© 2026 Nanjing Finechem Holdings Co., Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Tracing the roots of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene pulls you right into the narrative of twentieth-century chemistry. As the petrochemical industry raced to meet the demand for fuel, lubricants, and plastics during the expansion phase after World War II, the search for alkenes with both commercial and technological utility led to the isolation and mass production of unusual branched alkenes. 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene entered the scene through this very quest, finding its place as an intermediate that dealt with the challenge of boosting octane ratings for gasoline, and forming the backbone in various syntheses, including those needed for more specialized alkylation processes. Its story isn’t isolated; it links directly to the growth of refineries and chemical plants that turned trial and error into the modern world’s convenience.
Specialists in both chemical production and fuel development quickly noticed the value in a molecule like 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene—not because it dazzled with novelty, but due to its ability to act as a stepping stone for other high-value compounds. The molecule itself isn’t the type to make headlines on its own, but anyone who dives into the nuts and bolts of alkylation, or traces the path from crude oil to performance fuels, knows that even compounds seeming to lurk in the background can have enormous practical repercussions. The presence of three methyl groups crammed into a small space turns this structure into a sort of “shortcut”—a way to build complexity fast, without starting from zero each time.
A liquid at room temperature, 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene gives off an odor resembling other simple olefins. Its boiling point sits roughly between those of its isomers, and its density reflects the close-knit branching—lighter than water, slick and mobile. Flammability remains a concern, as with any low-molecular-weight hydrocarbon. What sets this molecule apart is its reactivity: The double bond at the 2-position, snug between plenty of methyl groups, creates a pocket both shielded and exposed, inviting to electrophiles but refusing nucleophilic attack unless coaxed. Hydration, alkylation, and peroxide formation follow logical patterns but with enough nuance to merit careful labwork. Oddly enough, its chemical stubbornness in specific settings contributes to both its safety and challenge, keeping researchers on their toes during scale-up and downstream reactions.
On the factory floor or in a research setting, knowing exactly what’s in a drum or carboy makes all the difference. Labeling sticks to the essentials: CAS number, UN number for shipping, hazard pictograms, and purity—usually above 98% for industrial use. Producers pay attention to water content, often using Karl Fischer titration to ensure no more than a few hundred ppm. Every bottle includes information on boiling point and flash point, since these numbers dictate storage and safe handling, especially if an operation needs to stack drums in a crowded warehouse. Reading a barrel’s fine print shows just how much a producer wants to avoid mishaps both big and small.
Cracking and refinery streams form the foundation for the synthesis of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene. Chemists usually rely on acid-catalyzed oligomerization of isobutene, with control over temperature and pressure dictating which trimethyl isomer comes through the process line. Purification demands distillation under reduced pressure, since even small traces of side products can endanger downstream reactions. In my time at a pilot plant, watching operators shepherd these mixtures through shiny stills and packed columns brought home just how much technical know-how hides behind a simple label. Operators need to tweak conditions on the fly, since a day’s humidity or a hiccup in the feedstock can send yields off target. That daily grind underpins every liter that leaves the plant, ready for another lab’s ambitions.
Once in hand, 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene stands ready for transformation. Hydrogenation flips the double bond to give 2,4,4-trimethylpentane, a prized high-octane component known as iso-octane, crucial for gasoline blending that cuts engine knock. Acid-catalyzed reactions let chemists thread this compound into the greater web of specialty petrochemicals. Peroxidation, halogenation, or even polymerization (though less common) push the molecule into new territory, depending on whether the goal is an additive, a fuel component, or a stepping stone to a fragrance or flavor compound. What seems routine on a reaction chart often gets complicated by the molecule’s crowded methyl groups, which either shield or steer the reaction course, sometimes in quirky or frustrating ways for both lab bench scientists and those minding the industrial reactors.
Different circles use different names for this compound. Chemists call it 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene by the IUPAC rules, while others might refer to it as tripentene or trimethylpentene (with numbers swapped based on which isomer is on the table). Ask a refinery technician, and they might just call it a C8 olefin, bundled with its relatives. On paperwork, the CAS registry number makes identification bulletproof even when language or shorthand muddies the water. This pragmatic approach avoids confusion, especially with so many methyl-branched isomers floating around in similar applications. In academic or regulatory texts, all these names point back to the same tightly packed molecular core, ensuring clear communication from lab procurement to chemical trade.
