4/10/2015

From www

From www.cropwatch.org
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

Cropwatch Three b
OPINION: Methyl eugenol-containing essential oils.
Tony Burfield May 2004
Worries about possible risks due to the methyl eugenol content of natural materials herbs,
essential oils - have surfaced in the recent past but there is a dearth of information on the
subject directly available in the public domain to aromatherapists or complementary health
practitioners. The following feature is an attempt to add some background information to this
subject.
The warm, musty-mild-spicy odoured aromatic compound Methyl Eugenol (aka eugenol
methyl ether, or 4-allyl-1,2-diomethoxybenzene) is prohibited from being directly added as
an ingredient to fragrances intended for retailed cosmetic products, due to worries about its
potential carcinogenicity.

As it occurs naturally in many essential oils and extracts, the addition of these ingredients is
not restricted outright, but on provision that the methyl eugenol content does not exceed the
following concentration in the following finished products according to the IFRA standards
(see www.ifraorg.org/):
Fine Fragrances 0.020%*
Eau de Toilette 0.008%
Fragrance Cream 0.004%
Rinse off products 0.001%
Leave-on products/
Oral hygiene products 0.0004%
Non skin (as defined on IFRA website) 0.010%*.
*The limit of 0.02% for the starred items applies to the concentration in the fragrance
compound.
In effect this means that there is an obligation on ingredient suppliers, under the
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

1/11

4/10/2015

From www

requirements of due diligence, to supply information to customers, to make sure that they
receive the necessary information in order for them to comply with the above requirements
of the IFRA Standards. To spell this out in more detail, reporting the methyl eugenol content
of the specific batch of the ingredient will then allow the customer to further calculate final
levels of methyl eugenol appearing in the finished product. It is difficult to see how many
small essential oil suppliers, without resort to internal analytical expertise, will be able to
perform this function. Additionally, it is relatively easy to find plants for sale on the Internet,
whos essential oils contain high levels of methyl eugnol e.g. Black tea tree plants can be
ordered at http://www.hotkey.net.au/~macs_oils/plant01.htm. No warning about the potential
toxicity of methyl eugenol is presented.
It has long been established that methyl eugenol occurs in essential oils such as Canadian
Snake root, Bay, Citronella, Laurel, Emodia, Fennel, Betel, Brisbane Sassafras, Pimento,
Hyacinth etc., and its occurrence often coincides with the additional presence of eugenol
(Poucher 1991). And so, purely as a guide, here below is presented a snapshot guide to
the reported methyl eugenol content of several further essential oils.
Published data on Methyl Eugenol Contents of Essential Oils.
1. FEMA have published data to members on methyl eugenol contents of essential oils
(no geographic origins specified).
2. The BFA on 12.02.02 circulated BEOA data from 09.11.01 on the methyl eugenol
content of a number of analysed commercial oils. Oils were classified by botanical
name (no chemotypes were distinguished) and by origin. There are no particular
surprises, although methyl eugenol contents on rose otto seemed low-ish compared
with other published data, and the range of methyl eugenol contents of the 23 basil
oils (all apparently from Egypt) was relatively large. No data on fennel oil (identified by
the EU Scientific Committee on Food as a dietary source of methyl eugenol) was
included. The BEOA data document makes comment that expert analysis of genuine
essential oils shows how widely essential oils vary in composition, and makes
comment that the BACIS commercial data-base of essential oils shows methyl
eugenol contents of 258 oils, that some of this data is misleading, and not
representative of genuine high volume essential oils used in commerce.
3. IFRA data on methyl eugenol contents of essential oils, as presented on the IFRA
website www.ifraorg.org in May 2004 does not define the plant source species, the
geographical origins of oils or any chemotype information. A document circulated by
IFRA (to members only not in the public domain but most of the information the
same as on the IFRA website) on April 6th 2004 lists 21 essential oils, again giving no
botanical identification, only giving geographic origins for two types of oils (citronella
and rose), and giving chemotype information for basil only. As has been observed
previously by this author, the standard of botanical reporting in IFRA documents, and
in EU legislation leaves a great deal to be desired.
4. A list of plants containing methyl eugenol, duplicating the species names of many of
the entries below, can be found on the Agricultural Research Services data-base at
http://www.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/chemdisp.xsql?chemical=METHYL-
EUGENOL
Table I - Various References re: Methyl Eugenol content of EOs.
Essential oil

