Hubbry Logo
Methyl eugenolMethyl eugenolMain
Open search
Methyl eugenol
Community hub
Methyl eugenol
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Methyl eugenol
Methyl eugenol
Methyl eugenol
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Methyl eugenol
Skeletal formula of methyl eugenol
Ball-and-stick model of the methyl eugenol molecule
Names
Preferred IUPAC name
1,2-Dimethoxy-4-(prop-2-enyl)benzene[1]
Other names
4-Allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene
Allylveratrol
4-Allylveratrol
Eugenol methyl ether
Methyleugenol
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
ChEBI
ChEMBL
ChemSpider
ECHA InfoCard 100.002.022 Edit this at Wikidata
EC Number
  • 202-223-0
KEGG
UNII
  • InChI=1S/C11H14O2/c1-4-5-9-6-7-10(12-2)11(8-9)13-3/h4,6-8H,1,5H2,2-3H3
  • COc1cc(ccc1OC)CC=C
Properties
C11H14O2
Molar mass 178.231 g·mol−1
Density 0.98 g/cm3
Melting point -2 °C
Boiling point 254.7 °C
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).

Methyl eugenol (allylveratrol) is a natural chemical compound classified as a phenylpropene, a type of phenylpropanoid. It is the methyl ether of eugenol and is important to insect behavior and pollination.[2] It is found in various essential oils.

Methyl eugenol is found in a number of plants (over 450 species from 80 families including both angiosperm and gymnosperm families) and has a role in attracting pollinators. About 350 plant species have them as a component of floral fragrance. Their ability to attract insects, particularly Bactrocera fruit flies (particularly, Bactrocera dorsalis male flies) was first noticed in 1915 by F. M. Howlett. The compound may have evolved in response to pathogens, as methyl eugenol has some antifungal activity. It also repels many insects.[3]

As of October 2018, the US FDA withdrew authorization for the use of methyl eugenol as a synthetic flavoring substance for use in food because petitioners (including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest) provided data demonstrating that these additives induce cancer in laboratory animals.[4] FDA noted the action was despite its continuing stance that this substance does not pose a risk to public health under the conditions of its intended use.[5]

In European Union member states, starting in 2021, any product that contains more than 0.01% of Methyl Eugenol must contain a label to this effect this as per the CLP regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008) [6][failed verification]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Methyl eugenol

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Methyl eugenol, chemically 4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene or eugenyl methyl , is a naturally occurring phenylpropanoid with the molecular formula C₁₁H₁₄O₂, present in the essential oils of over 450 plant species from 80 families, including , , , and tea tree. It appears as a colorless to pale yellow oily liquid with a characteristic clove-like aroma and bitter taste, exhibiting moderate in and volatility conducive to its role in plant-insect interactions. In industry, methyl eugenol has been employed as a flavoring agent in products like baked goods, beverages, candies, and chewing gum, as well as in perfumery for its spicy, floral notes; it also functions as a potent attractant for male fruit flies in pest monitoring and control traps, aiding integrated management of invasive species such as the Oriental fruit fly. However, extensive evidence from rodent bioassays demonstrates its carcinogenicity, with dose-dependent induction of liver, thyroid, and other tumors in both rats and mice, leading to classifications as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, based on sufficient animal data despite limited human evidence. Consequently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration delisted synthetic methyl eugenol as a permitted direct food additive in 2018, prohibiting its intentional addition to foods amid concerns over genotoxic metabolites, though natural occurrences in spices and herbs persist as dietary exposure sources.

Chemical Properties

Molecular Structure and Formula

Methyl eugenol possesses the molecular formula . Its systematic IUPAC name is 4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxy. The molecule consists of a ring substituted with two ortho methoxy groups (-OCH₃) and a para allyl side chain (-CH₂CH=CH₂). Classified as a phenylpropanoid, it derives from the attachment of the propenyl chain to the aromatic core. This structure distinguishes methyl eugenol from , which has the formula C₁₀H₁₂O₂ and systematic name 2-methoxy-4-(prop-2-en-1-yl)phenol, featuring a free phenolic hydroxyl group ortho to a single methoxy substituent. The key difference lies in the of eugenol's phenolic oxygen, converting the -OH to -OCH₃ and adding a . These alkoxy and alkenyl substituents render the aromatic ring electron-rich, facilitating reactivity in electrophilic aromatic processes.

