|
Fragrance: Emerging Health & Environmental concerns
Products containing scent are a part of daily life. The majority of
cosmetics, toiletries, household and laundry products contain fragrance.
In addition, there is exposure to fragrance from products that are used
to scent the air, such as air fresheners and fragranced candles. In
spite of this widespread use and exposure, there is little information
available on the materials used in fragrance. Fragrance formulas are
considered trade secrets and components that make up the fragrance
portion of the product are not revealed on labels.
Fragrance is increasingly cited as a trigger in health conditions such
as asthma, allergies and migraine headaches. In addition, some fragrance
materials have been found to accumulate in adipose tissue and are
present in breast milk. Other materials are suspected of being hormone
disrupters. The implications are not fully known, as there has been
little evaluation of systemic effects. There are environmental concerns
as well, as fragrances are volatile compounds, which add to both indoor
and outdoor air pollution. Synthetic musk compounds are persistent in
the environment and contaminate waterways and aquatic wildlife.
At present there is little governmental regulation of fragrance. The
fragrance industry has in place a system of self-regulation. However,
the present system has failed to address many of the emerging concerns.
Industry needs to responsibly address concerns and ensure that scented
products are safe for users, those inadvertently exposed and the
environment. It is essential that an industry that is, and wishes to
continue to be, self-regulated should identify and address concerns in a
forthright and responsible manner.
Introduction
Few would want to live in a world without the smell of flowers, the air
after rain, or the subtle perfume worn by a loved one. Scents have the
ability to alter mood and trigger powerful memories that are embedded in
our minds. Research indicates the sense of smell impacts not only
psychological but physical health as well. During the past three decades
the use of scented products has soared. Scented products are used by
every segment of the population. The popularity of fragrance
demonstrates that pleasant scents enrich our lives.
Fragrance is added to toiletries, cosmetics, household products, and a
wide variety of other consumer products. In addition, the use of
products to scent the environment, such as air fresheners and scented
candles, are also very popular. There is exposure from flavors in foods
and beverages as well. The primary focus of this review is fragrance
use.
With this increased usage and exposure there are increased anecdotal and
clinical accounts of fragranced products causing, triggering, and
exacerbating health conditions. Further concerns relate to the
bioaccumulation of fragrance chemicals in human tissue and the long-term
impact. In addition there are environmental concerns as fragranced
products add to both air and water pollution.
There are relatively few studies available in relationship to the
widespread use and exposure to fragranced products. Many of the raw
fragrance materials have little available health and safety data.
Testing by the industry focuses on skin effects without taking into
account respiratory, neurological, or systemic effects. There are no
industry wide monitoring programs to gather data on adverse reactions.
There is little regulation of monitoring of fragrance by regulatory
agencies.
The industry contends that fragrances are safe and have a long history
of use. Furthermore there is in place a system of self-regulation for
testing and determining the safety of fragrance materials. The industry
contends it follows existing regulations and laws. In relationship to
use, negative effects are few and the products are safe. Considering the
tremendous use and exposure, there is limited information available
related to health effects of fragrances. The information available is
widely scattered throughout medical, scientific, and industry literature
and rarely considered as a whole. Economic, political, and social
aspects further complicate the issues. A review of the literature and
available information is needed to access and evaluate concerns.
Regulation
While governmental agencies have some authority over fragrances, this
authority is rarely invoked. In the United States (US), fragrances that
are considered cosmetics, come under the jurisdiction of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). Health Canada is the agency responsible for
cosmetic safety in Canada. In Europe, the European Commission is more
actively monitoring fragrance.
US Regulation
Authority over fragrances is shared between the FDA and the Consumer
Products Safety Commission (CPSC), with some regulatory aspects
regarding air and water contamination involving the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
FDA In the US, fragrances and scented products that are considered
cosmetics come under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
" The FD&C Act defines cosmetics as articles intended to be
applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting
attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body's
structure or functions." (FDA: Cosmetic Labeling Manual October
1991 ( http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-lab1.html
)
Cosmetics are not required to be safety tested before marketing; however
if the safety has not been substantiated a warning label is required.
"Sec. 740.10 (a) Each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and
each finished cosmetic product shall be adequately substantiated for
safety prior to marketing. Any such ingredient or product whose safety
is not adequately substantiated prior to marketing is misbranded unless
it contains the following conspicuous statement on the principal display
panel: Warning-- The safety of this product has not been
determined." (FDA: Prohibited Ingredients and Related Safety Issues
March 30 2000)
There have been no standards established by the FDA as to what
constitutes substantiating safety. Interpretation has been left up to
manufacturers, though it is generally accepted that products should be
safe for intended use and any incidental exposures that may be
reasonably anticipated from that use.