Remarks

Acorus calamus

Calamus Indian

http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

Methyl eugenol
content
1.0%

Reference key
(see below)
Shiva et al.
2/11

4/10/2015

Acorus calamus
Acorus calamus (?)

From www

Calamus
Mediterranean
Calamus oil

0.9% max

BEOA

<1.0%

IFRA website

Anasarum canadense
Aniba rosaedora
Artemisia

Snakeroot oil
Rosewood oil
Tarragon oil Russian

36.0- 45.0%
0.11%
11.5%

IFRA 06.04.04
EOS
TQ
TB

dracuncunculus
Artemisia

type
Tarragon oil Russian

5 29%

EOS

dracuncunculus
Artemisia

type
Tarragon oil French

0.8%

TB

dracuncunculus
Artemisia

type
Tarragon oil French

0.1 to 1.5%

EOS

dracuncunculus
Artemisia

type
Estragon oil

<1.5%

IFRA website

Essential oil
Elemi oil Philipines
Cananga oil

300-750 ppm
0.44%
0.17% max

IFRA 06.04.04
Duke 2
TQ
BEOA

Cananga oil

<0.5%

IFRA website

dracuncunculus (?)
Canarium indicum
Canarium lucozonium
Cananga odorata
subsp. macrophylla
Cananga odorata
subsp. macrophylla (?)
Cananga odorata
subsp. genuina
Cananga odorata

Ylang ylang IInd quality 0.15%

IFRA 06.04.04
TB

Ylang ylang. No
details.

0.154%

TQ

Cascarilla oil W.I.

Cascarilla oil W.I.

0.2% max
<1.0%

BEOA
IFRA website

Cinnamomum
camphora
Cinnamomum cassia
Cinnamomum cassia
(?)

Camphor oil white,

China
Cassia bark oil China
Cassia oil

Not detected

IFRA 06.04.04
BEOA

0.03% max.
<0.1%

BEOA
IFRA website

Cinnamomum tamala
Citrus paradisi
Citrus sinensis
Cymbopogon
citratus
Cymbopogon nardus
Cympopogon nardus
Cymbopogon nardus
(?)
Cymbopogon

Tejpat oil
Grapefruit oil
Sweet? orange oil
geraniol chemotype

0.5%
0.0002%
0.0004%
to 18.0%

IFRA 06.04.04
Lawr
TQ
TQ
TB

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Citronella oil Sri Lanka

1.8% max.
3.0%
<0.2%

BEOA
FEMA
IFRA 06.04.04

Citronella oil, China

0.2% max.

BEOA

subsp. genuina
Croton elutaria
Croton elutaria (?)

http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

3/11

4/10/2015

From www

winterianus

(Java type)

Cymbopogon sp.
Cymbopogon
winterianus (?)
Dacrydium franklinii

Daucus carota
Daucus carota

Citronella oil
Citronella oil Java

<2.0%
<2.0%

IFRA website
IFRA 06.04.04

Huon Pine Oil

to 98.0%

TB

Carrot seed oil

Carrot seed oil
Chinese
Carrot oil

0.165%
1.23%

TQ
Kam

<0.5%

IFRA website

Daucus carota
Daucus carota
Echinophora
tenuifolia

Elettaria
cardamomum
Eucalyptus (globulus?)
Hyssop
Hyssopus officinalis
(?)

Carrot oil CO2 extract

Turkey

0.1%
17.5 50.0%

IFRA 06.04.04
IFRA
TB

Cardamom oil, India

tr. to 0.1%

TB

sp. name not indicated

sp. name not indicated
Hyssop oil

1.07%
0.55%
<1.0%

TQ
TQ
IFRA website

Illicium verum
Laurus nobilis
Laurus
nobilis
Laurus
nobilis
Levisticum officianale
Levisticum officianale
(?)

