Butylated Hydroxyanisole turned up on the scene around the 1940s. Before then, food spoilage had no real chemical solution outside of heavy salting, smoking, and canning. As synthetic chemistry made leaps, scientists figured out that certain phenolic compounds could slow the staling of fats and oils. BHA fit right into the cultural shift around shelf-stable food. Since its earliest patent filings, manufacturers across North America and Europe started sprinkling BHA into everything from breakfast cereal to chewing gum. The story of BHA runs parallel to the rise of mass-produced food, frozen meals, and—and this is true—those neat little spice packets inside ramen noodles. Entire categories of consumer goods changed direction with antioxidants like BHA, changing not just the taste but the long-haul safety of what went on dinner tables.
BHA isn’t just a food antioxidant. Its core structure—an aromatic ring with alkylated side chains—lets it act as a free radical scavenger. That means it donates a hydrogen atom to block reactions that would otherwise spoil fats. It shows up in a white or slightly yellow, waxy solid, supplying reliable stability in oils, fats, and other packaged goods. In both food and non-food applications, BHA keeps flavors from turning, protects colors, and saves companies headaches over recalls.
BHA is a mixture of two isomers: 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole and 2-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole. This compound melts around 48–63°C and dissolves easily in fats and oils, not water. That solubility is key: BHA will not work in juice, but put it in a potato chip bag, and spoilage slows by weeks or months. On a chemical level, BHA stands up to heat, so it survives through most food processing steps and maintains its function in baked goods or instant soups. Its structure gives it decent resistance under acidic or neutral pH. Safety specs usually call for BHA levels kept below about 0.02% of food product weight; going higher changes flavor or regulatory compliance.
Regulators set tight limits on BHA, and cycles of health research keep shaping those standards. The US FDA lists BHA as “generally recognized as safe” when companies follow restrictions: 200 parts per million in foods is the ceiling most often cited. Every manufacturer labeling a product containing BHA must use its proper chemical name or one of its accepted synonyms, often as “butylated hydroxyanisole” or the additive code E320 for European labeling. Documentation like Certificates of Analysis backs up their compliance, and failure can mean steep penalties or food recalls. Regulators in Europe, the US, China, and across much of Asia all monitor the intake of synthetic antioxidants closely, so technical teams never treat these thresholds lightly.
The main commercial route for producing BHA relies on reacting p-methoxyphenol (also known as hydroxyanisole) with isobutylene in the presence of an acid catalyst. Factories favor this method because it delivers consistent yields and allows fine-tuning for purity. After synthesis, purification steps—like recrystallization—remove leftover reactants. Chemical plants invest heavily in quality control for this compound, since final product cannot contain harmful byproducts or leftover solvents. In practice, each kilogram traced from raw ingredient to finished food involves multiple layers of testing and batch documentation along the way.
On the reactivity front, BHA is a resilient molecule. That’s part of what makes it so useful. Its phenolic hydroxyl group easily donates a hydrogen atom to quench peroxy free radicals, stopping lipid peroxidation chain reactions. It doesn’t get gummed up by metal ions—unlike some natural antioxidants. Chemists sometimes attach BHA’s structural motifs to larger polymers or blend it with compounds like BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) to create broader-spectrum preservatives for high-fat formulations. These derivative pathways build on simple, proven chemistry to deliver better results in difficult packaging or storage circumstances. Any researcher who has tried to stabilize fried snack food knows how much trial and error goes into getting the blend just right.
Butylated Hydroxyanisole travels the world under a few aliases. BHA, E320, and the specific chemical names 2-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole and 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole show up most commonly in regulatory circles. Major suppliers sometimes list BHA under proprietary trade names or bundle it with other antioxidants for custom preservative products, especially in industrial storage and animal feed markets. If you have ever scanned the ingredient list on a box of breakfast cereal or lipstick, those short chemical tags guarantee you’re dealing with the same core molecule.