Physical Characteristics

Methyl eugenol is a colorless to pale yellow oily at , exhibiting a characteristic spicy, earthy . Its is -4 °C, rendering it under ambient conditions. The compound has a boiling point of 254–255 °C at standard pressure and a of 1.036 g/mL at 25 °C. Its is 1.534 at 20 °C. Methyl eugenol demonstrates low in , approximately 500 mg/L, but is miscible with organic solvents such as , , and acetone. It remains chemically stable under recommended storage conditions, including and avoidance of strong oxidants.

Synthesis Methods

Methyl eugenol is commercially produced primarily through the chemical of , derived from bud oil via and subsequent isolation. This synthetic route leverages the abundance of , which constitutes 70-90% of essential oil, enabling scalable production; in the United States, annual output reached approximately 100 metric tons as of 1990, predominantly via this method. The reaction typically employs as the methylating agent in with a strong base like , yielding methyl eugenol through O-methylation of eugenol's phenolic hydroxyl group, followed by purification via or fractional to achieve yields exceeding 80%. Alternative synthetic approaches include the use of (DMC) as a less hazardous methylating agent, reacting eugenol with DMC in the presence of catalysts such as or bases under conditions, which offers environmental advantages by reducing toxic byproducts like salts. One-pot processes combining methylation with vacuum fractionation have been developed to streamline separation of methyl eugenol from unreacted eugenol and impurities, enhancing efficiency for industrial scales by integrating reaction and steps. These methods prioritize selectivity to avoid over-methylation or side reactions, with reaction conditions optimized at temperatures of 80-120°C and molar ratios of eugenol to methylating agent around 1:1.2 for maximal conversion. Isolation from natural essential oils, such as those from ( basilicum) or citronella, supplements synthesis when high-purity fractions are needed, involving of material followed by extraction or chromatographic separation to concentrate methyl eugenol, which typically comprises 1-20% of these oils depending on plant variety and harvest maturity. However, this extraction is less scalable for bulk production due to variable yields and co-extraction of structurally similar phenylpropanoids, necessitating additional purification steps like for semi-preparative isolation. Industrial processes emphasize synthetic methylation for consistency, targeting purities above 98% to meet regulatory standards for flavoring agents and pesticides, where trace impurities like unreacted can alter properties or . Challenges in synthesis include managing the volatility of the product ( 254°C at 760 mmHg) during and mitigating genotoxic byproducts from incomplete reactions, addressed through inert atmospheres and precise control.

Natural Occurrence

Plant Sources and Distribution

Methyl eugenol occurs naturally in over 450 species spanning 80 families, including both angiosperms and gymnosperms, making it a widespread in the plant kingdom. Prominent families with high representation include (47 species), (44 species), (38 species), and (34 species), with elevated concentrations often observed in and . It is particularly abundant in culinary spices and herbs such as cloves, , , bay leaves, , and , where levels in s can reach several percent and, in some , exceed 90% of total oil composition. For instance, methyl eugenol constitutes 87.2–89.5% of the in certain Myrtaceae extracts, while fresh contains approximately 0.11%. These compounds serve ecological roles, including defense against herbivores and pathogens, as well as attraction of pollinators through volatile emissions. Due to its prevalence in dietary staples, human exposure via natural sources is ubiquitous, with estimated mean intakes for consumers ranging from 8 µg/kg body weight per day, derived primarily from spices, herbs, and fruits rather than synthetic additives. Regular consumption can yield higher exposures, up to 66–514 µg/kg body weight per day, underscoring the compound's integral presence in typical diets.