Star Anise oil

Bay Laurel oil
Bay Laurel oil

0.11%
2.8% max.
4.0%

IFRA 06.04.04
TQ
BEOA
TB

Bay Laurel oil

4.62%

TQ

Lovage Leaf
Lovage leaf oil

1.3% max.
<1.5%

BEOA
IFRA website

Lippia
citriodora
Magnolia

Verbena oil

2.3%

IFRA 06.04.04
TB

Michaelia or Magnolia
spp. ??

2.64%

TQ

Tea tree oil

(chemotypes II, III,
IV)
(chemotypes I,II,III, IV)

trace
to >40%

IS
TB

trace; 1.5%; 8.7%

and 50%
respectively
95-97%

Brophy et al.

1.6, 94.6 and

Brophy JJ

Melaleuca alternifolia
Melaleuca
bracteata
Melaleuca
bracteata
Melaleuca
leucadendron
Melaleuca
leucadendron
Michelia alba
Myrstica
fragrans
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

(chemotype II, methyl

eugenol form)
(chemotype I, Ila and
llb)
Flower and leaf oils
Nutmeg Oil Sri
Lanka

6.7% respectively
0.38 & 0.22%
respectively
0.8%

TB

Kam.
TB
4/11

4/10/2015

From www

Myrstica
fragrans
Myrstica
fragrans
Myrstica fragrans
(?)

East Indian Nutmeg oil

tr 1.2%

EOS

West Indian Nutmeg oil 0.1- 0.2%

EOS

Nutmeg oil

< 1.0%

IFRA website

< 0.5%

IFRA 06.04.04
IFRA website

Myrstica fragrans
(?)

Mace oil

1.21%
2.3%
Often below

IFRA 06.04.04
TQ
Mazza

Myrtus communis
Myrtus communis
Ocimum basilicum

Myrtle oil
Myrtle berry oil
Sweet basil oil

0.2%, Comores
(exotic type) to
1.6%
5.6% max
< 6.0%

BEOA
IFRA website

Basil Oil
Described by F & P as
Exotic type Basil oil
Described by F & P. as
European type Basil oil

2.6%
1.6%

IFRA 06.04.04
FEMA
F & P.

2.5 to 7%

F & P.

Oil

55-65%

F & P.

Described by F & P. as
Small Basil

55-65%

F & P.

Described by F & P. as
Basil oil thymol type

1.7%

F & P.

> 50.0%

TB

Pelargonium

(Brazilian Sassafras
oil- methyl eugenol
type)
Geranium oil China

Not detected in

BEOA

graveolens
Pelargonium

Geranium oil Bourbon

Geranium oil Egypt

either oil
Not detected

BEOA

odoratissum
Peumus boldus
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica
Pimenta dioica (?)

Leaf
Pimento leaf oil
Pimento leaf oil
Pimento leaf oil
Pimento leaf oil
Pimento berry oil
Pimento berry oil
Pimento berry oil

100-125 ppm
to 2%
2%
15.4%
3.9%
to 8%
15.0%
< 15.0%

Duke
TB
FEMA
TQ
BEOA
TB
BEOA
IFRA website

Ocimum basilicum
Ocimum spp.

Oil of Egyptian origin

Basil oil

Ocimum basilicum
Ocimum basilicum var.
basilicum
Ocimum basilicum var.
feuilles de laitre
Ocimum basilicum var.
grand vert
Ocimum basilicum var.
minimum
Ocimum gratissimum
var. thymoliferum
Ocotea pretiosa

http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

5/11

4/10/2015

Pimenta dioica

Pimenta racemosa
var. racemosa
Pimenta racemosa-

Pimenta racemosa-

Pimenta racemosa (?)
Pimpinella anisum
Piper cubeba
Ravensara aromatica
Rosa
centifolia
Rosa
centifolia
Rosa
damascena
Rosa
damascena
Rosa spp.
Rosa sp.
Rosa
damascena
Rosa sp.
Rosa
damascena
Rosa sp.
Rosa sp.
Rosa
damascena
Rosa damascena

