Material guide · 59
Material guide: cyclamen aldehyde — the survivor of the muguet slot, living on a purity spec
· 25 min read
CAS 103-95-7. Its IFRA specification reads: cyclamen aldehyde should not contain more than 1.5% of cyclamen alcohol — and cyclamen alcohol has been on the prohibition list since 1980. Lyral, in the same slot, was banned in the EU in 2021; Lilial followed in 2022. This one is still standing, restricted to 0.95% in Category 4. A beginner demo formula posted on a forum warns not to double it, and the arithmetic says the author is right.
Start with this line, which is more interesting than the odour description:
Fragrance ingredient specification: cyclamen aldehyde should not contain more than 1.5% of cyclamen alcohol.
That is IFRA's rule for this material. And cyclamen alcohol itself — CAS 4756-19-8 — has been on the prohibition list since 1980.
So part of how cyclamen aldehyde stays available is a clause capping the banned thing inside it at 1.5%. That is the same survival mode as musk ketone: a Restriction plus a Specification, where the Specification governs an impurity.
The short version
- IFRA gives it a Restriction and Specification (2020, Amendment 49). Category 4, wearable fine fragrance, is capped at 0.95%; Category 12, no skin contact, at 16%; and the strictest categories (5D, 8, 11A, 11B) at 0.025% — a 640-fold spread.
- The specification requires no more than 1.5% cyclamen alcohol, and cyclamen alcohol has been prohibited since 1980.
- Risk management is driven by two intrinsic properties: dermal sensitization and systemic toxicity. Most materials in the IFRA documents carry one.
- The flower in its name does not contain it. The database says not found in nature; the IFRA document says it has been found in natural extracts but only at trace levels. Another instance of the heliotropin pattern.
- Its longevity record is 72 hours at 100% — a neat value. After several materials whose records are stuck behind dilutions, this one is honest.
- A carefully written beginner demo formula on a forum warns not to double the cyclamen aldehyde because it is already near the ceiling at a 15% concentrate. The arithmetic says the author is right, and it is below.
The basics
| Trade names | Cyclamal, Cyclaviol, Cyclosal |
| CAS | 103-95-7 |
| Chemical name | 3-(p-cumenyl)-2-methylpropionaldehyde |
| Formula | C₁₃H₁₈O |
| Molecular weight | 190.29 |
| Type | Synthetic single molecule |
| Odour | Floral, cyclamen, fresh, rhubarb, musty, green |
| Odour family | floral |
| Strength | Medium |
| Longevity | 72 hours at 100% (a neat value) |
| Appearance | Colourless to pale yellow clear liquid |
| Boiling point | 270 °C @ 760 mmHg |
| Flash point | 109 °C |
| Vapour pressure | 0.009 mmHg @ 25 °C (est) |
| logP | 3.30 (est) |
| Natural occurrence | Not found in nature (IFRA: trace levels only in natural extracts) |
| Storage | 24 months or longer |
| Regulatory | JECFA, FEMA GRAS, CoE, FLAVIS |
| Suppliers | 38 |
| Corpus position | 64 formulas (6.7%), median dose 2.00%, range 0.13–18.00% |
Everyone else in that slot has gone
Lily of the valley is a functional slot in perfumery — the fresh white floral with green and watery facets. That slot has taken heavy losses in five years.
| Material | Status |
|---|---|
| Cyclamen alcohol | IFRA prohibition, 1980 |
| Lyral (HICC) | Banned in the EU, August 2021 |
| Lilial (butylphenyl methylpropional) | Banned under EU cosmetics regulation, March 2022 |
| Cyclamen aldehyde | Restriction, Category 4 at 0.95% |
Cyclamen aldehyde is the one still standing.
The scale of the Lyral case is worth knowing, because it shows how a material actually gets retired.
Ahlström and colleagues, in Contact Dermatitis in 2021, reviewed data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy (ESSCA) and Copenhagen's Herlev-Gentofte hospital, covering 124,472 patients with dermatitis, all patch tested with HICC at 5% in petrolatum in the baseline series.
Contact allergy to HICC was found in 1.98% of 9,865 patients at Gentofte and 1.62% of 114,607 patients across ESSCA. Prevalence decreased annually, by 0.156 percentage points at Gentofte (P = .001) and 0.051 percentage points in ESSCA (P = .0002). The authors call this the first study demonstrating a significant decline in HICC allergy in European dermatitis patients, most likely attributable to the upcoming ban.
Note the sequence: the decline happened before the ban took effect. Industry started replacing it ahead of the regulation.
Stingeni and colleagues, in the same journal in 2023, reported Italian data from six patch test clinics over six years (2016–2021), covering 7,266 patients: 1% (70) positive to HICC and 2.1% (153) to fragrance mix II. Clinical relevance was documented in 72.9% (51/70) of HICC-positive patients — meaning the positive reaction matched a real skin problem, not just a test result. The trend line fell from 1.15% in 2016 to 0.96% in 2021.
One line in their conclusion is worth keeping: even after the ban, HICC should stay in the baseline series in order to monitor the ban's effect.
Neither paper is about cyclamen aldehyde. They are here because they show what the evidence looks like when a material in this slot gets removed: patch data on six figures of patients, an annual trend, and a clinical relevance rate. Cyclamen aldehyde has not reached that point; what it has is a restriction, not a ban.