Biosynthesis in Nature

Methyl eugenol is produced in plants via the phenylpropanoid pathway, which begins with the amino acid phenylalanine as the primary precursor. Phenylalanine is deaminated by phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) to form cinnamic acid, followed by sequential hydroxylation, methylation, and reduction steps involving enzymes such as cinnamate 4-hydroxylase (C4H), 4-coumarate:CoA ligase (4CL), and coniferaldehyde 5-hydroxylase (CAF5H) to yield eugenol as an intermediate. The final methylation of eugenol's phenolic hydroxyl group to form methyl eugenol is catalyzed by eugenol O-methyltransferase (EOMT), an enzyme that utilizes S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM) as the methyl donor. This step occurs in the cytosol or endoplasmic reticulum, integrating methyl eugenol into the broader network of volatile phenylpropanoids that contribute to plant secondary metabolism. The compound accumulates primarily in glandular trichomes, secretory cavities, or reservoirs within plant tissues, where it is sequestered to minimize autotoxicity while enabling rapid release upon tissue disruption. Evolutionarily, this likely serves defensive functions, such as deterring herbivorous through or repellency, as methyl eugenol exhibits broad insecticidal properties against phytophagous . It may also facilitate indirect defense by attracting parasitoids or predators of herbivores, or act as a attractant in floral contexts, reflecting a balance between deterrence and ecological interactions shaped by selective pressures for survival and reproduction. Concentrations of methyl eugenol exhibit significant variability, influenced by genetic factors including chemotype differences and allelic variations in biosynthetic genes like EOMT, which dictate pathway flux across cultivars or accessions. Environmental conditions, such as light intensity and availability, modulate expression of phenylpropanoid genes, often increasing output under higher or gradients. Abiotic and biotic stresses, including or attack, trigger upregulation of the pathway via stress-responsive transcription factors, elevating methyl eugenol levels as part of adaptive responses. Ontogenetic stage and growth site further contribute to fluctuations, with taller plants or field versus controlled conditions correlating to higher yields in some species.

Uses and Applications

Food and Flavoring

Methyl eugenol contributes spicy, clove-like, and cinnamon-associated flavor and aroma notes to various consumable products. It has been employed as a synthetic flavor enhancer in items such as jellies, baked goods, non-alcoholic beverages, , candies, puddings, relishes, and , typically at low concentrations in the parts-per-million range to achieve effects without dominating the overall profile. In the United States, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) initially affirmed methyl eugenol as (GRAS) for food flavoring applications, with projected intakes from such uses estimated at approximately 0.3 µg/day, well below established thresholds derived from no-observed-adverse-effect levels in . Usage levels included up to 1 ppm in beverages, 0.4 ppm in candies and baked goods, and 0.02–0.12 ppm in and similar frozen desserts. However, in 2016, FEMA revoked the GRAS designation for methyl eugenol pending further evaluation of supporting data. The U.S. followed by delisting synthetic methyl eugenol as a in 2018, prohibiting its direct addition to s. Dietary exposure now derives predominantly from naturally occurring methyl eugenol in plant-derived flavorings, such as essential oils from spices and herbs incorporated into processed s, where levels in final products often surpass those from prior synthetic applications. This natural incorporation sustains its role in enhancing sensory qualities like warmth and pungency in flavored consumables.

Fragrances and Cosmetics

Methyl eugenol contributes a sweet, warm, spicy, clove-like scent with carnation and undertones to fragrance compositions, serving as a fixative to prolong aroma persistence in perfumes, soaps, lotions, and other . Its tenacity and mild oriental character enable synergy with other allylbenzenes, such as derivatives, in floral and spicy formulations, though it is typically blended at trace levels to avoid overpowering notes. Usage concentrations are kept below 1%, with reported levels of 0.3–0.8% in perfumes, 0.01–0.05% in creams and lotions, and 0.02–0.2% in soaps and detergents, prioritizing dilution to reduce risks of or . The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) imposes strict category-specific limits, such as no more than 0.01% in fine fragrances and 0.004% in facial creams from natural sources, reflecting expert panel reviews of dermal absorption data showing 14.5% from a 50 ppm cream application. Post-2000 safety evaluations, including National Toxicology Program studies and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification in 2004 as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on rodent bioassays, prompted IFRA amendments like the 2021 Standard restricting intentional addition to minimize exposure. These measures address concerns from metabolic activation, though human dermal relevance remains debated due to lower systemic doses in cosmetic applications compared to oral routes.

