Registration Dossier
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Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.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
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 203-816-7 | CAS number: 110-93-0
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Toxicological Summary
- Administrative data
- Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
- Workers - Hazard via dermal route
- Workers - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - workers
- General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
- General Population - Hazard via dermal route
- General Population - Hazard via oral route
- General Population - Hazard for the eyes
- Additional information - General Population
Administrative data
Workers - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 29.39 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- other: ECETOC Technical Report No. 110 (October, 2010)
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 6
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 176.32 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Based on ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012
Route-to-route extrapolation: 2
In the absence of route-specific information on the starting route, it is proposed to include a default factor of 2 (i.e. the absorption percentage for the starting route is half that of the end route) in the case of oral-to-inhalation extrapolation (ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012, page 19). This assessment factor is included in the NOAEC calculation (multiplication by 0.5).
Bioavailability differences between human and animal species: 1
No evidence for a difference between species for oral exposure to test substance.
Bioavailability differences between test and target substances: 1
The available information is for the substance itself.
Modification for exposure (experiment in animal and human): 2.63
For workers 8 hours exposure/day is assumed. recalculation of the oral NOAEL to a NOAEC is done based on the respiratory voume of the rat: 1/sRV rat (8h)= 1/0.38 m3/kg/d = 2.63 (based on ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012, page 20). This assessment factor is included in the NOAEC calculation.
Modification for the respiratory volume: 0.67
A correction is done for the repiratory volume during light activity (worker): 8 hours sRV human = 6.7 m3/kg/day / exposure of 10 m3 for light activity (wRV) = 0.67 (based on ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012, page 20). This assessment factor is included in the NOAEC calculation.
Total modification factor: 0.88
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- When the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, the default assessment factor as a standard procedure is 1 (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- For extrapolation of sub-chronic to chronic duration of exposure a default assessment factor of 2 is applied (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Allometric scaling factor is not applied because the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)) supports the inclusion of the factor for allometry, but considers that routine application of the factor of 2.5 is unjustified as a default factor. Interspecies extrapolation for systemic effects of methylheptenone has to consider both toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects. The toxicokinetics of methylheptenone is covered by the principle of allometric scaling, the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates, as the default approach. Allometry is generally accepted in the scientific community when the parent chemical or a stable metabolite is the toxic entity that is metabolically detoxified and when renal excretion is the predominant route of elimination. The factor 2.5 for remaining differences including toxicodynamics is considered unnecessary in this case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- There is a major difference in the AF proposed by the REACH TGD and ECETOC for intraspecies extrapolation of systemic effects if the Point Of Departure is derived from animal studies. For worker, the REACH Guidance suggests a factor of 5 while ECETOC proposes a factor of 3. The proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the REACH TGD refers to standard default procedures. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)).
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An additional assessment factor of 1 is considered appropriate, as the repeated dose toxicity of Methylheptenone has well been studied in reliable 90-day oral toxicity study.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- There are no remaining uncertainties identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Workers - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 8.33 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 24
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation: 1
On the assumption that, in general, dermal absorption will not be higher than oral absorption, no factor should be introduced when performing oral-to-dermal extrapolation.
Bioavailability: 1
There is no evidence for a difference between species for oral (or dermal) exposure to the test substance and the available data is for the substance itself.
Modification for exposure: 1
This is not applicable for this route.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- When the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, the default assessment factor as a standard procedure is 1 (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- For extrapolation of sub-chronic to chronic duration of exposure a default assessment factor of 2 is applied (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- This is the standard factor for interspecies differences (allometric scaling) from rat to human (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)) supports the inclusion of the factor for allometry, but considers that routine application of the factor of 2.5 is unjustified as a default factor. Interspecies extrapolation for systemic effects of methylheptenone has to consider both toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects. The toxicokinetics of methylheptenone is covered by the principle of allometric scaling, the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates, as the default approach. Allometry is generally accepted in the scientific community when the parent chemical or a stable metabolite is the toxic entity that is metabolically detoxified and when renal excretion is the predominant route of elimination. The factor 2.5 for remaining differences including toxicodynamics is considered unnecessary in this case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 3
- Justification:
- There is a major difference in the AF proposed by the REACH TGD and ECETOC for intraspecies extrapolation of systemic effects if the Point Of Departure is derived from animal studies. For worker, the REACH Guidance suggests a factor of 5 while ECETOC proposes a factor of 3. The proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the REACH TGD refers to standard default procedures. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)).