Any worker dealing with BHA in bulk needs protection from dust and fumes—long-term exposure routes matter even for food-safe compounds. Inhaling BHA powder irritates airways; direct skin contact can provoke mild rashes. Plants handling BHA keep extraction fans running, supply gloves and face masks, and maintain strict spill protocols. Beyond worker safety, environmental controls prevent BHA from entering water systems. Safety testing runs batch after batch: purity, stability, and absence of contaminants drive every shipment that passes from production to finished use. Such steps reflect the lessons learned over years of consumer advocacy and regulatory tightening.
BHA earned its reputation in edible oils and processed snacks, but it works well beyond food. Cosmetics makers blend BHA into lipstick, moisturizers, and shaving foam, keeping scents fresh and preventing color shift. Pharmaceutical companies add it to encapsulated vitamins and fish oil supplements, extending shelf life and protecting taste. In the plastics industry, manufacturers use it to stabilize polymers against thermal oxidative degradation. Animal feed, chewing gum, baked goods, cereals—the list runs long, and each area tunes concentration and blends to fit shelf-life targets, regulatory limits, and demand for consistent flavor.
Recent R&D spends plenty of time on finding greener antioxidants and reducing dependence on synthetic additives. Companies fund research pairing BHA with natural preservatives like rosemary extract, seeking synergies that deliver stability with smaller chemical footprints. Instrument makers work on better detection, letting regulatory labs catch trace preservatives down to the parts-per-billion level. Analytical chemists keep pushing for techniques that distinguish between similar antioxidants in messy food matrices. Even as the world considers “clean label” trends, researchers know that removing BHA outright can mean faster spoilage and more food waste—no small matter in lean times or hot climates. The work never really stops: finding safer doses, testing for trace byproducts, scanning for allergenicity, keeping up with new processing trends.
The story of BHA toxicity gets complicated. High-dose animal studies in the 1980s hinted at potential cancer links when rats ate amounts far in excess of what humans ever get from food. Later research found the results mixed, with effects tied to specific animal strain, gender, and dose. International agencies like the IARC give BHA a “possible human carcinogen” classification, but found no clear evidence connecting ordinary human consumption to cancer risk. Toxicologists watch for bioaccumulation and hormone disruption as new science emerges. Most global agencies accept BHA at existing intake levels as safe, with intake thresholds less than a milligram per kilogram of body weight per day posing negligible long-term risk. Consumer awareness drives constant retesting and food reformulation efforts. The debate still simmers, and new data keep policy from settling for long.
Looking ahead, the world’s attitude toward food chemicals shifts as people demand “cleaner” eating. Pressure builds to swap synthetic antioxidants with natural alternatives—yet replacing BHA involves more than a label change. Natural compounds often cost more, break down faster under heat, and require tighter storage controls. Until new preservatives can match BHA’s cost, function, and stability, it likely remains in use across dozens of sectors. Companies fund pilot programs to test new antioxidant blends and explore plant-based alternatives, but large-scale change creeps forward only as fast as supply chains adapt. As sustainability demands grow, BHA’s future may hinge less on chemistry alone and more on transparency, education, and better consumer choice. Balancing food safety, shelf life, and public trust stands as a challenge far bigger than any one molecule.
Walk through any grocery store, scan the labels on processed snacks, cereals, or even gum. Most shoppers stumble onto a list of unfamiliar ingredients, and BHA often pops up among them. At its core, BHA acts as a preservative. Manufacturers add it to food to slow down the oxidation of fats and oils. That keeps products from going stale or rancid before they reach your kitchen.
Preserving flavor matters, but BHA also helps ensure that food feels fresh, looks appealing, and survives the trip from factory to pantry shelf. Potato chips, breakfast bars, and even instant mashed potatoes benefit from its stabilizing powers. Without BHA, many of these items would spoil long before anyone gets a chance to enjoy them.
