Styrallyl acetate didn’t catch the spotlight in the early decades of synthetic chemistry. Many of the big developments through the 19th and early 20th centuries stuck to essential oils and simpler esters. Once demand for complex flavors and fragrances grew, interest turned toward new synthetic esters like styrallyl acetate. Chemists searching for nature-imitating compounds recognized its geranium-like scent, sparking industrial interest. Research records from the post-war boom show how perfumery and food flavoring houses chased cost-effective alternatives to slow and often unreliable botanical extraction. It’s fair to say that without the push for accessible aroma chemicals, styrallyl acetate would have lingered as a laboratory curiosity far longer.
Styrallyl acetate sometimes goes by names like (E)-1-Phenylallyl acetate or 1-Phenyl-2-propenyl acetate. As an ester, it brings a green, slightly spicy, floral aroma that stands out in fragrance and flavor applications. Industrial supply isn’t just a matter of bulk—quality demands strict attention to purity and trace impurities that influence both scent and regulatory status. Demand comes from both the fine fragrance world and the everyday detergent segment, as this molecule reliably lifts complex, green notes at low concentrations. It’s not just a supporting component; artists in blending recognize it as a highlight in certain signature bases.
Styrallyl acetate’s pale yellow color and distinctive, pleasant odor make it stand out physically from many other esters that drift closer to fruity or mundane. Its molecular formula, C11H12O2, keeps synthesis and analysis within the reach of most labs. At about 190°C for the boiling point and a density just above water’s, it’s manageable within classic industrial protocols. Solubility leans toward most common organic solvents, though it steers clear of water—no surprise for an ester designed for fragrance matrices. Its vapor pressure and flash point must be managed, and these physical traits carry real-world meaning in factory settings.
Shippers and purchasers live and breathe by paperwork. Styrallyl acetate demands technical data sheets that spell out content, purity (often 98% or higher for fine use), and identification by spectral methods like GC-MS or IR. Most suppliers now track batch-by-batch traceability. Labeling connects with international conventions—CAS number 93-92-5 anchors it for inventory and compliance, while GHS symbols and precautionary phrases cover the transport and handling. Shipment sizes range from small, sealed ampoules to full drum lots, each accompanied by the right hazard statements, storage guidelines, and shelf life, all built around established chemical safety principles.
Traditional synthesis follows an acylation process where (E)-cinnamyl alcohol or recent analogs undergo acetylation with acetic anhydride or acetyl chloride. Catalysts like pyridine or stronger acid scavengers figure into the routine here. Lab teams work on scaling up with eye to cost, selectivity, and purification—removing unreacted alcohol and any side-products cuts down on later problems with off-notes or instabilities in finished fragrance. Modern process chemists tinker with greener solvents and reusable catalysts, chasing lower waste and lower emissions, responding to both regulation and cost pressure. Cleanup through distillation, with careful control of pressure and temperature, brings the product up to spec for technical applications.
Styrallyl acetate offers more than just blending compatibility; the double bond and acetate group open doors in organic synthesis. Hydrogenation gives saturated esters with softer scents, and hydrolysis brings back the alcohol for further functionalization. The aromatic ring stands ready for further modifications—halogenation, nitration, or sulfonation, though few practical applications pursue these due to changes in odor profile or cost. Formulators in fragrance research regularly exploit its stability in multi-component blends, relying on its resistance to UV breakdown or oxidation under normal use, a property worth gold in shelf-life-sensitive products.
Catalogs rarely restrict themselves to a single name. (E)-1-Phenylallyl acetate, 1-Phenyl-2-propenyl acetate, styrallyl acetate, or phenylallyl acetate stand for the same compound. Each industry or regulatory list may lean toward one or the other, and confusion occasionally creeps in if a supplier or formulator isn’t careful. Multilingual markets cast further combinations, like phenylallyl acétate in French listings. The story’s the same: compositional clarity protects both buyer and end-user, especially with traceability and labeling under ever-stricter requirements in the European Union, North America, or Asia-Pacific trading hubs.
Anybody working with styrallyl acetate needs to pay as much attention to hygiene as to ventilation. Vapors can cause irritation to eyes, nose, or skin on direct exposure. Personal protection equipment, especially gloves and goggles, form the baseline, while confined spaces mean strict control of vapor build-up. Industrial hygiene officers stress the need for regular air monitoring and spill protocols. GHS categorization defines it as an irritant, not a carcinogen or systemic toxin, and the main safety push focuses on limiting acute overexposure and preventing slips or contact in blending rooms. Fire risk stays mild, but real—flash point protocols and safe solvent management remain enforced across major users.
