associated with the four normal DNA bases dA, dT, dC, and dG. The present studies were undertaken to re-examine the hypothesis that MAK is able to bind to rat liver DNA. In the in vitro study, liver nuclear DNA was incubated with [2-14C]-labeled MAK (25 mCi/mmol) in the absence, or in the presence of rat liver microsomes, precipitated, washed free of unbound MAK, and counted by scintillation spectrometry. No binding to DNA by MAK was detectable. In the in vivo study, groups of five female F344 rats were exposed by inhalation to 0, 80, 400, or 1000 ppm MAK for 6 h/day for 10 days. DNA was purified from the liver nuclei of the 0 and 1000 ppm dosed animals, and 32P-postlabeling techniques were used to assay for adducts. No DNA adducts were detected using these techniques. It was concluded that MAK lacks the ability to bind to rat liver DNA in vitro and in vivo.