Pest Control and Agriculture

Methyl eugenol is registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a pesticide active ingredient since June 2006, specifically approved for use as a male-specific attractant in traps targeting fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera, such as the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis). This registration supports its application in integrated pest management (IPM) programs for monitoring infestation levels and suppressing populations in fruit orchards, where it is deployed in baited traps often combined with insecticides for the male annihilation technique (MAT). In these systems, methyl eugenol dispensers, typically releasing 1-3 grams of the compound over several months, lure males from distances exceeding 800 meters, enabling targeted capture without broad dispersal. Field studies demonstrate high efficacy in ; for instance, using methyl eugenol reduced B. dorsalis populations by up to 99.5% across multiple seasons in treated orchards, correlating with significantly lower fruit infestation rates compared to untreated controls. When integrated with (SIT) programs, pre-release exposure to methyl eugenol enhances sterile male mating competitiveness, allowing fewer released insects to achieve equivalent suppression while minimizing wild population rebound. These outcomes support economic benefits in , as reduced fly densities preserve yields of susceptible crops like and , with trap densities of 10-50 per hectare optimizing coverage in high-risk areas. Compared to broad-spectrum insecticides, methyl eugenol-based lures offer advantages in selectivity, as they primarily attract and eliminate males, preventing egg-laying without affecting non-target , pollinators, or ecosystems. The compound's low environmental persistence—degrading rapidly via volatilization and minimal accumulation—limits residue risks in harvestable produce, contrasting with persistent organophosphates that can contaminate waterways and beneficial arthropods. This targeted approach aligns with sustainable IPM by reducing overall inputs and resistance development pressures on fruit fly populations.

Toxicology and Mechanisms

Animal Studies on Carcinogenicity

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted 2-year gavage studies of methyl eugenol in , administering doses 5 days per week to groups of 50 F344/N rats and 50 B6C3F1 mice per sex. Male mice received 0, 37.5, 75, or 150 mg/kg body weight/day, while females received 0, 75, 150, or 300 mg/kg/day; both sexes of rats received 0, 75, 150, or 300 mg/kg/day. These studies, completed in 1998–1999, provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity across all groups, primarily manifesting as dose-dependent increases in liver neoplasms. In male mice, hepatocellular adenoma incidences rose from 2% (controls) to 35% at the high dose, hepatocellular carcinomas from 4% to 51%, and hepatoblastomas from 0% to 14%, with statistically significant trends (P<0.001). Female mice showed even higher responsiveness, with combined malignant liver tumor incidences reaching 76% at 75 mg/kg/day and nearly 100% at higher doses, compared to 4% in controls. Dose-response relationships were evident, as tumor multiplicity and malignancy progressed with exposure level, accompanied by preneoplastic lesions like eosinophilic foci. Rats exhibited clear evidence of hepatocarcinogenicity as well, though with lower tumor yields than mice. Female rats had increased incidences of hepatocellular adenomas (up to 10% at 300 mg/kg vs. 0% controls) and carcinomas (up to 6%), while males showed adenomas (up to 4%) and carcinomas (up to 6%), alongside non-hepatocellular sites like the skin and small intestine contributing to the overall assessment. Tumor responses followed dose-related patterns, but survival and body weight reductions at high doses (>150 mg/kg) complicated interpretation. No-observed-effect levels for neoplastic effects were not identified, as significant increases occurred at the lowest tested doses (37.5–75 mg/kg/day), though subchronic studies suggested thresholds around 10 mg/kg/day for precursor lesions. The gavage method likely amplified peak hepatic exposures, potentially overstating risks relative to dietary intake scenarios.

Metabolic Pathways and Genotoxicity

Methyl eugenol undergoes phase I metabolism primarily through cytochrome P450 enzymes, such as CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, which oxidize the allylic side chain at the 1'-position to form 1'-hydroxymethyleugenol, the proximate carcinogen. This hydroxylation step generates a benzylic alcohol susceptible to further activation. In phase II metabolism, sulfotransferases, particularly SULT1A1, conjugate the hydroxyl group with a sulfate moiety, yielding 1'-sulfooxymethyleugenol, an ultimate electrophilic metabolite that spontaneously decomposes to form a carbocation capable of reacting with nucleophilic sites in DNA. This sulfation pathway is critical for genotoxicity, as alternative detoxifying conjugations, such as glucuronidation or glutathione conjugation, compete but predominate at higher doses or in tissues with lower SULT activity. The ultimate metabolite induces DNA damage by forming adducts, predominantly N²-(3-(4-allyl-2-methoxyphenoxy)-2-hydroxypropyl)-dG and other stable lesions, which can distort the DNA helix and impair replication if unrepaired. In vitro genotoxicity assays reveal mixed results: methyleugenol tests negative in the Ames bacterial reversion test, indicating limited potential for point mutations via base substitution, but positive in the micronucleus assay in mammalian cells like V79 or HT29, demonstrating clastogenic effects such as chromosome breakage and aneuploidy. At low exposure levels, adduct formation is dose-dependent and often repairable by pathways, reducing mutagenic outcomes, whereas higher doses overwhelm repair capacity, leading to persistent damage. Interspecies variations in genotoxic potential arise from differential sulfotransferase expression and activity. , including mice and rats, exhibit higher hepatic SULT1A1 levels, resulting in greater bioactivation to the sulfated and elevated formation compared to , where SULT1A1 activity is polymorphic and generally lower, with interindividual variation linked to mRNA expression influencing adduct levels in liver samples. liver fractions show reduced formation of the proximate relative to counterparts, underscoring metabolic scaling challenges in extrapolating data to risk. These differences highlight the role of SULT-mediated toxification as a key determinant of species-specific sensitivity under comparable exposure conditions.