The primary purposes of fragrance are to impart a scent to a product,
mask the odor of other materials in the product, or in some cases alter
mood. In using these products there is exposure to the skin, the upper
airways, olfactory pathways to the brain, and the lungs. All of these
pathways are also entry points into the body, so there is systemic
exposure as well.
Most available health and safety data on fragrance chemicals focus on
skin effects. Respiratory, neurological, and systemic data are not
generally available. Though Material Safety Data Sheets on many
fragrance chemicals clearly state they have not been thoroughly tested,
virtually no fragranced product carries a warning label.
Other than a few materials prohibited, any material may be used as a
fragrance ingredient. The individual components that make up the
fragrance portion do not have to be listed on the label. Only the word
"fragrance" must appear. The fragrance portion of the product
may contain over 100 different materials, some of which are only present
in tiny amounts. Secrecy is often required to protect the formula. It
also would be difficult to have such a large number of ingredients on
the label and still meet the requirements of labeling laws, such as size
of lettering.
Products that contain fragrance used to mask or cover up the odor of
other materials in the product may not have fragrance listed in the
ingredients. Masking fragrance is often used in "unscented"
and "fragrance-free" products. Usually these masking materials
are at low levels. However, they could be problematic to someone that
already has allergy to them - the very people that are most likely to
seek out products without fragrance.
The FDA does have in place a program to report adverse reactions to
cosmetics1 There has been an increase in the number of reported adverse
reactions to fragrance.
EPA The EP A has some developing interest in environmental aspects of
fragrance production and use. Fragrances can impact indoor air quality
and there is suggestive evidence that fragrance, as an indoor air
pollutant, may play a role in exacerbating asthma.
There has also been some activity by the EPA in reducing the volatile
organic compounds, or VOCs, in consumer products. Virtually all the
materials used in fragrances are volatile or semi-volatile compounds.
These materials play a role in the development of smog. The EPA has
taken little regulatory action.
Pesticide products must be registered with the EPA and all ingredients
including fragrance must be revealed. However, the EPA cannot reveal the
ingredients contained in the fragrance portion of pesticides or any
other information deemed to be confidential business information.
In the fall of 1999, two products designed to kill or control dust mites
were introduced in the market place. There were hundreds of complaints
filed regarding adverse reactions to the products. There was a recall in
January of 2000. It was determined by the EP A and the manufacturer that
the "fragrance" in the product was responsible for the adverse
effects. The products were recalled from the marketplace.2 The specific
materials responsible for the adverse effects were not pinpointed. An
opportunity to pinpoint fragrance materials that are problematic for
asthmatics was missed.
High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals are those designated by the EPA
as being produced or imported at levels of 1 million pounds or more. Of
the approximately 3000 materials that meet this definition, 43 percent
have no publicly available basic toxicity information and only 7% have a
full set of basic toxicity information. Basic toxicity information
covers acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, development and reproductive
toxicity, mutagenicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate.
The EPA HPV Chemical program asks industry to provide basic toxicity
information for the chemicals on that list. There are over 50 materials
on the EPA's HPV Chemical list that the fragrance industry has signed up
to provide information on.3
CPSC The Consumer Product Safety Commission or CPSC is responsible for
the safety of consumer products that are not considered cosmetics. There
is no program in place within this agency through which the fragrances
in products are evaluated for safety.
Canadian Regulation
Canadian law requires that labels warn of any avoidable hazards
associated with the product that the consumer should be aware of.
AVOIDABLE HAZARD: Section 24 of the Cosmetic Regulations (Food
and Drugs Act)
(a) danger to the health of the user of a cosmetic that can be predicted
from the composition of the cosmetic, the toxicology of the ingredients,
and the site of intended application; (b) that can reasonably be
anticipated during normal use; and that can be eliminated by specified
limitations on the use of the cosmetic.
Materials used in fragrances are known to be skin sensitizers and are a
frequent cause of skin allergies. Scented products also cause
respiratory and airway irritation in those with asthma and other
respiratory disorders. At present fragranced products in Canada do not
carry a warning of these known avoidable hazards and cosmetics are not
required to list ingredients on the label.
European Commission
The European Commission (EU) is the regulatory body of an alliance of
European nations. It formulates policies that are in the best interest
of its member nations to facilitate trade, travel between member states,
and protect shared resources.