The American food system pushes for convenience and long shelf life because most people don’t shop every day. BHA fits this system. It helps major food manufacturers deliver shelf-stable goods, which become especially important in areas without easy access to fresh groceries. It also helps cut down on food waste, a real concern with today’s tight household budgets and climate concerns.
BHA’s job doesn’t stop with food aisles. You’ll find it in some medicines, certain cosmetics like lipsticks, or even in packaging materials. In any context, its purpose stays the same: stopping fats from becoming rancid, changing color, or developing unpleasant odors. If something contains any kind of oil or fat, chances are decent BHA snuck into the ingredient list.
Plenty of conversation surrounds BHA’s safety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration places it on the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) list. Still, studies on animals have raised flags over possible links to cancer, and places like California force warnings on products containing BHA due to that information. Europe and Japan put stricter rules on its use in food.
From personal reading and talking with nutritionists, I learned that dose and exposure make the difference. Most people eat processed foods in moderation, but the amount of BHA actually present in those products stays very low compared to the quantities in research studies that showed health concerns. Still, families trying to cut processed foods or shop more mindfully often look for “BHA-free” labels, searching for alternatives like rosemary extract or vitamin E.
There’s no magic fix for food spoilage, but food scientists keep hunting for safer, plant-based antioxidants. Some companies turn to ingredients like tocopherols (vitamin E) or ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to keep fats stable. These come with a higher price, which usually trickles down to the consumer. My own experience with home baking and fresh cooking highlighted a basic truth: as soon as you remove chemical preservatives, food loses its long shelf life. That makes fresh buying and prepping, or freezing, essential habits if you aim to skip preservatives like BHA.
For folks who want to reduce their BHA intake, it helps to pay attention to product labels, ask questions at the grocery store, and remember food doesn’t last forever outside of a lab. I’ve found that preparing more meals at home from whole ingredients gives enough control, and often tastes better too. For those relying on packaged foods, moderation and informed choices provide the next best thing.
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, shows up a lot in food labels. You’ll notice it in breakfast cereals, snack foods, even some chewing gums. Food companies use BHA for a reason. Fats and oils spoil quickly, and BHA slows down that process. Less rancidity means longer shelf life and better taste for longer.
Food additives trigger debate. BHA stands out because of its long track record and the controversy around its safety. Health authorities in the United States, including the Food and Drug Administration, have reviewed reams of animal studies and concluded BHA stays within an acceptable safety margin when used in small amounts. The FDA lists BHA as “generally recognized as safe.”
But research never stops. Some experiments in rats and mice have linked high, repeated BHA intake to certain tumors. The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists BHA as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” which means there’s some evidence BHA could increase cancer risk in animals, but we don’t have good studies showing the same thing in people. To date, epidemiological research on humans does not point to clear harm at the levels most people eat.
People eat far less BHA than amounts used in animal studies. Regulatory agencies set limits hundreds of times lower than problem levels seen in lab animals. In practice, most of us take in less than a milligram a day because BHA ends up spread thinly across many products. I’ve tracked dietary recalls on myself and family to get a sense—if you avoid lots of processed foods, you barely get any BHA at all.
Plenty of consumers want to know if chemical preservatives cause long-term health effects, especially for kids and pregnant women. BHA sticks around in the spotlight because rodent studies have raised red flags. Scientists point out differences in how humans and rodents process chemicals, but many parents find that argument less comforting. No one wants to gamble with their health or their children’s, even if the risk stays theoretical.
People value transparency, and food manufacturers face rising pressure to cut chemical additives like BHA, especially in snacks marketed toward children. Many shoppers reach for foods with simple ingredient lists. Seeing BHA on a label turns some folks away. Natural preservatives, including rosemary extract and vitamin E, are gaining ground as replacements.
During shopping trips, I see more products touting their “BHA-free” status. Restaurants and cafés that lean healthy almost never use BHA. The momentum feels strong—retailers are listening to customer demand, not just government rules.