Human Relevance and Exposure Data

Human exposure to methyl eugenol primarily occurs through dietary intake from spices and herbs such as , , and , with estimated daily consumption ranging from 0.6–424 µg in various populations. Mean dietary exposures are reported as 80.5 µg/day in and 9.6 µg/day in , reflecting variability based on culinary habits and regional food consumption patterns. Additional routes include like perfumes and , contributing approximately 1.5 µg/kg body weight per day, and occupational settings in or where from lures may occur at low ambient levels. Biomonitoring studies confirm widespread but low-level exposure, with methyl eugenol detected in 98% of U.S. adult serum samples at mean concentrations of 24 pg/g (range <3.1–390 pg/g). A 2023 controlled study involving consumption of basil pesto (containing 1.7 mg methyl eugenol) detected urinary mercapturic acid biomarker E-3′- in all participants, with total excretion of 3–274 ng (1–85 ppm of ingested dose), peaking 1–6 hours post-ingestion and clearing within 12 hours. These findings indicate detectable metabolic activation from dietary sources like herbs, yet the low recovery suggests limited bioactivation to genotoxic intermediates relative to intake. No epidemiological studies have established a causal link between methyl eugenol exposure and human cancer incidence. Quantitative risk models, accounting for typical exposures orders of magnitude below carcinogenic doses in rodents, estimate lifetime cancer risks below 1 in 10^5 to 10^6, underscoring negligible human hazard at ambient levels compared to high-dose animal extrapolations.

Regulatory Framework

International Classifications

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies methyl eugenol as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), a determination made in its 2023 evaluation based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, including increased incidences of liver and other tumors in rodents administered the compound orally or via gavage, coupled with limited evidence in humans from epidemiological studies showing associations with certain cancers though confounded by exposures. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) lists methyl eugenol as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen in its Report on Carcinogens, a status upheld since its 2000 technical report demonstrating clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female F344/N rats and male B6C3F1 mice, primarily through hepatomas and other neoplasms following oral administration. Under the European Union's Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation, methyl eugenol is designated as a suspected carcinogen (hazard statement H351: Suspected of causing cancer), reflecting harmonized classification derived from animal bioassay data indicating neoplastic effects without conclusive human data. In contrast to these hazard classifications focused on potential carcinogenicity, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) evaluated methyl eugenol as a flavoring agent in 1981 without allocating an acceptable daily intake (ADI), permitting its presence at low levels in foods under the flavorings evaluation procedure that deems no safety concern for substances metabolized or occurring at trace amounts, though subsequent restrictions apply in regions like the EU prohibiting direct addition to food.

Risk Assessments and Exposure Limits

Regulatory agencies have conducted risk assessments for methyl eugenol, emphasizing low general population exposure while recommending oversight for elevated scenarios. Health Canada's 2024 screening assessment identified minimal risk to the Canadian population from environmental and dietary sources, attributing this to naturally low intake levels primarily from spices and essential oils, though it proposed restrictions on intentional use in cosmetics to limit potential high-exposure dermal applications. Similarly, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluations of feed additives containing trace methyl eugenol as impurities, such as in essential oils, concluded no consumer safety concerns at proposed use levels, provided concentrations remain below thresholds triggering further scrutiny, due to rapid metabolism and excretion in target animals. Dietary exposure estimates range from 0.13 to 1.35 μg/kg body weight per day for adults, derived from consumption of herbs, spices, and processed foods where methyl eugenol occurs naturally. Risk characterization employs the margin of exposure (MoE) approach for this genotoxic carcinogen, comparing human exposures to benchmark dose lower confidence limits (BMDL10) from rodent hepatocarcinogenicity data (approximately 0.36–1.4 mg/kg body weight per day, species- and endpoint-adjusted). Resulting MoEs exceed 10,000 for average dietary intakes, suggesting practical safety margins that deviate from strict linear no-threshold extrapolations by incorporating evidence of metabolic saturation and non-linear dose-response at low levels. No specific occupational exposure limits (OELs) have been established by major bodies like OSHA or ACGIH, reflecting limited industrial use and absence of validated workplace monitoring data; however, general controls recommend minimizing and dermal contact through and personal protective measures. In the , flavoring regulations under Regulation (EC) No 1334/ implicitly limit added methyl eugenol by prohibiting substances posing carcinogenic risks without safe thresholds, confining it to unavoidable natural traces, while cosmetic standards restrict it to ≤0.01% in leave-on products to curb cumulative exposure. These derive from application of uncertainty factors (typically 100–1,000) to no-observed-adverse-effect levels where feasible, prioritizing empirical exposure data over precautionary assumptions.