Perfume developers prize styrallyl acetate for notes that land somewhere between green floral and spicy-sweet—think muguet or geranium signatures. Household products, especially liquid detergents and fabric softeners, use it to bring an uplifting lift or to mask less pleasant base notes. Flavor houses find its spicy, green profile fits spice mixes, chewing gums, or savory sauces, though dosage stays low due to intensity. Its stability across different bases, including detergent, alcohol blends, and some aerosol carriers, makes it a flexible workhorse from high-end to mainstream scent profiles. Regulatory constraints and consumer demand for “nature-identical” aromas drive steady R&D attention.
Academic and corporate labs study styrallyl acetate for new synthesis protocols, green chemistry improvements, and structure-odor relationship exploration. Some research groups focus on biosynthetic routes, pulling in enzymes or engineered microbes to cut reliance on fossil inputs or energy-intensive purification. Others dig into its role as a platform molecule—can it serve as a backbone for innovative flavors or fine-tune aroma longevity in finished products? Trade journals run regular features on trend shifts in ‘green floral’ notes, and patent literature tells stories of new stabilizers and encapsulation methods aimed at keeping styrallyl acetate effective in delivery after storage or exposure to tough environments.
Toxicologists have mapped styrallyl acetate’s acute exposure risks: irritation, mild sensitization, but little evidence of mutagenic or long-term systemic danger in routine levels—mostly in line with other simple esters. Food safety authorities keep its thresholds well within single-digit parts per million, reviewing periodically as analytical methods improve. Long-term studies in mammals suggest rapid metabolism and excretion, lessening broad worries, yet public concern over “chemical” names drives ongoing testing. Consumer product alliances and regulatory agencies maintain surveillance, ready to recommend new limits or label changes should any new health signal arise from ongoing occupational or consumer monitoring.
Looking ahead, demand for distinctive aroma components grows in both emerging and mature markets. Styrallyl acetate stands poised for steady use, but pressures for supply chain transparency, greener production, and “clean label” credentials reshape the way producers work. Biotechnological preparation stands close to commercial scale, promising sharper cost and environmental profiles. Trends in personalized fragrance and flavor sequencing could put more unique blends that feature this molecule into everyday use. Long-term, as synthetic biology, automation, and real-time analytics converge, the role of multi-functional aroma ingredients like styrallyl acetate grows more prominent, both as a toolbox component and as a benchmark for the next generation of sustainable, high-performance chemosensory additives.
Countless bottles on the shelves — shampoos, perfumes, detergents — all have one thing in common: the power of scent to trigger a memory or brighten a mood. Few people know Styrallyl Acetate shapes some of those familiar smells. It pops up in formulas when perfumers want a peachy, fruity nuance that feels real but never cloying. Synthetic ingredients often sound a bit mysterious, yet they’re often the quiet advantage behind products feeling just right.
Styrallyl Acetate turns up in a lot of places beyond perfume. In a bottle of shampoo, it lifts a drab formula with a whiff of orchard, making the wash feel like a treat. Air fresheners for cars, homes or closets often depend on it too. Its sweet green note works wonders at masking less pleasant odors without feeling harsh. Some people living in cities, surrounded by concrete and exhaust fumes, cherish these little moments of pleasant scent as a daily break.
People have questions about what goes into the products they use. Experience tells me — and many dermatologists agree — that pure essential oils aren’t always gentle. Synthetic ingredients like Styrallyl Acetate have passed long-term testing from organizations like the International Fragrance Association. Used at proper doses, they keep irritation risks low. Companies still need to be transparent. Consumers deserve to know what’s in their everyday soaps and sprays. Labels listing exact components help people with allergies or sensitivities steer clear of trouble.
While not as famous as vanilla or peppermint, Styrallyl Acetate sometimes colors the background of fruit flavors. Candy-makers tap into its peachy promise — much the way a pinch of salt lifts a recipe, even if no one can taste it directly. Some flavorists say it gives certain gums or beverages a gentle uplift, letting the natural fruit taste more lively. The goal isn’t to create fake flavors, but to capture the brightness of ripe fruit on a summer day.