If you want to avoid BHA, it’s possible without extremes. Fresh produce, unprocessed grains, and nuts contain almost none. Packaged foods often state if preservatives like BHA are present or absent. People have gotten good at reading labels, and grocery stores offer more preservative-free options every year. Personal choice plays a big role here.
Evidence shows that a balanced diet rich in whole foods builds a better health foundation than stressing over any single additive. Nothing replaces home-cooked meals when it comes to cutting out synthetic preservatives. Trust your instincts on what feels safe to feed your family, and share concerns with your healthcare provider—you know your needs best.
BHA, known as butylated hydroxyanisole, shows up in a lot of processed foods, snacks, and even some cosmetics. Companies add it as a preservative to keep oils from turning rancid. I remember seeing it listed on cereal boxes and bags of chips while growing up, never really questioning what it did. Years later, once I started reading ingredient labels more closely, BHA stood out as something worth learning about.
Health experts have studied BHA for decades. Animal research published in journals like Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology pointed to tumors in the forestomach of rats and hamsters fed high levels of BHA. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has marked BHA as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This classification speaks volumes. Nobody wants a snack to come with added risk.
People process food additives differently from lab animals, and some research has suggested humans may not have quite the same risk. Still, since the possibility exists, doctors suggest a little caution, especially for kids and pregnant women who may be more sensitive to chemicals that bounce around the body for years.
The downside of BHA doesn’t end with cancer concerns. Some folks, including myself, deal with food sensitivities. I remember feeling odd after some packaged snacks with long shelf lives—itchy throat, a weird headache, or mild stomach trouble. I didn’t connect the dots right away, but after removing certain foods and reading lists published by the Environmental Working Group, a connection with BHA seemed likely. Skin rashes have also been documented in medical case reports. Some people living with asthma have reported reactions after using cosmetics or lip balms containing BHA.
The European Union took notice too—regulators there restricted BHA use in foods compared to the United States, and several Asian countries followed similar paths. Most American brands still use it at low levels, within FDA guidelines, but the differences in international rules make it clear that not everyone agrees on what’s “safe enough.”
Stepping away from foods with BHA feels tough at first. I get tempted by snacks, but shopping the outer aisles of the grocery store lowers exposure fast. Fresh produce, dairy from local farms, unprocessed grains—all of this makes a diet less dependent on stabilizers and preservatives. Ingredient lists stay my go-to tool. If a product mentions “BHA,” I skip it, knowing there are alternatives almost everywhere now: vitamin E (tocopherol), rosemary extract, even simple refrigeration for storage can do the trick.
Personal care products also deserve a closer look. Moisturizers, lipsticks, and sunscreens sometimes contain BHA. Swapping these for natural or certified organic lines cuts risk even further. The effort pays off for anyone trying to live cleaner—for themselves and for those they care for.
Nobody wants to think the food in their pantry or their favorite lotion could create health problems down the road. Food companies may move slowly, but consumer voices speed change. More of us reading labels and calling customer hotlines push brands to search for safer ways to keep food fresh. Regulators listen when enough people speak up.
Trusting our instincts, consulting nutritionists or dermatologists when unexplained symptoms pop up, and leaning on peer-reviewed science puts us back in the driver’s seat. BHA isn’t the only chemical in the grocery store with question marks around it, but starting with honest conversations helps protect families now and the next generation too.
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, slips into ingredient lists of cereals, packaged snacks, and even some chewing gum. It keeps fats and oils from going rancid and stops foods from tasting stale before their time. As someone who grew up eating breakfast straight from a box, I’ve seen that odd jumble of letters and wondered if it really belongs alongside wheat and sugar. Most folks probably don’t notice, and even fewer ask why it matters.