Scientific Debates

Evidence Gaps in Human Carcinogenicity

No epidemiological studies, including cohort or case-control designs, have identified a positive association between methyl eugenol exposure and cancer incidence in humans, despite its ubiquitous presence in dietary sources such as , , and herbal teas consumed globally for centuries. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) explicitly notes inadequate evidence from human data for carcinogenicity, with classifications relying solely on animal findings. This absence persists even as reveals widespread low-level human exposure, orders of magnitude below tumorigenic doses in , without corresponding signals in population cancer registries. Rodent bioassays, which form the basis for concern, employed high-dose gavage administration—up to 300 mg/kg in —delivering bolus exposures that saturate metabolic pathways and ignore chronic, low-dose dietary relevant to humans. Such protocols overestimate risk by disregarding species-specific differences; exhibit proportionally higher formation of the proximate (1'-hydroxymethyleugenol) due to efficient P450-mediated bioactivation, whereas physiologically based kinetic models predict substantially lower levels in humans at equivalent exposures. Extrapolation flaws are compounded by ' accelerated and weaker compared to humans, rendering direct application of no-observed-adverse-effect levels inappropriate without adjustment. Genotoxicity data, while indicating DNA adduct formation in rodents, fail to establish human thresholds; low-dose exposures likely fall below repair capacities, as linear no-threshold models overlook nonlinear detoxification and endogenous repair mechanisms that mitigate sporadic alkylation events. Assessments acknowledge uncertainties in human relevance, including the lack of demonstrated mutagenicity at environmental levels and absence of supportive biomarkers in exposed populations. These gaps underscore the speculative nature of inferring human risk from supraphysiological animal regimens, prioritizing biological realism over precautionary defaults.

Balancing Agricultural Benefits Against Potential Risks

Methyl eugenol serves as a potent attractant in integrated pest management strategies for fruit flies, particularly species like Bactrocera dorsalis, enabling the deployment of traps or sterile insect techniques that target males and interrupt reproduction cycles, thereby suppressing populations with reduced reliance on conventional pesticides. This method supports area-wide control programs that ensure harvested fruit remains largely free of infestation, preserving market access and minimizing post-harvest losses in horticultural commodities. Uncontrolled fruit fly outbreaks, by contrast, inflict substantial economic damage, with estimates for a single establishment event in California ranging from $44 million to $176 million in direct crop losses plus associated control costs. Exposure assessments for agricultural applicators and nearby populations reveal negligible risks, as detects methyl eugenol metabolites at concentrations several orders of magnitude below the lowest doses administered in animal experiments. Such low-level detections align with the compound's primary use in vapor form within dispensers, where represents the dominant route but yields no observed adverse effects under standard field protocols. Relative to broad-spectrum insecticides, which indiscriminately harm beneficial , pollinators, and soil organisms, methyl eugenol's male-specific attraction minimizes non-target impacts while its environmental persistence is limited—dissipating rapidly from and (up to 98% loss within 96 hours under warm conditions) and achieving approximately 90% over 28 days in tests. This biodegradability and targeted efficacy contribute to net ecological advantages, avoiding the broader and resistance issues associated with synthetic alternatives. Regulatory caution, often rooted in high-dose bioassays extrapolated to s despite species differences in and exposure scales, overlooks the empirical absence of human carcinogenicity linked to agricultural applications and the tangible utility in sustaining yields amid escalating global food demands. Prioritizing unverified risks over documented pest suppression benefits risks undermining without causal evidence of harm, as field affirm effective, low-exposure deployment sustains .