The chemical industry faces challenges, especially as consumers seek more natural and less polluting options. Large-scale synthesis of ingredients like Styrallyl Acetate puts factories under scrutiny for waste and emissions. The most responsible manufacturers showcase programs to cut down on solvents and energy use, though plenty of room for progress remains. Shoppers can help by supporting brands with earnest sustainability backstories. Certifications and published supply chain audits signal the direction many hope to see become the norm.
Styrallyl Acetate holds a real place in making products smell and sometimes taste better. No ingredient works magic on its own; thoughtful combinations in careful hands set the standard. The sweet, green note that helps shampoo or body spray stand out should always come with peace of mind. By asking questions, reading up, and pushing brands to show their work, consumers can help keep both safety and enjoyment at the center of the conversation.
Walk through any perfume counter, and you’ll probably run into styrallyl acetate. Most people don’t know it, but this compound gives that crisp, green note in many personal care products. It’s a colorless liquid often added to perfumes, shampoos, lotions, soaps, and air fresheners. With a scent similar to gardenia or hyacinth, it helps create that fresh-out-of-the-shower experience that many folks expect from their personal care routine.
I lean on real data before making up my mind about any cosmetic ingredient. Regulatory bodies watch substances like styrallyl acetate closely. According to the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this compound passes the safety bar for most people, as long as it’s used in recommended amounts. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) lists it, too, noting its main risks involve eye and skin irritation if exposed in large quantities—but not in the tiny doses typical in cosmetics.
Toxicological studies keep backing up the safety of styrallyl acetate at common concentrations. Allergenic reactions show up rarely—about the same rate as tea tree oil or limonene. Compared to ingredients like methylisothiazolinone, which sparked a wave of rashes and patch test complaints a few years ago, styrallyl acetate causes far fewer incidents according to published dermatological journals.
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Panel checked out the available evidence and gave a safety nod to products that stick to recommended levels. Researchers tracked no evidence of it causing reproductive toxicity, gene mutations, or carcinogenic effects in humans. Allergy trackers like the North American Contact Dermatitis Group rarely flag it.
Safety hinges not just on science, but on how upfront companies are about their formulas. As a lifelong ingredient-label reader, I notice that brands using styrallyl acetate usually follow the rules for labeling and keep their concentrations low. Companies that listen to consumer feedback and adjust their formulas if rashes or complaints pop up help everyone feel safe about what’s in the bottle.
With growing demand for “clean beauty,” brands need clear communication on why ingredients like styrallyl acetate show up and what role they serve. After listening to several friends with eczema or sensitive skin, I see most of their issues link not to this particular ingredient, but to heavier preservatives or harsh surfactants.
Anyone truly concerned about ingredient safety has a few practical steps. Patch testing new products at home before regular use helps spot rare allergies. Checking ingredient lists and searching for independent safety reviews supports informed decisions. If a reaction ever happens, noting the product and ingredient for future reference helps keep skin safe in the long term.
Brands, regulators, and third-party scientists keep an eye on cosmetic safety. Styrallyl acetate has built up a data record that encourages confidence among users who pay attention to trustworthy labeling and avoid overuse. Choosing reputable products, staying aware of your own sensitivities, and paying attention to scientific updates keeps things safe and simple.
Someone who’s worked in gardens and kitchens gets to know the difference between a real pear and the so-called “pear” in a shampoo bottle or laundry detergent. Styrallyl acetate creates that difference. Most people have probably smelled it, even if the chemical name doesn’t ring a bell. In the world of scent, this ingredient is a reliable shortcut to juicy pear, ripening melons, and sometimes even the gentle, green snap of a freshly broken stem.
Open a ripe Bartlett or Williams pear. The aroma that comes rushing out doesn’t just come from nature’s handiwork—it also comes from some of the same molecules that perfumers have borrowed. Styrallyl acetate smells like pear, but it edges closer to the candy counter than the orchard. It’s soft and syrupy, with a whisper of powder, just enough to take the edge off the sugar. Some people say it calls to mind banana peels, or evokes the slightly waxy skin of a green apple or melon. Sometimes, depending on its concentration, it reminds me of childhood rooms full of bubble solution or the faint pop of green grapes at a warm picnic.
Flavored candies—especially hard pear drops—owe a lot to this nose-tickler. Walk down the cleaning aisle in any supermarket. That artificial-yet-friendly fruitiness bursting from a “Crisp Linen” or “Fresh Spring” product often includes styrallyl acetate among all those other secret formulas. Body sprays, liquid hand soaps, and lotions often feature it when a company aims for “green apple” or “white tea” blends. Bartenders probably don’t know the name, but the company that makes flavorings for canned pears definitely does. Even a seasoned sensory scientist would admit how quickly our brains connect this molecule to comfort, freshness, and the sense that a room has just been well-aired.
