Beginner perfumer #119: 6,457 records say don't use it, and 8 say why

About a 4 minute read.

The short version

• 6,457 records carry the category "information only not used for fragrances or flavors"
• Only 87 (1.3%) have both an odour field and suppliers, which is what an ex-fragrance material looks like
• Of those 87, 8 give a reason for withdrawal; 75 (86%) say nothing at all
• The best case: 6-methyl coumarin's notes field states its photoallergy and it remains in use; 7-methyl coumarin's notes field reads None found and it is marked as not used

What I expected to find

Last round I cut the database four times, and the first cut removed 6,457 records whose category says they are not for fragrance or flavour use. That group holds iodine, lactose and cyclamate, but it also holds musk ambrette.

I expected a whole cohort of materials that used to be fragrance materials and were later withdrawn, each with its own story.

There isn't one.

Only 87 look like they were ever fragrance materials

The bar is low: an odour field (somebody smelled it and described it) and at least one supplier (you can still get it).

	Records
Total "information only"	6,457
With an odour field and suppliers	87 (1.3%)
Plus a strength rank	12

Of 6,457 records, 87 were ever treated as odour materials. The other 6,370 never were: they are iodine, lactose, pesticides and pharmaceuticals.

And 86% of the 87 give no reason

I read the regulatory, notes and cosmetic uses fields of all 87 looking for an explanation:

Field evidence	Records
Says it was withdrawn (withdrawn / not used anymore)	8
Has a regulatory field but does not mention withdrawal	4
No explanation at all	75 (86%)

The best-supplied of them:

Suppliers	Material	Gives a reason
20	musk xylol	No (regulatory field empty)
18	musk ambrette	Yes: contact photosensitivity
13	bromstyrol	No
9	lemon verbena oil	No
7	quinoline	Yes: FEMA GRAS (withdrawn)
7	7-methyl coumarin	No (notes field reads None found)

Musk ambrette carrying three fields that explain its withdrawal is the exception, not the norm.

The best case is a pair of isomers

7-methyl coumarin caught my eye because its name reminded me of the record next door. Side by side:

	6-methyl coumarin	7-methyl coumarin
CAS	92-48-8	2445-83-2
Formula	C10H8O2	C10H8O2
Molecular weight	160.17	160.17
Suppliers	35	7
Category	flavoring agents	information only not used
Regulatory	JECFA, FEMA GRAS, CoE, FLAVIS	(empty)
Cosmetic uses	fragrance; oral care agents	not used anymore
Notes	"synthetic fragrance causing contact photoallergy"	None found

Same molecular formula, one ring position apart.

And the 6-methyl record's own notes field says it causes photoallergy. Kaidbey and Kligman published its photocontact allergy in Contact Dermatitis in 1978 (PMID 743874). It was used heavily in sunscreens and left over exactly this.

Yet in this database it is a normal material: 35 suppliers, four regulatory listings, FEMA 2699.

The 7-methyl record has no documented problem at all, its notes field reads None found, and it carries the "not used for fragrances or flavors" label with 7 suppliers remaining.

This is not necessarily wrong

I nearly wrote that the two labels are swapped, then stopped.

Look at the 6-methyl row's category field: flavoring agents, not fragrance agents.

That may be exactly what the database is encoding: it left cosmetics and perfumery while keeping its identity as a flavour material. FEMA GRAS and JECFA are food listings, and putting something in food is a different question from putting it on skin.

(Its cosmetic_uses field still reads fragrance, which disagrees with its category. Another instance of one record's fields checking each other.)

Why the 7-methyl record was removed is a question this database does not answer.

What this means in practice

When you see "information only not used for fragrances or flavors":

1. Do not assume the reason is in another field. 86% of the time it is not
2. Read the notes field. All 8 that explain themselves do it there
3. Look at its isomers and its family. 7-methyl coumarin's answer was not in its own record; it was in 6-methyl's notes field, though that answer points at the other material
4. The label does not mean "toxic". Quinoline's FEMA GRAS was withdrawn, but the same group holds lemon verbena oil, which is a restriction rather than a poison

What this doesn't establish

• "Has an odour field and suppliers = used to be a fragrance material" is a criterion I chose. It misses older materials with an unfilled odour field, and may pick up things that were never fragrance materials but whose smell somebody described.
• "86% give no reason" means no reason in this database's fields. The real reasons may sit in IFRA standards, EU regulations or supplier documents; they are just not here.
• In the 6-methyl / 7-methyl section I did not look up 7-methyl coumarin's current regulatory status. All I can say is that the database explains one and not the other.
• "Category flavoring agents means its food identity survived" is my reading, not something the database says.
• The 87 out of 6,457 ratio (1.3%) looks low precisely because most of the "information only" group was never fragrance material. This is not "86% of withdrawn materials give no reason"; it is "86% of the 87 records that were once fragrance materials give no reason".
• Automated curation of chemical datasets has its own literature (PMID 27885862), aimed at field consistency. "Why was this withdrawn" was never inside the scope of that kind of procedure.