Products do not have to reveal individual ingredients in the fragrance
portion of the product. The word "perfume" substitutes for a
detailed listing of fragrance ingredients. Other than materials
specifically prohibited from being used, any material may be used as a
fragrance ingredient.
A list of over 2000 fragrance chemicals is available, which does not
reflect all of the materials in use by the industry. The list provides
chemical name and identification numbers.4
In Europe, concerns related to fragranced products as skin sensitizers
have been reviewed. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and
Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) has recommended that known skin sensitizers
be listed on the label to allow consumers to avoid products that contain
known allergens. This recommendation is in response to the continuing
increase in dermal allergies to fragrance materials. It is likely that
the European Commission will adopt in some form these recommendations
Since fragrances are an international commodity it is likely that other
countries such as the US and Canada will follow the lead of Europe and
eventually require similar labeling. In addition, concerns related to
fragrances in the environment, such as the persistence in the
environment of synthetic musk compounds, are being explored. Nitromusks
are used less in Europe because of these concerns. Two synthetic musk
compounds were withdrawn from use by the industry when potential health
concerns were discovered.
The EU has also set criteria for labeling of dishwashing detergent and
cleaners that are considered environmentally friendly. To qualify for
the "eco-label" among other criteria, the products must not
contain nitromusks or polycyclic musks that have been shown to persist
in aquatic environments.
Japanese Regulation of Fragrance
Japan has more restrictive regulation of fragrances. Uses of nitromusk
compounds were banned in the early 1980s because of environmental
concerns. Some common sensitizers are prohibited from being used. These
measures have reduced allergies to common fragrance sensitizers in
Japan.
Self-Regulation
By all accounts the fragrance industry is primarily self-regulated. The
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) is the leading U.S.
trade association for the personal care products industry.7 The CTF A
assesses the safety of cosmetics via various programs. It has in place a
program to help dermatologists determine specific allergens, including
fragrance in a product. In real use situations the program is awkward
and time consuming making it difficult to use in clinical settings. It
was reported at the 1999 CTFA Conference that the CTFA would conduct
studies of their own regarding fragrance and asthma.
The self-regulatory system for the fragrance industry is composed of the
Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) and the International
Fragrance Association (IFRA).
RIFM tests and compiles data on raw fragrance materials and not final
formations. Approximately 1,200 materials have been evaluated by the
RIFM. Monographs on these substances have been published in Food and
Chemical Toxicology (formerly Food and Cosmetic Toxicology). It is the
RIFM's policy that materials used by or under control of one company are
not assessed, as it is that company's responsibility to ensure the
product is adequately evaluated. According to Richard Ford of the RIFM,
"It has always been the policy of the RIFM that if a material is
used only by one company, it is that company's responsibility to see
that the material is adequately tested and evaluated."
In early stages of testing by the RIFM, it was found that if similar
materials were tested in the same panel there was a higher incidence of
positive allergic reactions. When these materials were then tested
individually, the results were negative. Testing protocol was
subsequently changed so that similar materials were not used on the same
panels.
Testing by the RIFM does not reflect real use situations. Testing is
usually done on healthy adults, scented products are used on infants,
the aged, and other susceptible populations. Products are a combination
of many materials and may contain several known sensitizers. Even though
only one company may manufacture a material it is often widely used. A
material may be in common use for close to 20 years before it is
evaluated by the RIFM. The last monographs were published in 1992. There
are no published monographs from the RIFM on materials introduced in the
past twenty years.
The results of the screening of these materials are submitted to the
International Fragrance Association. The IFRA then evaluates the data
and formulates guidelines for safe use of the materials. The IFRA has
made recommendations on about 100 fragrance materials. The IFRA
publishes their recommendations or Code of Practice and makes it
available in printed form or at their web site ( http://www.ifraorg.org/
) The IFRA has no authority to enforce the recommendations. Companies
that do not follow them can be expelled from the organization, but to
date no company has been expelled and there is no monitoring to ensure
recommendations are followed.
Health Concerns
With increased usage and exposure, problems have emerged regarding
fragrances. There are concerns for both those that use scented products
and those exposed from others' use. Many of the concerns regarding skin
allergies are well recognized. Other concerns, such as those surrounding
phthalates as possible hormone disrupters and its impact on respiratory
health, are emerging issues in which there are limited data available.
Skin
The vast majority of medical literature available on health effects of
scented products is in the realm of dermatology. Fragrances have been
long recognized as skin allergens and irritants. The skin was thought of
as the primary route of exposure from scented products and up until the
late 1970s the skin was thought to be an effective barrier to fragrance
materials entering the body. Most health and safety concerns related to
fragrance were focused on effects on the skin. It is now recognized that
the skin is not an effective barrier to many substances. The skin is an
entry point for materials into the body. Once entry has been gained,
there is potential for systemic effects.