Rosa spp.
Rosa rugosa
Rosmarinus officinalis
Rosmarinus officinalis
Satureia hortensis
Satureia montana
Satureia montana
Satureia montana (?)
Syzygium-
aromaticum
Syzygium-
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

From www

Pimento leaf oil

Plant part to produce
oil not stated

<15.0%
1.2 4.4%

IFRA 06.04.04
F & P.

48.1%

Aurore et al.

Bay leaf oil

4.6%

TQ

Bay leaf
oil
Bay oil

0.4 to 12.6%

TB

< 4.0%

IFRA website

Anise oil
Cubeb oil
Ravensara oil
Madagascar
Rose absolute

0.11%
Not detected
0.10%

IFRA 06.04.04
TQ
BEOA
F. & P.

0.6% to 1.9%

TB

Rose otto

1.1 to 3.0%

TB

Rose otto

1.1 to 3.0%

TB

Rose otto Bulgaria

1.6% max

BEOA

Rose oil Bulgaria

different types
Rose oil China
Rose otto Morocco

< 2.5%

IFRA 06.04.04

< 3.5%
0.5% max

IFRA 06.04.04
BEOA

Rose oil Morocco

Rose otto Turkey

<2.6%
0.5% max

IFRA 06.04.04
BEOA

Rose oil Turkey

Rose oil
Absolute

<3.0%
<3.5%
0.8 to 1.6%

IFRA 06.04.04
IFRA website
TB

Rose otto India

2.0-2.5%

Shiva et al.

Rose bud oil Georgia

Rose otto, China
Rosemary oil
Rosemary oil Tunis
Summer savoury oil
Winter savoury oil
Winter savoury oil
Balkans
Winter savoury oil

<0.1%
0.10%
0.011%
>0.01%
0.88%
0.11%
0.7%

TBb
SCIB
TQ
TBa
TQ
TQ
BEOA

<1.0%

IFRA website

Clove bud oil

to 0.15%

IFRA 06.04.04
TB

Clove bud oil

0.2%

Shiva et al.

Methyl chavicol/methyl
eugenol chemotype

6/11

4/10/2015

aromaticum
Syzygium-
aromaticum
Syzygium-
aromaticum
Tagetes minuta
Trachyspermum

From www

Clove leaf oil Indonesia 0.5%

TB

Clove oil

<0.5%

IFRA website

0.03%
0.03%

IFRA 06.04.04
Lawr. a
TBb

Tagete oil
Ajowan oil, India

ammi
N.B. Question marks in the above table appear when the author has had to make an
intelligent guess at the botanical origin of the oil because the original source failed to reveal
it.
Remarks on the Toxicity of Methyl Eugenol.
Similarities of methyl eugenol to the structure of safrole, a known carcinogen, have not gone
un-noticed.

Following the RIFM/FEMA workshop in May 2000, the FEMA expert panel issued a report
entitled Safety Assessment of Allylalkoxybenzene Derivatves Used as Flavouring
Substances Methyl Eugenol and Estragole. This included a description of the 2-year
bioassay with methyl eugenol by the National Toxicity Program (NTP) whose aim was to
establish the carcinogenic potential of methyl eugenol regardless of route of administration.
The NTP study found that the present exposure to methyl eugenol from food (mainly
intentional addition of essential oils, spices and spice isolates) presents no hazard to
human health. The report finds that although very high doses are carcinogenic, they are
such that they must have first induced a hepatotoxic effect. We also subsequently learned
from the RIFM/FEMA workshop write-up, that one serving of pesto contains from 10-100
times the average daily human consumption of methyl eugenol, although even this level was
100 times lower than the lowest dose forcibly given to animals in the NTP assay.
The NTP technical study on the 2 year toxicology and carcinogenisis studies on methyl
eugenol in F334/N rats and B6C3F1 mice was published in July 2000. It showed clear
evidence of carcinogenic activity of methyl eugenol in the tested rodents, and can be
viewed at http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/docs/tr491/tr491abs.pdf
The German Bundesrat decided on May 11th 2001 not to market flavourings and foodstuffs
containing added methyl eugenol (or methyl chavicol) after June 30th 2001, although this
ruling did not apply to methyl eugenol naturally present in flavourings or foodstuffs.
The EUs Scientific Committee on Food expressed an opinion on methyl eugenol on
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

