Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,891

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment

Salvito, Daniel T., Senna, Ronald J., Federle, Thomas W.·2002·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

More than 2,100 chemically defined organic chemicals are listed in the Research Institute of Fragrance Materials/Flavor and Extract Manufacturers' Association (RIFM/FEMA) Database that are used as ingredients of fragrances for consumer products. An approach was developed for prioritizing these fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment by first estimating the predicted environmental concentration (PEC) of these fragrance materials in the aquatic environment based upon their physicochemical properties and annual volume of use. Subsequently, an effect level was predicted with a general quantitative structure—activity relationship (QSAR) for aquatic toxicity, and a predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) was calculated from this effect level by using an assessment factor (AF) that accounts for uncertainty in the toxicity QSAR prediction. A conservative AF of 106 was applied to the endpoint predicted by the QSAR to provide an adequate margin of safety in the calculation of the PNEC. The PEC was compared to the PNEC to characterize the risk to freshwater aquatic organisms (e.g., Daphnia magna and Pimephales promelas). If the ratio of PEC to PNEC was below one, the material was considered to have negligible environmental risk and to be acceptable for the aquatic environment at current use levels. If this ratio exceeded one, the PNEC was refined by using more specific QSAR models (Ecological Structure—Activity Relationships [ECOSAR]). If the ratio continued to exceed one, the material became a candidate for further aquatic risk assessment procedures, which involve iterative steps to refine the PEC, the PNEC, or both by using measured ecotoxicological endpoints. Prioritization for this latter process can be based upon the magnitudes of the estimated PEC:PNEC ratios. When using the first tier of this approach, only 568 of 2,141 fragrance materials (26.5%) in the RIFM/FEMA Database had PEC:PNEC ratios greater than one. This percentage decreased to only 164 materials (7.7%) when PNECs were derived with ECOSAR. Comparison of predicted PECs and PNECs with those based upon measured data confirmed the conservatism and low risk for type I errors associated with the framework. These combined exercises demonstrated the ability of this highly precautionary risk-based screening approach to quickly prioritize a large number of materials without benefit of experimental ecotoxicological or fate data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/etc.5620210627

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,891

Metadata

Authors
Salvito, D. T., Senna, R. J., & Federle, T. W.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
1301-1308
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2079222364
Cited by
1,891
References
0
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/etc.5620210627
The paper
Salvito, D. T., Senna, R. J., & Federle, T. W. (2002). A framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210627

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.