Fragrance ingredients can be irritants, allergens, photosensitizers,
photo toxins, and they can have other negative effects on the skin. In
spite of the fragrance industry's focus on skin safety of fragrance
materials, dermatologists are usually the ones to pinpoint problematic
materials. Actual real use situations reveal much more than tightly
controlled laboratory testing of singular materials.
The incidence of skin allergy to fragrance has increased with exposure.
A conservative estimate is that 1 -2% of the population has skin allergy
to fragrance. There is a direct correlation between use of scented
products and development of skin allergy to fragrance.
Fragrances are complex mixtures of substances whose interactions with
the skin are affected by many factors. Even though there may be
sensitization to a specific substance, other substances can impact
penetration, distribution, metabolism and interaction. Singular
materials may have a far different effect than complex mixtures.
Some materials used in perfumes alter the surface tension of the skin
and thus can more deeply penetrate the skin. Combinations of materials
can have an impact on absorption. Materials commonly used in fragrance
formulas can increase penetration of the skin. Some terpenes have been
found to significantly enhance dermal absorption of pharmaceuticals. It
is thought that they disrupt the stratum corneum to allow increased
penetration of the skin. Terpenes are common in scented products and are
likely to increase absorption of other materials in products and in the
fragrance portion of the product.
Testing by the RIFM is usually done on healthy adult volunteers whose
skin is intact. It fails to account for more vulnerable populations. One
in ten eczema patients have allergies to fragrances. The rate has
doubled since 1979.
Perfume allergy is one of the most frequent types of contact allergy
among children with eczema. Children, especially children with eczema,
should not use perfume, to avoid developing perfume allergies. Generally
pediatricians and dermatologists recommend scented products not be used
on children. And yet there are many scented products available for
children, many of which contain known skin allergens, sometimes at
levels that exceed industry's recommended use level.
In addition children are exposed to fragrance in many of the same
products as adults such as soaps, laundry products, and toiletries, and
should, particularly if they have perfume allergies, avoid scented
products. Also, as is the case with adults, those with eczema should
avoid skin contact with perfumes to avoid developing fragrance
allergies.
It has been found that there is an additive and probably synergistic
effect when multiple allergens are used in fragrance. By changing
testing protocols so that similar materials were not tested on the same
panel, the RIFM has missed an opportunity to better evaluate real use
situations. In actual use formulas may contain several known sensitizers,
and in some instances higher than industry recommended levels are used.
Such formulations increase the potential for allergies to develop.
Further use of multiple products can expose the skin to numerous
combinations and levels of allergens.
It has also been found that inhalation of some fragrance materials alter
the immune response of the skin. Interestingly it was found that
application of the materials to the skin did not have this same effect.
Problems from fragrance are not limited to people that use scented
products. Airborne contact dermatitis occurs when dermatitis develops
from contact with fragrance materials in the air.16 These cases are much
more difficult to manage as simply avoiding the use of scented products
will not solve the problem. Those seriously impacted often have to
greatly alter their lives to prevent exposure. It has been found there
are other problems as well from fragrance in the air.
Respiratory
Fragrance can induce or worsen respiratory problems. There are
increasing anecdotal and clinical accounts of fragrance triggering and
exacerbating respiratory problems. Fragrances are thought to trigger
asthma and other respiratory conditions due to their irritant effect.
Those with asthma, allergies, sinus problems, rhinitis and other such
conditions are more susceptible to the effects of irritants, often at
levels that are many times lower than what would cause problems in the
general population.
There are some subsets of the population that seem to be specifically
triggered by fragrances often at levels that are too low to be
considered irritants. Whether there is sensitization to specific
materials or some other mechanism involved is difficult to tell. There
are no commercially available tests to determine if specific fragrance
chemicals are respiratory allergens. Lack of information on what is
contained in a fragrance makes it extremely difficult to determine if
specific materials are involved.
In other industries, it has been found that chemicals can act as a
hapten binding with body proteins to form allergens. Some of these
materials are known to cause both skin and respiratory sensitization. It
has also been found that skin contact may playa role in respiratory
sensitization.
Fragrance chemicals are known to act as haptens in the skin and bind
with body proteins to form allergens. This same mechanism is thought to
be involved in development of respiratory sensitization to chemicals.