7/11

4/10/2015

From www

26.09.01, which can be viewed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out102_en.pdf

The committee remarked that methyl eugenol is a multi-site, multi-species carcinogen, being
both genotoxic and carcinogenic. Average human intake from diet of methyl eugenol
amounted to 13 mg/person/day and the 97.5th percentile was 36 mg/person/day (on a body
weight basis these values correspond to 0.19 and 0.53 mg/kg bw/day, respectively). The
committee was unable to establish a safe exposure limit.
Subsequently IFRA decided to severely restrict the limits of methyl eugenol in finished
fragranced products in 2001 (36th Amendment to the Code of Practice).
Low methyl eugenol rose oil has been commercially offered by a small number of aroma
houses. Removal of the methyl eugenol content by high vacuum fractional distillation seems
to adversely affect the typical rose character in products offered. Removal of the methyl
eugenol content by spinning band or spinning cone distillation may be more satisfactory, but
production time is at a premium on this expensive technology. Rose oils naturally very low in
methyl eugenol are known in Eastern Europe and further East, but the quality is very poor to
actually unacceptable for most purposes, even before methyl eugenol removal.
As a closing comment, it is hard to see why the aromatherapy and cosmetic industries are
led by the nose on the choice of available commercial rose qualities utilised, which merely
reflect historical perfumery trade uses. It has previously been established that rose absolutes
from varieties of garden roses can demonstrate beneficial cosmetic properties (tienne et al.
2000) whereas a conventional commercial rose absolute showed none of these effects.
Further, it is likely that certain of these other varieties will only present a fraction of the
methyl eugenol levels encountered in conventionally sourced rose ottos and absolutes.
Methyl Eugenol in Aromatherapy.
The author is unable to find any detailed advice given by professional aromatherapy
organisations to members on this issue, on a par with that put by IFRA for its membership in
the perfumery profession. Harris (2002) has reviewed the position of methyl eugenol in
aromatherapy practice in the light of IFRA restrictions in the fragrance industry. It is worth
exploring a number of points.
Firstly, Harris notes that the IFRA have published a list of essential oils (e.o.s) with methyl
eugenol contents, commenting that these figures only pertain to oils used in the fragrance
industry. Harris instead quotes e.o. data from Lawrence (1998-2002). However IFEAT have
previously criticised the use of Lawrences data (specifically over the separate 26 allergens
issue), as they maintain it is relates only to experimental data and does not relate to the
composition of commercial oils. In any case, in the real world, the e.o.s distributed by many
(but certainly not all) aromatherapy oil suppliers are identical to those distributed by the
fragrance industry.
Harris further maintains that the average aromatherapy treatment regime consists of 5-10
sessions, given at most once per week, generally with the essential oils employed being
changed during this regime according to the improvement of the client, and goes on to
state, those most at risk from methyl eugenol are the aromatherapists themselves, but
does not investigate exposure of this most at risk group in any satisfactory detail. Harris
further mentions avoidance of high methyl eugenol containing oils by therapists, and talks of
using 3 drops in a blend which, as several professional therapists have privately
commented, is not Aromatherapy.
Since aromatherapy is a poorly paid profession, many professional aromatherapists are
obliged to work extended hours, and may have to perform 6-8 massages per day, 5-6 (or
more) days per week. Further, a whole body massage may well be carried out with 20-50
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