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An additional assessment factor of 1 is considered appropriate, as the repeated dose toxicity of Methylheptenone has well been studied in reliable 90-day oral toxicity study.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- There are no remaining uncertainties identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Workers - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Additional information - workers
General Population - Hazard via inhalation route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 8.7 mg/m³
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 10
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEC
- Value:
- 86.96 mg/m³
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Based on ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012
Route-to-route extrapolation: 2
In the absence of route-specific information on the starting route, it is proposed to include a default factor of 2 (i.e. the absorption percentage for the starting route is half that of the end route) in the case of oral-to-inhalation extrapolation (ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012, page 19). This assessment factor is included in the NOAEC calculation (multiplication by 0.5).
Bioavailability differences between human and animal species: 1
No evidence for a difference between species for oral exposure to test substance.
Bioavailability differences between test and target substances: 1
The available information is for the substance itself.
Modification for exposure (experiment in animal and human): 0.87
For consumer 24 hours exposure/day is assumed. Recalculation of the oral NOAEL to a NOAEC is done based on the respiratory voume of the rat: 1/sRV rat (24h)= 1/1.15 m3/kg/d = 0.87 (based on ECHA Guidance R8, v2.1 Nov-2012, page 20). This assessment factor is included in the NOAEC calculation.
Modification for the respiratory volume: 1
Not applicable for consumers (24 hours exposure expected).
Total modification factor: 0.43
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- When the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, the default assessment factor as a standard procedure is 1 (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- For extrapolation of sub-chronic to chronic duration of exposure a default assessment factor of 2 is applied (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 1
- Justification:
- Allometric scaling factor is not applied because the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)) supports the inclusion of the factor for allometry, but considers that routine application of the factor of 2.5 is unjustified as a default factor. Interspecies extrapolation for systemic effects of methylheptenone has to consider both toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects. The toxicokinetics of methylheptenone is covered by the principle of allometric scaling, the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates, as the default approach. Allometry is generally accepted in the scientific community when the parent chemical or a stable metabolite is the toxic entity that is metabolically detoxified and when renal excretion is the predominant route of elimination. The factor 2.5 for remaining differences including toxicodynamics is considered unnecessary in this case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- There is a major difference in the AF proposed by the REACH TGD and ECETOC for intraspecies extrapolation of systemic effects if the Point Of Departure is derived from animal studies. For consumer, the REACH Guidance suggests a factor of 10 while ECETOC proposes a factor of 5. The proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the REACH TGD refers to standard default procedures. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)).
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An additional assessment factor of 1 is considered appropriate, as the repeated dose toxicity of Methylheptenone has well been studied in reliable 90-day oral toxicity study.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- There are no remaining uncertainties identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard via dermal route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 5 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 40
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation: 1
On the assumption that, in general, dermal absorption will not be higher than oral absorption, no factor should be introduced when performing oral-to-dermal extrapolation.
Bioavailability: 1
There is no evidence for a difference between species for oral (or dermal) exposure to the test substance and the available data is for the substance itself.