Several fragrance materials are known to have the potential to cause
respiratory sensitization. When limonene, a common terpene used in
fragrances and cleaners, oxidizes, it forms substances that can
sensitize both the lungs and the skin. Many manufactures add
antioxidants to prevent formation of sensitizing substances.
Concerns surfaced during the 1970s regarding the effects of aerosols. It
was found that hair spray triggered respiratory symptoms in susceptible
populations. The adverse reactions were attributed to the fragrance in
the hair spray. Results from aerosol testing by the industry from the
mid-1970s to the early 1980s concluded the products were safe. However,
the formulations tested are no longer in use and present formulations
are often quite different. This summary was published in December of
1999. It is the only published article on respiratory concerns from the
fragrance industry.
A MEDLINE search using the search terms "perfume AND asthma"
pulls up 22 articles. One was published before 1980; three were
published between 1986-1987, the rest since. Clearly fragrance is an
emerging respiratory concern.
A 1986 survey of asthmatics found that 72% were triggered by perfume
and/or colognes. Four patients with a history of sensitivity to
fragrance underwent respiratory challenges to cologne. Pulmonary
function using forced expiratory volume in one second (FEVI) was
evaluated before, during, and after the challenge. FEVI declined 18 to
58 percent below the baseline period during the 10-minute exposure.
There was a gradual increase in FEVI over the next twenty minutes.
Twenty-nine asthmatics and 13 without asthma were exposed to perfume
strips found in magazines, filter paper impregnated with the perfume
identical to that in the perfume strips, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or
normal saline. It was found that 20.7% of asthmatics experienced chest
tightness and wheezing from the perfume exposures. Those with severe and
atopic asthma were the most severely affected.
Results from a Tulane University study found that popular perfumes are
cited as triggers for asthma. Challenge tests with 6 of these perfumes
caused a significant decrease in FEVI in the 15 asthma patients studied.
There was a twenty-minute perfume exposure with FEVI being measured in
the last ten minutes.
Increases were less than what was expected from their clinical histories
of sensitivity to fragrances. There are several things that may account
for this. If smaller airways were involved clinical symptoms would not
be accurately reflected by FEVI, as it is not an accurate reflection of
small airway involvement. There was no assessment of longer exposures or
of effects that might persist or be delayed.
Since fragrances are odorous substances it is very difficult to
determine if the odor of the product or other properties are responsible
for the effects. Odors are known to trigger adverse reactions even if
the material responsible for the odor is considered harmless.
Eliminating awareness of the odor in order to determine which properties
are responsible for the adverse effects is difficult.
A Swedish study addresses the aspect of odor. Nose clips were used to
block passage of air through the nose. Patients with a history of
sensitivity to perfumes were introduced into rooms in which fragrance
was present or in rooms where fragrance was not present. Triggering of
respiratory symptoms was reported when the patients were exposed to
fragrance. Further testing revealed carbon filter masks did not prevent
symptoms in these patients. This suggests that either such masks did not
filter out the fragrance materials or the symptoms were triggered
through other pathways.
The conclusion was respiratory symptoms can be triggered by exposure via
sensory pathways and further study was needed on the role of the sensory
nervous system. Another study found exposure to five commercially
available fragrances for one hour caused pulmonary irritation and
decreases in airflow velocity in mice.
If fragrance triggers and exacerbates asthma, does it play a role in
causing asthma? There are accounts that implicate fragrance as a cause
of occupational asthma. Perfume in cat litter was cited as a cause for
one case of occupational asthma. A woman that worked demonstrating
perfumes developed asthma to fragrance. A clinical study found that
workers in the perfume industry were among groups with the highest rate
of occupational asthma. A woman sprayed in the face with perfume
developed occupational asthma 30 No specific agents were identified.
Perfume was found to be an environmental factor associated with the
development of asthma in children in the United Arab Emirates. An
epidemiological study of bronchial asthma among children in Moscow found
that children living near perfume factories had a higher incidence of
asthma.
A review of the literature by the Institute of Medicine categorized
exposures as to their impact on triggering and causing asthma. The
conclusion of the study was that their medical literature supports
limited and suggestive evidence that "second hand smoke" (for
school age children and adults), fragrances, and formaldehyde trigger
and exacerbate asthma. There was insufficient evidence to associate
fragrances with causing asthma. The IOM recommended further studies be
done.
There are only a few studies on the impact of fragrances on the
respiratory system. Clearly this is an area that needs to be further
explored.