8/11

4/10/2015

From www

mls of massage oil containing 2-2.5% e.o., although some practitioners apparently have
been known to use even higher concentrations (Guba 1998). Unknown amounts of methyl
eugenol are therefore absorbed by the therapist throughout the week, via skin absorption
through the hands, and by inhalation of vapour. Harris doesnt mention the fact that diet is
additionally adding to the therapists body burden of methyl eugenol.
The above factors may eventually allow a more realistic calculation of daily human body
loading from methyl eugenol for aromatherapists, but interpretation of the data revolves
around interpretations of the NOEL (no-effects) level in the longer-term and appropriate
safety factors (IFRA used a factor of 1000 X). Since aromatherapeutic treatments such as
whole body massage are vastly different from animal dosing studies, drawing direct
conclusions about possible toxicological effects is distinctly risky. Further, it is already known
from human liver microsomal preparations that metabolism rates by human cytochrome
P450 isozymes for methyl eugenol varies more than 37-fold (Gardner et al. 1997) suggesting
a wide range of serum concentrations will occur in the general population following methyl
eugenol exposure.
Meanwhile Schecter et al. (2004) have produced a study on human consumption of methyl
eugenol and its elimination from serum under a mandate from the National Toxicology
Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services. In particular the team
investigated the consumption of methyl eugenol from a brand of gingersnaps, found to
contain a relatively high concentration of methyl eugenol at 3.3mg/g (a number of other
foodstuffs containing lower concentrations of methyl eugenol are also listed in the article &
cigarette tobaccos were identified as another possible source of methyl eugenol exposure!).
Serum peak levels of methyl eugenol were found to be within range of a concurrent study of
213 non-fasting subjects in the third Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994).
However in this latter study, the authors found that methyl eugenol levels in the blood of the
general US population were higher than expected (but the highest concentration found,
390pg/g, was still 2000 X lower than the lowest dose used in the NTP rodent studies referred
to above). Nevertheless, as Schecter et al. remark, the significance of the elevated levels
with respect to any toxicological consequences, still remains to be determined.
It may well eventually turn out that a working aromatherapist, constantly using basil and rose
oils, and with a fondness for pesta and flavoured cigarettes is more likely to be hit by a
meteorite than to contract a toxicological problem due to daily methyl eugenol exposure from
all these routes. Its just that it would be nice to think that those entrusted with a duty of care
towards working people in our society were actively investigating this topic. The situation
being as it is, assessments on this topic are more likely to be made by self-educated laymen,
than by formerly qualified toxicologists and to this end, Cropwatch has written to some
toxicologists for some learned opinions on this matter. Any replies will be published in further
editions of this organ.
STOP PRESS!
Professor Arnold Schecter (see reference above) kindly read my piece on methyl eugenol
above and hinted from the tone of the article above that I might have understated the risk
slightly, commenting further as follows:
What my work followed during a year I worked at NIH was that methyl eugenol is extremely
carcinogenic to rodents and causes cancers in rats and mice, two species, and in multiple
tissues. The human levels may or may not be of concern, both those we reported and the
higher levels we alluded to in the general US population, so high for unknown reasons. ME
does not occur by itself in humans but in combination with many other toxic chemicals so
potential human health effects might be from ME alone or in combination with others.
http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

9/11

4/10/2015

From www

And further: In combination with other carcinogens (methyl eugenol) might be harmful at
lower levels than those derived dosing animals with one chemical only. Many chemicals in
our bodies.
I take these points on board, and suggest even louder now, that the aromatherapy
profession needs to take this issue seriously, perhaps appealing for outside help to more
properly evaluate the risk.
Glossary
BFA: British Fragrance Association
IFEAT: International Federation of Essential Oils and Aroma Trades
IFRA: International Fragrance Research Association

Table Data References:

