Registration Dossier

Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets

Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.

The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.

Diss Factsheets

Environmental fate & pathways

Monitoring data

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

monitoring data
Type of information:
other: Regulatory review
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Data are taken from a regulatory review document and therefore, although the original data have not been reviewed, the data are considered to be reliable.

Data source

Reference Type:
European Risk Assessment Report for cyclohexane
European Chemical Bureau
Bibliographic source:
European Chemical Bureau, EUR 21015 EN

Materials and methods

Principles of method if other than guideline:
We have not seen these individual studies, but the data were reviewed and compiled for the EU RAR (2004) and so, taken together, the data represents the range of concentrations measured in various situations.
GLP compliance:
not specified

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
EC Number:
EC Name:
Cas Number:
Molecular formula:
Details on test material:
No data reported

Study design

Details on sampling:
No data reported

Results and discussion

Details on results:
Further evidence to support abiotic and biotic degradation is available from field monitoring studies where cyclohexane has been detected in surface water or effluents at very low concentrations indicating that it is easily biodegraded.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Table 3.11  from EU RAR (2004) Monitoring of cyclohexane in effluents or surface water
Location Year Results (µg/l) Remarks Reference
The Netherlands, river Rhine 1978 0.03-1 2 locations, n = ? Morra et al. (1979)
Japan, surface water 1979 0.2 n = 27, no positive results, d.l.: 0.05-0.2 µg/l Environment Agency (1996)

USA, 14 heavily industrialised river basins

1977 0-4 n = 204, 13 positive results, d.l.: 1 µg/l US EPA (1977)

USA, Gulf of Mexico

1977 open sea:0-0.003 n = 6 Sauer (1981a)
    coastal sea: 0.003-0.02 n = 4  
USA, Embarras river, crude oil production area 1975-1977 average: 0.6 n = 16, d.l.: 0.1 µg/l Siefker and Catt (1980)
    maximum: 2.3    

UK, Mersey estuary and its freshwater inputs

1987/88 freshwater: positive: 3/17 qualitative results only, no detection limit given FWR (1990)
    suspended matter: 3/17    
    estuary: positive: 9/23    
    suspended matter: 16/23    
USA, plume of a hydrocarbon venting system from an oil platform 1981 0.4 n = 1 Sauer (1981b)

USA, wastewater from am oil platform

1981 100 n = 1 Sauer (1981b)
USA, effluents from chemical manufacturing sites 1976-1978 3 positive results at concentrations 10 µg/l n = 63 Perry et al. (1979)

Table 3.16  from EU RAR (2004) Monitoring of cyclohexane in the atmosphere

Location Year Results (µg/m3) Remarks Reference
Oxfordshire, UK, 30 m from an infrequently used road 5/1986-3/1987 0.14-1.43 n = 127, 77 samples below d.l. Jones (1988)
The Netherlands, in the vicinity of over 300 homes in Ede and Rotterdam 1981-1983 median: 0.4 n > 300 Lebret et al. (1986)
    max.: 2    

Austria, region of Vienna

10/1986-2/1987 urban (street level): 6.21 n = 17 (average) Lanzerstorfer and Puxbaum (1990)
    urban (elev. 52 m): 2.72 n = 12 (average)  
    suburbs: 1.75 n = 16 (average)  
    semi-rural: 0.68 n = 9   (average)  

Norwegian Arctic

Jul-82 0.07 (d.l.) n = 9 Hov et al. (1984)
  Mar-83 0.189 n = 10 (average)  
USA, Houston, Texas 1973/1974 downtown Houston: 10-19 n = 2 US EPA (1979a)
    industrial area: 0-130.3 n = 14  

USA, Texas, State Forest

1978 range: 0.3-3.2 n = 14 US EPA (1979b)
    average: 1.58    
USA, Los Angeles Sept./Nov. 1981 range: 24.4-108.2 n = 23 Grosjean and Fung (1984)

USA, urban, industrial & rural areas

1980 urban: 0-3.2 n = 6 Arnts and Meeks (1981)
    oil shale devel. area: 0.1-0.6 n = 5  
    rural area: 0-1.2 n = 9  
    refinery: 8.7; 14.4    
    nat. gas facility: 31     
USA, 7 cities   range: 0.35-108.2   Beals et al. (1986)
USA, 39 cities 1984-1986 range: 0.19-396.7 n > 800, sampling June - Sept. each year Seila and Lonneman (1988)
    median: 2.13    
    75-percentile: 4.7    
USA, New Jersey, inside road tunnel 1972 average: 55.6 n = 2 Lonneman et al. (1986)
  1982 average: 44.2 n = 28  
Australia, Sydney downwind of refinery complex and downwind of business district  1979/1980 average: 3.14 3 sites, n = 140 Nelson and Quigley (1982)
Japan, Tokyo, flight path to airport, altitude 350-600 m  1980 average: 0.35 n = 66 Uno et al. (1985)

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Further evidence to support abiotic and biotic degradation is available from field monitoring studies where cyclohexane has been detected in surface water or effluents at very low concentrations (EU RAR 2004) indicating that it is easily biodegraded.
Executive summary:

The results were taken from the EU RAR for cyclohexane (2004). Although the original sources have not been reviewed, the data are considered to be reliable as they are taken from a peer-reviewed regulatory document.