Modification for exposure: 1
This is not applicable for this route.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- When the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, the default assessment factor as a standard procedure is 1 (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- For extrapolation of sub-chronic to chronic duration of exposure a default assessment factor of 2 is applied (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- This is the standard factor for interspecies differences (allometric scaling) from rat to human (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)) supports the inclusion of the factor for allometry, but considers that routine application of the factor of 2.5 is unjustified as a default factor. Interspecies extrapolation for systemic effects of methylheptenone has to consider both toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects. The toxicokinetics of methylheptenone is covered by the principle of allometric scaling, the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates, as the default approach. Allometry is generally accepted in the scientific community when the parent chemical or a stable metabolite is the toxic entity that is metabolically detoxified and when renal excretion is the predominant route of elimination. The factor 2.5 for remaining differences including toxicodynamics is considered unnecessary in this case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- There is a major difference in the AF proposed by the REACH TGD and ECETOC for intraspecies extrapolation of systemic effects if the Point Of Departure is derived from animal studies. For consumer, the REACH Guidance suggests a factor of 10 while ECETOC proposes a factor of 5. The proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the REACH TGD refers to standard default procedures. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)).
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An additional assessment factor of 1 is considered appropriate, as the repeated dose toxicity of Methylheptenone has well been studied in reliable 90-day oral toxicity study.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 1
- Justification:
- There are no remaining uncertainties identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
Local effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
General Population - Hazard via oral route
Systemic effects
Long term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- DNEL (Derived No Effect Level)
- Value:
- 5 mg/kg bw/day
- Most sensitive endpoint:
- repeated dose toxicity
- Route of original study:
- Oral
DNEL related information
- DNEL derivation method:
- ECHA REACH Guidance
- Overall assessment factor (AF):
- 200
- Dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Modified dose descriptor starting point:
- NOAEL
- Value:
- 200 mg/kg bw/day
- Explanation for the modification of the dose descriptor starting point:
Route-to-route extrapolation: 1
Not required as available study is for the oral route.
Bioavailability: 1
There is no evidence for a difference between species for oral exposure to the test substance and the available data is for the substance itself.
Modification for exposure: 1
This is not applicable for this route.
- AF for dose response relationship:
- 1
- Justification:
- When the starting point for the DNEL calculation is a NOAEL, the default assessment factor as a standard procedure is 1 (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for differences in duration of exposure:
- 2
- Justification:
- For extrapolation of sub-chronic to chronic duration of exposure a default assessment factor of 2 is applied (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for interspecies differences (allometric scaling):
- 4
- Justification:
- This is the standard factor for interspecies differences (allometric scaling) from rat to human (identical for ECHA Guidance and ECETOC TR 110).
- AF for other interspecies differences:
- 1
- Justification:
- ECETOC (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)) supports the inclusion of the factor for allometry, but considers that routine application of the factor of 2.5 is unjustified as a default factor. Interspecies extrapolation for systemic effects of methylheptenone has to consider both toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects. The toxicokinetics of methylheptenone is covered by the principle of allometric scaling, the starting point has been corrected for differences in respiratory volume and this takes account of differences in metabolic rates, as the default approach. Allometry is generally accepted in the scientific community when the parent chemical or a stable metabolite is the toxic entity that is metabolically detoxified and when renal excretion is the predominant route of elimination. The factor 2.5 for remaining differences including toxicodynamics is considered unnecessary in this case.
- AF for intraspecies differences:
- 5
- Justification:
- There is a major difference in the AF proposed by the REACH TGD and ECETOC for intraspecies extrapolation of systemic effects if the Point Of Departure is derived from animal studies. For worker, the REACH Guidance suggests a factor of 10 while ECETOC proposes a factor of 5. The proposal of ECETOC is based on an evaluation of the available scientific literature while the REACH TGD refers to standard default procedures. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the ECETOC guideline until the scientific basis for using an alternative approach has been established (ECETOC TR No. 110 (2010)).
- AF for the quality of the whole database:
- 1
- Justification:
- An additional assessment factor of 1 is considered appropriate, as the repeated dose toxicity of Methylheptenone has well been studied in reliable 90-day oral toxicity study.
- AF for remaining uncertainties:
- 0
- Justification:
- There are no remaining uncertainties identified.
Acute/short term exposure
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
DNEL related information
General Population - Hazard for the eyes
Local effects
- Hazard assessment conclusion:
- no hazard identified
Additional information - General Population
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.