Ask Dr REACH: Scented candles and 'intentional release'
Question: "Is a scented candle considered an article with a substance which is intentionally released under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions?" The questioner represents an Italian regulatory and scientific consultancy.
Answer:
It would seem reasonable to consider that a scented candle has some form of intended release, even if the desired effect from the scent (e.g. pleasant fragrance, insect repellent) results from the process of burning. Any registration and relevant Chemical Safety Assessment must therefore sufficiently cover such a given ‘use’ of a substance.
However, uncertainty revolves around whether or not products specifically designed to deliver substance(s) should be considered as articles or delivery devices of preparations. Although unlikely, it is possible that a candle that primarily serves the purpose of emitting a substance could be considered as a preparation. RIP 3.8 is currently reviewing the distinction between such types of articles and preparations.
A draft version of RIP 3.8 on the requirements of substances in articles is being revised following differences in opinion on the requirements of the Regulation. Once RIP 3.8 finally appears, the RIP 3.5 on downstream user requirements should hopefully allow companies to understand how to manage REACH when they are both a downstream user and a formulator of an article.
It should hopefully also answer some other critical questions:
- Must EU producers of articles always pre-register substances?
- Can a downstream user safety assessment cover the use of a substance in an article, thereby avoiding registration requirements on a producer of an article?
- Can an ‘only representative’ assigned by a non-EU manufacturer of a substance cover the duties of importers of articles containing that substance as well as importers of preparations?
Steffen Erler
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication follows a technical interpretation of REACH to serve as a thought-starter for discussions; it does not constitute legal or any other form of advice. Note that technical aspects are subject to review and references should be checked for updates. The legal text of the REACH Regulation must serve as the basis for REACH compliance and it may be advisable to seek legal and/or other expert advice on any given issue. The author and Chemical Watch accept no liability whatsoever with regard to the use of information contained in this communication.
Chemical Watch Forum
- ECHA decision letters delay - Chris Braun
- Amendments to REACH Annex I and XIII - Nik Robinson
- Use of Chesar tool - Ineke Gubbels
- The importance of confidential business information - Ernie Rosenberg
- Reduced supply and choice of suppliers due to non-registration - Jon Hughes
- SIEF costs vary widely - Anon
- Who is the importer for REACH in complex supply chains - Anon
- CLP and empty diamonds: what’s the right approach? - Michael Paetzold
- "On the shelves" and "placed on the market" - PGO
- Use of NONS data: is it free, or do you need an agreement? - Franck Thiebault