Aurore, G. S. Abaul, J. Bourgeois, P. Luc, J. (1998) Antibacterial and Antifungal Activities of the Essential Oils of Pimenta racemosa var. racemosa
P. Miller (J.W. Moore) (Myrtaceae). J. Essential Oil Res. 10(2), 161-164.
BEOA: British Essential Oils Association 9th Nov 2001 data reproduced by kind permission.
Brophy JJ: Brophy JJ (1999) Potentially Commercial Melaleucas in Tea Tree the Genus Melaleuca eds. Ian Southwell & Robert Lowe. Harwood
Academic Publishers.
Brophy et al: Brophy et al. (1999) J Essen Oil Rec 11, 327-332.
Duke: Duke J (?) from Chemicals and their Biological Activities in: Peumus boldus MOLINA (Monimiaceae) Boldo see http://www.rain-
tree.com/db/Peumus-boldus-phytochem.htm
Duke 2 : see http://www.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/chemdisp.xsql?chemical=METHYL-EUGENO
EOS: Essential Oil Safety Robert Tisserand & Tony Balacs Churchill-Livingstone 1996.
F & P: Franchomme P. & Peneol D (1995) lAromatherapie
Exactement pub. Jollois. R.
Guba R (1998) Toxicity Myths the Actual Risks of Essential Oil Use. Centre for Aromatic Medicine 1998.
IFRA website: www.ifraorg.org information as at 01.05.2004
IFRA: Annex 1 IFRA Standards.doc April 6, 2004.
IS: Ian Southwell (1999) Tea Tree constituents in Tea Tree the Genus Melaleuca eds. Ian Southwell & Robert Lowe. Harwood Academic
Publishers
Kam: Kameoka H. (1993) The Essential Oil Constituents of Some Useful Plants from China in Recent Developments in Flavour & Fragrance
Chemistry Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Haarman & Reimer Symposium Pub. VCH NY 1993.
Lawr.: Lawrence BW (1989) EOs 1981-7 Allured Publ.
Lawr. a: Lawrence BM et al. (1985) Perf & Flav 10(6), 56-58 Dec 1985-Jan 1986
Mazza G. (1983) GCMS Investigation of Volatile Components of Myrtle Berries J. Chromatog. 264, 304-311.
SCIB: Zhu Lianfeng et al. (1993) Aromatic Plants & Essential Constituents South China Inst of Botany, Hai Feng Publishing Co.
Shiva et al: Shiva MP, Lehri A, Shiva A. (2000) Aromatic & Medicinal Plants pub IBD 2000.
TB: Tony Burfield (2000) Natural Aromatic Materials: Odours and Origins pub. AIA Tampa.
TB see: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nodice/new/magazine/odprofile.htm
TBb: Tony Burfield (unpublished data)

http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

10/11

4/10/2015

From www

TBc: Tony Burfield & Sylla Sheppard-Hanger (2002) Basil Oils Monograph AIA UK 2002.
TQ: trade suppliers questionnaire (IFF 2003)
Poucher (1991) Pouchers Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps - Vol 1 The Raw Materials of Perfumery 9th edn. Blackie Academic & Professional.
Zhu Liangfu et al. (1993) Aromatic Plants & Essential Constituents South China Inst of Botany.

Text References.
tienne et al. (2000) New and unexpected cosmetic properties of perfumes. Effects upon free radicals and enzymes induced by essential oils,
absolutes and fragrant compounds. International Journal of Cosmetic Science 22, 317-328.
Gardner et al. (1997) Cytochrome P450 mediated bioactivation of methyleugenol in Fisher 344 rar and human liver microsomes. Carcinogenesis
18, 1775-1783.
Harris B. (2002) Methyl eugenol the current bete noir of aromatherapy. Int. J. of Aromatherapy 12(4), 193-201.
Lawrence B.W. Progress in Essential Oils (1998-2002).
NHANES III 1988-94 National Centre for Health Statistics (1994). Plan and Operation of the Third National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey,
1988-94. Series 1: Program & Collection Procedure No 32.
Schecter A et al. (2004) Human Consumption of Methyleugenol and Its Elimination from Serum Environmental Health Perspectives 112(6), 678-
680.

http://www.cropwatch.org/crop3b.htm

11/11