Baby Safety / Compounds / cis-Rose oxide

Is cis-Rose oxide safe for babies and kids?

Low risk for kids

(Babies-specific data is limited; this page draws from human adult context.) cis-Rose oxide poses low risk to adults under normal use conditions.

What is cis-rose oxide?

The IUPAC name is 2,5-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-5-methylidenefuran.

Also known as: 2,5-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-5-methylidenefuran, Rose oxide, 4-Methyl-2-(2-methylprop-1-en-1-yl)tetrahydro-2H-pyran, Rosenoxide.

IUPAC name
2,5-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-5-methylidenefuran
CAS number
16409-43-1
Molecular formula
C10H18O
Molecular weight
154.25 g/mol
SMILES
CC1CCOC(C1)C=C(C)C
PubChem CID
27866

Risk for babies

Low risk

cis-Rose oxide poses low risk to adults under normal use conditions.

Regulatory consensus

2 regulatory and scientific bodies have classified cis-Rose oxide. The classifications differ — that's the data.

AgencyYearClassificationNotes
EU——EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - extended allergen declaration requirement
IFRA——IFRA Standards on Fragrance Materials

Regulators apply different standards of evidence — animal-data weighting, exposure-pattern assumptions, epidemiological power thresholds — which is why two scientific bodies can review the same data and reach different conclusions. The disagreement is the data.

Where kids encounter cis-rose oxide

  • Perfume
  • Personal Care
  • Fragrance Mixtures

Safer alternatives

Lower-risk approaches that achieve a similar outcome to cis-Rose oxide:

  • Fragrance-free product formulations
    Trade-offs: Eliminates allergen risk entirely; consumer acceptance varies (some associate scent with cleanliness/efficacy); growing market segment; regulatory advantage in EU (no IFRA compliance needed).
    Relative cost: Lower (ingredient elimination)
  • Essential oil-free synthetic fragrance blends with established safety profiles
    Trade-offs: Allows scent without specific natural allergens; synthetic molecules can be individually safety-tested; some synthetics have their own sensitization profiles; cost comparable to natural blends.
    Relative cost: Lower (ingredient elimination)
  • Encapsulated fragrance technologies (reduced dermal contact)
    Trade-offs: Reduces dermal contact by 60-90% via polymer shell release mechanism; higher formulation cost; may alter scent perception (delayed release); shell material itself requires safety assessment.
    Relative cost: 1.2-2×
  • Naturally-derived isolates at IFRA-compliant concentrations
    Trade-offs: Alternative fragrance ingredient; individual safety profile should be assessed per IFRA standards; sensitization potential varies by compound; patch testing recommended for sensitive individuals.
    Relative cost: 2-5× conventional

Frequently asked questions

No FAQ entries generated.

See cis-Rose oxide in the baby app

Look up products containing cis-rose oxide, compare to alternatives, and explore the full data record.

Open in baby View raw API data

Sources (1)
  1. ATSDR Toxicological Profile — CAS 16409-43-1 — reference

Reference data, not professional advice. Aggregates publicly available regulatory and scientific data; not a substitute for veterinary, medical, legal, or regulatory advice. Why we built ALETHEIA →