Asthma rates have soared since the 1970s. It is important to look at
changes that have taken place during this time period that might
contribute to the rising rates. In the past three decades fragrance has
gone from "special occasion" to use of multiple scented
products on a daily basis. According to fragrance industry demographics
Blacks and Hispanics are more frequent users of fragrance than other
segments of the population. They are also more likely to suffer from the
effects of asthma. While these things are not proof of the impact
fragrance has had on asthma, they certainly support the need for further
and more extensive examination of respiratory effects of fragrance.
While there is a scarcity of information in medical and scientific
journals regarding the impact of fragrances on respiratory health, there
seems to be an abundance of clinical and anecdotal accounts of fragrance
exacerbating respiratory conditions. Virtually every health organization
and agency concerned with respiratory health lists fragrances as a
trigger for asthma. Even fragrance industry information acknowledges
fragrances can trigger asthma due to their irritant effects.
There is limited data regarding the specific long-term effects of
irritants on the airways. In the short term irritants can cause
inflammation and increase mucus production. This can increase
susceptibility to allergens, other irritants and pathogens. It is known
that those with asthma and other respiratory disorders are much more
impacted by irritants. Continued exposure to irritants, exacerbate these
conditions by triggering attacks and contributing to the underlying
inflammatory process.
Whether fragrances are specific allergens or irritants, or whether other
mechanisms are involved, it is clear that a significant portion of the
population is potentially impacted by their widespread use. There are
over 17.3 million asthmatics in the US. Some 35 million suffer from
chronic sinus infections, and another 9 million suffer from rhinitis.
There are millions more with chronic respiratory disease. While these
conditions certainly overlap, they still represent millions of people
and a significant portion of the population. The costs of these
disorders in both economic factors and quality of life are
tremendous.
Neurological
Fragrance can impact the brain and nervous system. Some of these effects
are immediate and transitory while others can be long term. Olfactory
pathways provide the most direct connection to the brain of any senses
and also provide a means of toxic materials entering the brain.
The olfactory epithelium also contains receptors for the trigeminal
nerve. While olfactory receptors are only located in the nose,
trigeminal receptors are located in the eyes, nose, mouth, face, scalp,
and airways. About 70% of odorants stimulate the trigeminal nerve to one
degree or another. Trigeminal nerve stimulation is responsible for cold,
hot, tingling, or irritating sensations. Materials that stimulate the
trigeminal nerve can cause tearing in the eyes, as well as irritation of
the nose and airways.
The sense of smell is the most primitive sense. Odorants are volatile
materials that have properties that allow them to be detected by
olfactory receptors. From the receptors in the nose there is a direct
pathway where nerve impulses travel to the brain and odors are
interpreted. The sense of smell can detect very low concentrations of
odorants. However, it cannot detect the same odor at the same
concentration for an extended period of time.
Those that use scented products on a regular basis may not be able to
detect their own fragrance shortly after applying it. They may apply
increasing amounts or reapply frequently so that they can smell the
fragrance. In many instances they are totally oblivious that their
fragrance is often overwhelming and intrusive to others.
The widespread use of scented products also creates a background of
fragrance that is present all the time. Modern scented products are
formulated with intense and longer lasting fragrance. Traditionally a
good perfume lasted for 6-8 hours. Scent from laundry products now lasts
for weeks.
Olfaction has both physiological and emotional aspects and the two often
overlap. This makes it difficult to assess where an effect is purely
physical or impacted by subjective factors. This has led to great debate
as to whether the effects of fragrances are due to their odor or other
properties of the materials. Setting up blinded assessments in which
odors are not a factor is very difficult as blocking the odor also
blocks the sensory pathways.
The term "AROMA-CHOLOGY@" has been coined by Olfactory
Research Fund to describe the concept of the psychological effects
fragrance can have on feelings, i.e., the ability of fragrance to
transmit though odor specific feelings directly to the brain.
It is highly unlikely any substance that has a direct effect on the
brain and nervous system has only psychological effects. Autonomic
nervous system (ANS) parameters were measured during inhalation
exposures to two forms of limonene and carvone. Subjective assessments
of mood and alertness were also gathered. Inhalation of (+)-limonene
caused an increase in systolic blood pressure and reports of alertness
and restlessness. (-)-limonene caused an increase in systolic blood
pressure, but no mood alteration. (-)- carvone caused increases in
pulse, diastolic blood pressure and restlessness. (+)-carvone caused
increase in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. It is suggested
that prolonged inhalation of these materials affect both ANS parameters
and mental and emotional status. The differences in response to varying
forms of the same chemicals indicate the chirality of the material is an
important factor in the biological effects of the materials.