BHA's patchy standing around the world hints at a bigger conversation about food safety and chemicals in our diets. In the United States, the FDA stamps approval on BHA as “generally recognized as safe” for use in specific quantities. That leaves companies free to sprinkle it into cereals and chips found on shelves coast to coast. The European Union, though, keeps its limits tighter, only allowing BHA in certain foods and putting strict numbers on how much can show up per kilogram. Canada follows a similar roadmap, but some Asian countries pull a hard stop—Japan, for example, bars BHA in most foods.
Some government-backed studies show high doses of BHA in lab animals lead to tumors, especially in the forestomach. Even if people aren’t eating test-tube levels of the stuff, groups like the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer see enough reason to call it possibly carcinogenic. For me, eating shouldn’t feel like rolling the dice, and learning about BHA’s possible risks feels unsettling. Even with regulators saying “safe enough,” many grocery shoppers and parents don’t want to serve up any extra risks, especially when there’s uncertainty about how daily exposure stacks up over the years.
Supermarkets have started listening to families who want fewer additives in their food. Some brands now skip BHA entirely, haunted a bit by headlines and health blogs urging people to pick simpler ingredient lists. Walking through aisles, I see boxes trumpeting “No artificial preservatives”—a clear sign companies know people care. It isn’t just about avoiding risk; it’s about trust between shoppers and brands.
Food makers have a few options. Some swap BHA for natural alternatives like vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) or rosemary extract, which still defend against spoilage. These swaps don’t always offer the same bang for the buck or shelf life, but plenty of brands make it work. Labels could also share clearer information about these ingredients and their role, helping people make choices based on real knowledge, not marketing.
Food culture keeps moving fast, and expectations rise along with it. People want to know what’s in their food, why it’s there, and if the trade-off makes sense. Governments set the ground rules, but no law should keep anyone from knowing what lands in the cereal bowl. Years from now, more countries may rethink their approach to BHA, or it could fade from recipes completely as technology and consumer mindset push toward transparency and simplicity. For now, reading labels and demanding honest answers feels like a good start. It gives power back to shoppers—exactly where it should be.
BHA and BHT both show up on the back of many snack packages. Most folks don’t pay attention to those names, but these additives have sparked debate among researchers, food makers, and even parents. I grew up in a house where my mom scanned every box before tossing it into her shopping cart, always raising an eyebrow at “strange” ingredients. Back then, we’d ask questions. Today, answers are easier to find, but sifting rumor from reality takes effort.
BHA stands for butylated hydroxyanisole. BHT stands for butylated hydroxytoluene. Manufacturers use both to slow down how fast fats and oils spoil. That means chips, baked goods, and breakfast cereals stay crunchy and don’t taste “off”. BHA tends to work better at higher temperatures, so food companies toss it into things that face heat in the production line. BHT handles lower temperatures with more stability—it’s sprinkled in breakfast cereals, gum, and snack bars.
On the molecular level, BHA and BHT look similar but aren’t twins. BHA is a waxy solid, white or yellowish in color. BHT’s granules remind me of the fine sugar my grandma uses for baking. This detail matters in processing: These two don’t just swap places. Certain foods take one better than the other depending on factors like heat, oil content, or even packaging. For example, BHA dissolves in fats, so foods with a lot of oil favor BHA. BHT mixes a little more easily into dry snacks or foods that sit on the shelf longer.
Are they safe? The answer isn’t as simple as a yes or no. Scientists have tested BHA and BHT for decades. Some rodent studies linked BHA to cancer under extreme exposure, which set off alarm bells. Later research pointed out that the risk depends on dosage—way more than anyone would get from eating food. The U.S. FDA limits how much BHA and BHT can go in products, keeping amounts far under those testing extremes. The European Union pulled BHA from use in some foods but still allows BHT. Health Canada and Australia’s Food Standards branch keep both on the approved list, with tight limits. No global agreement means shoppers see mixed messaging from one country to the next.