A synthetic ingredient like this one keeps prices down and guarantees every bottle smells the same from batch to batch. Anyone sensitive to allergies may notice it’s a reliable substitute for natural pear essence; after all, things harvested seasonally can vary, but chemistry offers more control. Studies have shown this molecule boosts the “fruitiness” perception in both fragrances and flavorings, according to research published by the International Journal of Cosmetic Science. In a way, it shapes our understanding of what “pear” and “fresh cut melon” should smell like, even if we didn’t grow up near an orchard.
A world where products always smell the same has its pitfalls. Synthetic scent molecules sometimes draw their own group of wary sniffers. It’s no secret that “fragrance” on an ingredient label is a catch-all for many undisclosed chemicals—which leaves people with chemical sensitivities in the dark. Transparent labeling could help those who need to avoid such compounds. For brands, investing in detailed ingredient disclosure can build trust with customers, especially as knowledge about chemical exposures grows. New research in green chemistry already points to possible natural or more sustainable replacements for commonly-used synthetics, including styrallyl acetate. For anyone looking to avoid it, buying products from companies committed to ingredient transparency often makes all the difference.
Standing in a grocery store aisle, scanning a shampoo or a bottle of perfume, the ingredients list can read more like a puzzle. Styrallyl acetate often shows up in those lists. Its floral, fruity scent works well for soaps, lotions, and household products. People want to know if it comes from plants or if it’s cooked up in a lab. With food trends, clean beauty, and “natural” products everywhere, this question deserves an honest answer.
Styrallyl acetate comes with a refreshing, slightly herbal aroma. It shows up naturally in small amounts in parsley and some other plants, but not enough to squeeze out gallons for commercial use. The world simply couldn’t grow enough parsley or similar crops to create an affordable supply at the scale industries need.
Chemists got around this limit. Nearly all styrallyl acetate for fragrance and flavor industries comes from synthetic routes. Factories take simpler chemical building blocks and put them together to create a molecule that’s chemically identical to what comes out of plants. These building blocks often come from petroleum or renewable plant oils, depending on the manufacturer.
Plenty of shoppers assume natural must mean safe, healthy, or better for the planet. Studies show that three out of four self-identified “natural product” users think molecules made by nature somehow carry less risk than those coming from industrial chemistry. The actual science doesn’t always back this up.
A chemical is a chemical. Whether styrallyl acetate comes off a plant leaf or out of a reactor vessel, its molecules look, function, and smell exactly the same. The human nose and the body’s biology can’t tell the difference. Regulators, like the FDA in the United States and the European Food Safety Authority, focus on purity and safety in the final product.
Scaling up natural extraction to supply just the cosmetics market would take land, water, and lots of energy. Synthetically sourced styrallyl acetate gives reliable quality without hijacking farmland from food crops or destroying wild habitats. Global demand for scents and flavors keeps growing, and extracting aromatics from rare or slowly growing plants doesn’t fit with conservation goals.
Synthetic versions also cut down on supply chain headaches. You don’t see wild price swings—or suddenly lose batches—because a cold snap wiped out the parsley harvest halfway across the globe. That means more stable costs for manufacturers and, hopefully, for shoppers as well.
Transparency sits high on my own wish list. Brands ought to share where their ingredients come from without fancy marketing blur. Synthetic doesn’t mean shady or low quality. Sometimes it’s the only way to keep prices reasonable and avoid emptying the landscape of plants or putting farm workers at risk for a non-essential crop. Clean production methods, regular safety checks, and eco-friendly sourcing matter much more than whether the ingredient sprouted in a field or began as a few atoms in a tank.
Making smart decisions—at the company and consumer level—works best with fact over hype. Styrallyl acetate stands as just one example. Looking past the “natural or synthetic” question opens up real conversations about health, the environment, and what we really value in the products we buy.
Styrallyl acetate shows up in a lot of scented products. Formulators use it for its pleasant floral, sweet aroma. Think of fragrances, some soaps, and even a few flavored foods. This chemical comes from acetic acid and styrallyl alcohol, and its scent often mimics jasmine or gardenia.