Other research indicates that fragrance materials can act on
receptors in the brain and affect frame of mind in a similar manner as
alcohol and tobacco raising the intriguing possibility that there could
be addiction to fragrance. Research supports the claims that lavender
contains substances that indeed do relax and calm. Motility of mice that
inhaled linalool, (a compound found in lavender) decreased 40%. Even
stimulation with caffeine did not return activity to normal levels.
These studies support that fragrances not only have the potential to
affect emotion and feelings, but also have physiological or drug-like
effects. This raises concerns that exposure may have unwanted
consequences. There are often extensive differences in how individuals
will react to the same substance at the same level. What may be relaxing
to one, may be sedating to another. And there are many instances where
materials that decrease alertness would be undesirable and even
dangerous.
Olfactory pathways not only provide a route for transmission of
sensory information, but also a direct point of entry for toxins into
the brain. Solvents and other materials in fragrances can negatively
impact the nervous system. Exposure to the nervous system can occur
through materials inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin.
Acetylethyltetramethyltetralin (AETT) and musk ambrette, two
materials in common use for decades, were found to be neurotoxic. AETT
caused a bluish discoloration of internal organs of lab animals and was
neurotoxic, Musk ambrette was readily absorbed through the skin and also
had neurotoxic properties.
Systemic Effects
Fragrance can enter the body through numerous routes such as skin
absorption, inhalation, ingestion, and olfactory pathways. Once inside
the body, the materials can impact any organ or system.
Safrole was listed as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
according to National Toxicology Program studies in 1981. It occurs
naturally in some essential oils and in sassafras roots. Safrole causes
liver tumors in animal studies. The FDA banned safrole for food use.
IFRA guidelines recommend safrole should not be used as a fragrance
ingredient. Essential oils containing safrole can be used with the
restriction that safrole levels should not exceed .01% in consumer
products.
Coumarin is widely used in fragrances. There was some evidence of it
being a carcinogen in animal studies where it was associated with an
increase in lung, liver, and renal tumors. It has been banned from use
in foods by the FDA, but continues to be used in fragrances. Methyl
Eugenol is a common fragrance/flavors material. It also occurs naturally
in spices and some essential oils. NTP studies found clear evidence of
carcinogenic activity in studies of animal exposure to methyl eugenol.
Musk xylene was found carcinogenic in animal studies. Most fragrance
chemicals have not been evaluated to determine if they are carcinogens.
In single large doses 6-Acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (AHTN)
caused liver toxicity and organ discoloration in animal. Similar but
less prominent effects were also observed with
Hexahydro-hexamethyl-cyclopenta (g )-2-benzopyran (HHCB). The cause and
the implications of the discoloration were not known.
Both AHTN and HHCB are synthetic musk compounds which are widely used
at relatively high levels. AHTN may be used at 5-20% in the fragrance
formula and HHCB at up to 50%. Both of these materials are common in
laundry products, which involves skin contact over large, often occluded
areas.
Other areas of concern are the potential for fragrance chemicals to
impact the reproductive system, fetal development and infants
breast-feeding. Materials used in fragrances can cross the placental
barrier and have the potential to impact fetal development. Synthetic
musk chemicals are known to bioaccumulate in human tissue and are
present in breast milk.
Studies on musk ketone have suggested that it may increase
susceptibility to carcinogens. Since this material has been found in
breast milk, it is more than likely present in breast tissue. Studies
need to be done to ensure that musk ketone and other fragrance chemicals
that are present in breast tissue do not play a role in development of
breast cancer.
Musk ambrette was found to cause atrophy of testicles in animal
studies.56 Citral, a common material in both fragrances and flavors
causes enlargement of the prostate gland and is estrogenic. Men working
in perfume and soap manufacture in Sweden have a higher incidence of
prostate cancer. Two common fragrance materials have been found to have
weakly estrogenic properties.
A recent study found metabolites of diethyl and dibutyl phthalate
were common in women of childbearing ages. Some phthalates have been
found to be hormone disruptors in animal studies. Diethyl and dibutyl
phthalate are common in scented products. In an analysis of a popular
perfume, diethyl phthalate (DEP) made up over 10% of the fragrance
portion of the product. It is often a solvent in raw fragrance
materials. The vast majority of fragrance chemicals have not been
assessed for systemic effects. The acute and long-term impacts are not
known.
Environmental Concerns
Fragrances are primarily volatile compounds that impact both indoor and
outdoor air quality. Many compounds are not filtered out by water
treatment and end up in waterways. These materials accumulate in aquatic
wildlife and contaminate the food chain. They are an often-overlooked
source of pollution.