References

  1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methyleugenol
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3500151/
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373178/
  4. https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/methyleugenolig080718.pdf
  5. https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/pesticides/fact-sheet/hqamethyleugenol2015.pdf
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590859/
  7. https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Aspartame-Methyleugenol-And-Isoeugenol-2024
  8. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/ese-ees/0129fd3c-b0ff-41c8-8bf5-7b2cd016ad36/batch9_93-15-2_en.pdf
  9. https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-removes-7-synthetic-flavoring-substances-food-additives-list
  10. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/09/2018-21807/food-additive-regulations-synthetic-flavoring-agents-and-adjuvants
  11. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=93-15-2
  12. https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB31864
  13. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Eugenol
  14. https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB8198972.htm
  15. https://consolidated-chemical.com/product/methyl-eugenol-high-purity-aroma-compound/
  16. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/DE/de/sds/ALDRICH/W247502
  17. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4978182/13738967/020109_1_online.pdf
  18. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jac/papers/vol9-issue10/Version-2/L091002105112.pdf
  19. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102351663A/en
  20. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/494/1/012056/pdf
  21. https://www.chemicalbook.com/article/preparation-method-and-uses-of-methyl-eugenol.htm
  22. https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/11/2909
  23. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1081591
  24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1934578X1701200633
  25. https://www.xiahepublishing.com/2835-6357/FIM-2024-00048
  26. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/5/1026
  27. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/screening-assessment-forchallenge44.html
  28. https://publications.iarc.who.int/_publications/media/download/5697/3688001ed60b5a2a024787bc9f150a950e4fba77.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674205214603944
  30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9439593/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9634403/
  32. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.598519/full
  33. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/20/2938
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11538333_Methyleugenol_and_eugenol_variation_in_Ocimum_basilicum_cv_Genovese_gigante_grown_in_greenhouse_and_in_vitro
  35. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/hea_15060901a.pdf
  36. https://www.femaflavor.org/fema-statement-methyl-eugenol
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230022001672
  38. https://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out102_en.pdf
  39. https://www.perfumersworld.com/view.php?pro_id=9SW00298
  40. https://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/p-9500-methyl-eugenol.aspx
  41. https://www.perfumersworld.com/documents/Project-Templates/IFRA-Standards/Methyl%2520eugenol.pdf
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962456203000067
  43. https://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/93-15-2.pdf
  44. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/06/07/E6-8719/methyl-eugenol-registration-approval
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2022.984348/full
  46. https://academic.oup.com/jinsectscience/article/10/1/8/823600
  47. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/101/2/352/902762
  48. https://bioone.org/journals/florida-entomologist/volume-105/issue-3/024.105.0307/Weathering-of-Methyl-Eugenol-Solid-Dispensers--Effects-on-Residual/10.1653/024.105.0307.full
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20831962/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12563349/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25549870/
  52. https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article-pdf/18/9/1775/19257938/181775.pdf
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4002132/
  54. https://upgx.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Tremmel_ArchToxicol_Oct2017.pdf
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51907243_A_comparative_in_vitro_kinetic_study_of_14C-eugenol_and_14C-methyleugenol_activation_and_detoxification_in_human_mouse_and_rat_liver_and_lung_fractions
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22337896/
  57. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/131/2/387/1641398
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11858557/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339913426_The_safety_evaluation_of_food_flavoring_substances_the_role_of_genotoxicity_studies
  60. https://academic.oup.com/mutage/article/27/4/453/1114793
  61. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00212
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1665427/
  63. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/iarc-monographs-evaluation-of-the-carcinogenicity-of-aspartame-methyleugenol-and-isoeugenol/
  64. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/roc/content/profiles/methyleugenol.pdf
  65. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr491.pdf
  66. https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/2504.htm
  67. https://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/chemical.aspx?chemID=4255
  68. https://inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jeceval/jec_846.htm
  69. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/challenge/batch-9/methyl-eugenol.html
  70. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7875
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691509004979
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20113858/
  73. https://www.vigon.com/product/methyl-eugenol/?doc=MSDS/500243_vigon_sds_us_english.pdf&namee=MethylEugenolSDS
  74. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8671
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691519300511
  76. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/QA-for-Methyleugenol-and-Isoeugenol.pdf
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041008X12000981
  78. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2823%2900341-8/abstract
  79. https://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/2007/may/flies
  80. https://www.aciar.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/ACIAR_MN222_AWM-fruit-fly-manual_web.pdf
  81. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/one-worlds-worst-pests-attacks-california
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17107870/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.