That "don't double it" warning, worked out
A carefully written beginner demo formula posted on a forum places cyclamen aldehyde at 40 parts per thousand, with a footnote:
"Don't double the amount of cyclamen aldehyde, though. It's already close to the safety ceiling when diluting the concentrate down to around 15%."
That is checkable. IFRA Category 4, wearable fine fragrance, caps it at 0.95% in the finished product.
| Case | Cyclamen aldehyde in concentrate | Concentrate strength | In finished product | Against 0.95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| As written | 4.0% | 15% | 0.60% | passes |
| As written | 4.0% | 20% | 0.80% | passes |
| Doubled | 8.0% | 15% | 1.20% | over |
| Doubled | 8.0% | 20% | 1.60% | over |
They are right. As written it clears the limit at both common strengths, and doubled it exceeds at both.
Which is a reminder of something we have written about before: IFRA percentages are of the finished product, not of the concentrate. Four percent in a concentrate sounds far from 0.95%, but you have to multiply by the concentrate strength before comparing. That conversion is the step beginners get wrong most often.
A 640-fold spread
Category 4's 0.95% is one of twelve. The full table:
| Category | Limit | Category | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.11% | 7A | 0.076% |
| 2 | 0.14% | 7B | 0.076% |
| 3 | 0.038% | 8 | 0.025% |
| 4 | 0.95% | 9 | 0.23% |
| 5A | 0.45% | 10A | 0.23% |
| 5B | 0.076% | 10B | 0.72% |
| 5C | 0.076% | 11A | 0.025% |
| 5D | 0.025% | 11B | 0.025% |
| 6 | 0.076% | 12 | 16% |
The loosest (Category 12, no skin contact) and the strictest (the 0.025% categories) differ by 640-fold.
The intrinsic property driving these limits is listed as dermal sensitization and systemic toxicity — both. That is not the common case in the standards; most materials carry one. The document also explains the derivation: a permitted level is computed per endpoint, and each category takes the lowest of them.
More common in the corpus than you would guess
Sixty-four formulas (6.7%), median dose 2.00%, range 0.13% to 18.00%, and pre-diluted in only 2.
That 2.00% median is interesting against the table above: 2% in the concentrate × 20% strength = 0.40% in the finished product, with room left against 0.95%. So the habitual dose of formula authors already sits on the safe side, and the beginner formula's 4% is at the higher end.
The 18% top of the range is worth a look — that is a muguet formula built around it.
The flower in its name does not contain it
The database says not found in nature. The IFRA document says cyclamen aldehyde has been found in natural extracts, but only at trace levels.
Those two do not fully agree, and I am printing both. The difference may come from when each was updated, or from whether trace levels clear the database's threshold for "occurs". What is certain is that the smell of a cyclamen is not made of this — the same way heliotropin is not in heliotrope and the muguet materials are not in lily of the valley.
Fragrance names are mnemonics, not taxonomy.
When you smell it
- There is more in there than floral. Past floral and cyclamen, the odour field carries rhubarb, musty and green. That mustiness is real, comes out at higher concentrations, and is why it can read as dirty in a formula.
- Try it at 1% to 2%. The corpus median is 2.00% and its strength is only medium, so there is no need to push it very low — but remember to convert to finished-product concentration.
- The 72 hours is a neat value. That is a rarity in this series: not capped at 400, not measured in dilution. So you can read it as a mid-to-base material directly.
- It lives next door to hydroxycitronellal. Smelling both together makes the division of labour inside the muguet slot obvious.
Buying and storage
Thirty-eight suppliers. Cyclamal, Cyclaviol and Cyclosal all circulate as trade names, so buy on CAS 103-95-7.
Check the spec when you buy. IFRA requires cyclamen alcohol below 1.5%, which is a meaningful quality clause: if a supplier's certificate of analysis omits that line, it is a fair question to ask. Why purity specs matter is covered in the musk ketone article.
Flash point 109 °C, shelf life 24 months or longer. It is an aldehyde, so the oxidation precautions apply.
Regulatory and safety
One GHS statement: H315, causes skin irritation.
Acute toxicity: oral rat LD50 3,810 mg/kg, with ataxia and coma recorded among the behavioural observations; dermal rabbit LD50 above 5,000 mg/kg.
The current IFRA status is Restriction and Specification, published 2020 (Amendment 49), effective for new creations from 10 February 2021 and for existing creations from 10 February 2022. The table above is Amendment 49 — checking the current version is the correct practice, and here is how.
Categories 1 and 6 carry an additional flavour requirement: because small amounts may be ingested from those products, materials must comply with IFRA Standards and also be recognised as safe as a flavouring ingredient under the IOFI Code of Practice.
→ Cyclamen aldehyde in the database: full physical data, 38 suppliers and suggested blends. → Search by odour: try "floral fresh green".
References
M. G. Ahlström, W. Uter, M. G. Ahlström, J. D. Johansen, Decrease of contact allergy to hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde in Europe prior to its ban and diagnostic value, Contact Dermatitis, 84(6), 419–422 (2021). PMID 33453125. doi:10.1111/cod.13786
L. Stingeni et al., Contact allergy to hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde in Italy: Prevalence, trend, and concordance with fragrance mix II, Contact Dermatitis, 88(2), 129–133 (2023). PMID 36305627. doi:10.1111/cod.14240