Impact on Air
Fragrances by design get into the air. In order to detect an odor,
molecules of that substance must be airborne. Fragrances are complex
mixtures of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) formulated to have a
specific odor. Once in the air they break down, mix with other
pollutants, and form new compounds that are often more irritating or
allergenic than the original substance. VOCs are associated with
exacerbating respiratory disease such as asthma. According to the
California Air Resources Board 1990 statistics, some 265 tons of VOCs
were released into California air from the use of consumer products each
day.
Fragrance chemicals that are air sensitive may form peroxides,
respiratory irritants, and particles that cause inflammatory responses
in the lungs. Particles of 10 microns or less are considered respirable.
When D-limonene, a common fragrance material, was added to the air in an
office environment, there was a 10 times increase in sub-micron
particles. 62 There have been very few studies done specifically on the
role of fragranced products in air pollution. A Norwegian study found
synthetic musk compounds in outdoor air not only in urban areas but also
in remote areas. 63 The presence of these synthetic musk compounds was
so ubiquitous in indoor air, even in the laboratory setting, that
special procedures for preventing contamination of the samples of
outdoor air had to be taken.
An examination of scented products by the EPA concluded that scented
products contained some materials that were of toxicological
significance at low levels; further work and study were needed in this
area. Benzaldehyde and toluene were some of the materials found. 64
Benzaldehyde can cause both respiratory and skin sensitization, is a
possible mutagen and targets the nerves and liver. Toluene is an eye,
skin, and respiratory irritant, has systemic effects via inhalation, and
has neurological effects.
The words "air freshener" suggest that such products would
improve air quality. In actuality the opposite is true. The toxicity of
an air freshener was evaluated by allowing mice to breathe in the
emissions from a commercially available solid air freshener for one
hour.
The researchers conclude "emissions of this air freshened at
several concentrations, including concentrations to which many
individuals are actually exposed, caused increases in sensory and
pulmonary irritation, decreases in airflow velocity and abnormalities of
behavior measured by the functional observational battery score."
65
Presence in Waterways and Wildlife
Most soap, shampoos, and other bathing products contain fragrance. In
addition, fragrance is added to most household cleaners and laundry
products. A large portion of these materials ends up in wastewater. Most
wastewater treatment methods do not remove fragrance compounds. These
materials end up in streams and rivers from discharge of water from
sewage treatment. 66
In 1999, the EPA sponsored a review of the literature pertaining to
the impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products on the
environment. The review concluded that "Fragrances (musks) are
ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative pollutants that are sometimes
highly toxic; amino musk transformation products are toxicologically
significant." 67 Even materials that do not persist in the
environment may act as they do because the supply is constantly being
replenished.
Musk compounds tend to accumulate and break down slowly. They persist
in the aquatic environment and accumulate in the fatty tissue of aquatic
wildlife. Shellfish and fish have measurable levels of synthetic musk
compounds in their tissues. These materials can be considered
"persistent organic pollutants".
Most of the studies regarding synthetic musk compounds has taken
place in Europe. It is highly likely that findings would be similar or
higher here in the US. Polycyclic musks have largely replaced nitromusks
in Europe. Nitromusks are still widely used in the US.
Conclusion
There is widespread use and exposure to scented products. While there
are frequent clinical and anecdotal accounts of adverse effects, there
is limited research outside of the area of dermatology. The available
information is widely scattered and needs to be considered as a whole.
Fragrance is clearly an emerging health and environmental concern. There
needs to be further study and evaluation of its impact. While it is true
the issues are very complex, this is not an excuse to dismiss them.
Emerging concerns have not been adequately addressed by the industry. In
order for problematic materials to be pinpointed and suitable
substitutes found, there must be a cooperative effort that involves the
industry as well as the regulatory, scientific, and medical communities.
There needs to be a system in place where adverse effects are reported
and evaluated. Furthermore, the industry needs to include testing for
adverse effects via all routes of exposure. Assessment of concerns and
addressing problems in a responsible manner is essential if the industry
wishes to remain primarily self-regulated.
|
All rights reserved. I-Green (M) Sdn Bhd. 2003. I-Green and the I-Green logo are trademarks of I-Green (M) Sdn Bhd.
Any use of resource(s) without authorized permission is strictly prohibited.
|
|
|
I-Green
is against the use of harmful ingredients because we care!
At I-Green, we focus on
providing pure and natural
products!
There
are NO harmful chemicals in every I-Green product!