From a personal angle, balancing shelf life, food safety, and nutrition isn’t simple. Nobody wants stale snacks or rancid oil, but swapping out BHA or BHT brings challenges. Tocopherols, often sold as vitamin E, are getting more attention as a natural alternative. They cost more than synthetic additives, which brings up grocery prices and can put healthier choices further out of reach for some families. The rise of “clean label” products shows some people will pay more for simple ingredient lists, but that isn’t always possible on a tight budget.
Changing food science takes time and honesty. Companies need to share what works and what doesn’t. Shoppers deserve clear information, free from buzzwords but rooted in fact—so we all stop guessing what’s safe. My family still checks labels and trusts familiar brands. At the store, I look for answers, not just promises. Researchers continue to test, question, and adjust, and that’s what keeps the conversation moving. Trust grows with transparency, not just regulation. That’s where the biggest change can happen.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 2-(tert-butyl)-4-methoxyphenol |
| Other names |
2-tert-Butyl-4-methoxyphenol BHA Butylhydroxyanisol Butylated hydroxyanisole tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole |
| Pronunciation | /ˌbjuː.tɪ.leɪ.tɪd ˌhaɪ.drɒk.siˈæn.ɪ.soʊl ˌbiː.eɪtʃˈeɪ/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 2-tert-butyl-4-methoxyphenol |
| Other names |
2-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole 2-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-4-methoxyphenol BHA tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole Butylated hydroxyanisole |
| Pronunciation | /ˌbjuː.tɪ.leɪ.tɪd ˌhaɪ.drɒk.siˈæ.nɪ.soʊl/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 25013-16-5 |
| Beilstein Reference | 633901 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:32241 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1427 |
| ChemSpider | 5206 |
| DrugBank | DB03816 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100.004.175 |
| EC Number | EC 204-881-4 |
| Gmelin Reference | 107497 |
| KEGG | C06505 |
| MeSH | D001970 |
| PubChem CID | 8079 |
| RTECS number | CAS7553 |
| UNII | JYZ2DYO6YW |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CAS Number | 25013-16-5 |
| Beilstein Reference | 635595 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:32043 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1426 |
| ChemSpider | 13755 |
| DrugBank | DB03817 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03e3d8be-eba7-441d-8e52-2df023649fb7 |
| EC Number | E320 |
| Gmelin Reference | 5824 |
| KEGG | C01831 |
| MeSH | D001962 |
| PubChem CID | 2566 |
| RTECS number | EW2800000 |
| UNII | RJH30W7FUN |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C11H16O2 |
| Molar mass | 218.29 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or pale yellow crystalline powder |
| Odor | Slight phenolic |
| Density | 1.01 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | insoluble |
| log P | 3.5 |
| Vapor pressure | <0.1 mmHg (20°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~10.2 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 9.34 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -9.25 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.5100 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 2.88 D |
| Chemical formula | C11H16O2 |
| Molar mass | 218.29 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or slightly yellow waxy solid |
| Odor | Slight aromatic odor |
| Density | 1.01 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | insoluble |
| log P | 3.5 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa = 10.2 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 13.6 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -78.5 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.49500 to 1.51000 |
| Viscosity | Free flowing crystalline powder |
| Dipole moment | 2.81 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 255.6 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -533 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7118.0 kJ/mol |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 395.26 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -732.0 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7603 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A01AD10 |
| ATC code | A01AD12 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Harmful if swallowed. May cause skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | Harmful if swallowed. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: P210, P261, P264, P270, P271, P273, P301+P312, P305+P351+P338, P403+P233, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 2-1-0 |
| Flash point | 110°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 410°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 oral rat 2,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose) of Butylated Hydroxyanisole BHA: "2,000 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | CN0395000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 50 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 1 mg/m³ |
| Main hazards | May cause cancer. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause allergic skin reaction. Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction. |
| Precautionary statements | P210, P233, P260, P264, P270, P301+P312, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P405, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | **2-1-0-W** |
| Flash point | 113°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 410°C (770°F) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 oral rat 2200 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): 2200 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | MX8650000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 10 mg/m3 |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.5 mg/m³ |