Brands in the cosmetic and food industries harness the uplifting, green notes of styrallyl acetate. It appears on ingredient labels for perfumes, shampoos, lotions, and sometimes chewing gum or desserts. For many people, it perks up a product’s overall aroma without breaking the bank. My own stash includes a cologne bottle with this subtle note, and it’s never triggered any irritation for me personally.
Styrallyl acetate does not dominate the headlines for causing allergies. Reports in medical literature remain pretty sparse. Regulatory bodies like the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) haven’t flagged it as a major concern for consumers. Scientific reviews back this up, showing few cases of sensibilization—meaning it’s rarely at fault for allergic skin responses.
Those with super sensitive skin might still react, as skin tolerance isn’t universal. A patch test, especially for people with a track record of fragrance sensitivity, could save a lot of trial and error. Dermatologists often recommend caution for those prone to dermatitis or eczema, not because styrallyl acetate stands out, but because their skin already pushes back on fragrance blends.
Toxicology reports for styrallyl acetate point to low hazard, especially at the concentrations found in finished products. Studies using high doses in isolated forms sometimes note mild irritation, mainly when applied directly to bare skin or mucous membranes. Even at full strength, reactions look mild and rare.
In high doses or concentrated industrial applications, there’s potential for eye or respiratory irritation. Most end-users don’t have direct contact with raw styrallyl acetate, so risks stay much lower for those just spraying perfume or lathering up with body wash. Occupational guidelines suggest personal protective equipment for workers who handle the undiluted chemical all day.
European regulators ask fragrance suppliers to disclose presence of some well-known allergens, but styrallyl acetate doesn’t appear on the European Union’s mandatory list. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits it for use in food under controlled conditions. Consistent safety reviews by organizations like the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) have not raised alarms.
Anyone experiencing itching, redness, or breathing problems after using fragrances or foods containing styrallyl acetate should check labels and talk with a health provider. Patch testing in a dermatologist’s office offers a practical option for anyone who reacts to scented cosmetics but still wants to enjoy lightly fragranced products. Personal experience and publicly available studies agree: most people tolerate this compound without drama, though staying informed through reputable sources helps make smart purchasing decisions.
Manufacturers could share even clearer labelling and more education about scent ingredients. Clear info helps those with lingering concerns avoid trouble while still enjoying daily essentials. As new research arrives and testing improves, safety profiles will grow even more robust, letting people make quick, informed choices.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 3-phenylprop-2-en-1-yl acetate |
| Other names |
Styrallyl acetate
3-Phenyl-2-propenyl acetate Cinnamyl acetate Cinnamyl ethanoate |
| Pronunciation | /staɪˈræl.ɪl əˈsiː.teɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 93-92-5 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `/cyview/cyview.php?file=c3d/Styrallyl_acetate.jmol.cml` |
| Beilstein Reference | 873970 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:87444 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3172506 |
| ChemSpider | 15167203 |
| DrugBank | DB14683 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03e8c607-efb3-489c-86ad-224d8073143d |
| EC Number | 203-267-7 |
| Gmelin Reference | 157243 |
| KEGG | C09678 |
| MeSH | D005547 |
| PubChem CID | 31253 |
| RTECS number | AJ4300000 |
| UNII | 1D7O844A1T |
| UN number | UN1993 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID9020638 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C11H12O2 |
| Molar mass | 176.23 g/mol |
| Appearance | Colorless to pale yellow liquid |
| Odor | sweet floral fruity spicy |
| Density | 1.06 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 2.92 |
| Vapor pressure | 0.07 mmHg (20°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | 13.78 |
| Basicity (pKb) | Styrallyl Acetate does not have a defined pKb value, as it is typically not basic. |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -7.59 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.529 |
| Viscosity | 2.6 cP (20°C) |
| Dipole moment | 2.42 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 322.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -222.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -4560 kJ/mol |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302: Harmful if swallowed. H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P210, P233, P240, P241, P242, P243, P261, P264, P271, P272, P273, P280, P301+P310, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P312, P321, P330, P333+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364, P370+P378, P403+P235, P403+P233, P405, P501 |
| Flash point | 104°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 355°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD₅₀ (oral, rat): 4,600 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): rat oral 1,350 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | NIOSH No. SY8575000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | Styrallyl Acetate: 5 |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Unknown |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Styrallyl alcohol
Styralyl acetate Cinnamyl alcohol Cinnamyl acetate Benzyl acetate |