Few things grab the attention of workers and managers like flammability and volatility, especially in an environment where sparks or overheated lines lurk. Handling 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene means ventilating the workspace, grounding vessels, and keeping solvents and open flames apart. Spill control trains everyone to use absorbent material and avoid storm drains, since toxic fumes or fires can start if care slips even for a moment. Rules don’t come out of nowhere; they stem from painful lessons over decades. Administrative controls and PPE—goggles, gloves, face shields—form a shield, backed up by sensors and alarms in bigger operations. Regulatory agencies place 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene on hazardous lists, mostly owing to flammability rather than overt acute toxicity, but chronic effects from repeated inhalation or skin contact remain under close study. My own experience reminds me that even brief contact can cause dryness or irritation, and long shifts in refineries drive home the need for strict protocols.
The big driver for 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene often lies in fuel blending and the push toward greener, high-performance transportation. Hydrogenation turns it into iso-octane, king of gasoline for clean, knock-free engines. It also finds routes into specialty lubricants and some polymers, but the bulk stays tied to improving the performance and emissions profile of everyday fuels. Chemical makers, always looking to squeeze more utility from each barrel, lean on this molecule as a feedstock for synthesis—building blocks for additives, surfactants, or emerging biobased alternatives. As the world pivots toward stricter emissions targets and cleaner technologies, the value of every high-octane component only grows.
R&D labs treat 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene as a model compound for probing reaction mechanisms and testing catalysts, especially in the race for better alkylation chemistry. Its structure challenges even seasoned researchers—those methyl branches both aid and hinder certain transformations, forcing clever catalyst design or process innovation. Academics run spectroscopic studies to map electron density, while industrial teams trial greener catalysts for conversion or lay out pathways to recycle the molecule into valuable products with less waste. Government and academic grants increasingly aim at making classic hydrocarbons like this safer, cleaner, and easier to recycle or convert into next-generation fuels or chemicals. As process chemists know, today’s “petrochemical background” could turn into tomorrow’s linchpin for a sustainable transition, depending on breakthroughs still simmering in lab flasks.
Animal research suggests limited acute toxicity, but long-term studies remain sparse, a gap that bothers regulatory teams and keeps toxicologists busy. The low volatility and moderate reactivity reduce some classic risks, but accidental inhalation or repeated skin exposure can trigger dermatitis, headaches, and other ill-defined symptoms. Studies with marine organisms show that, like many hydrocarbons, large spills can cause trouble for aquatic life, prompting steady upgrades to handling and spill response. Agencies watch for chronic effects, both for workers and for the communities near plants or storage sites. In my own workplace, monitoring badge data and annual health screens tell a cautionary tale: Even low-dose, long-term exposures can accumulate, calling for not just compliance but vigilance.
Looking ahead, the fate of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene connects directly to how the global energy and materials sectors evolve over the next twenty years. As electric vehicles gain ground and biofuels nibble at gasoline’s market share, the role of octane boosters and alkylate feedstocks stays critical—clean internal combustion depends on molecules just like this one. At the same time, advances in catalytic chemistry might redirect its utility toward new classes of green chemicals or recyclable plastics. Regulation around emissions and workplace exposure promises to sharpen, driving both supply chain transparency and technical shifts that minimize environmental harm. Every molecule tells a story of progress, risk, innovation, and adaptation—2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene just happens to illustrate that journey with a twist of methyl branches, a stubborn backbone, and an overlooked but essential role in the modern world’s infrastructure.
Every time I fuel up at the gas station, it’s easy to forget how much chemistry powers the engine under the hood. One of those hidden helpers is 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene. On paper, it looks like just another hydrocarbon. In reality, it helps create the high-octane fuels that keep cars humming without knocking their way down the road.
This colorless liquid helps convert plain old isobutylene into methyl tert-butyl ether, or MTBE. For decades, MTBE had a big job—raising the octane level in gasoline and making sure engines burned cleaner. High-octane gas resists pre-ignition, which means smoother rides, longer engine life, and fewer repairs. The world needed more of that, especially after researchers traced a chunk of urban air pollution to inefficient fuel combustion.
MTBE has come under fire because of groundwater contamination. Stories began popping up from small-town America to big cities about tainted drinking water. MTBE doesn’t break down quickly, and contamination lingers. Lawmakers responded, suppliers changed course, and refiners cut out MTBE from most blends in the United States. Still, plenty of other countries rely on it, and MTBE production remains a major use for 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene.
Yet, this chemical doesn’t just stop at gasoline. Chemical manufacturers use it as an intermediate to launch other syntheses. I remember a time during a summer research project, we relied on a batch of 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene for specialty plastics research. Its structure lets it react predictably with acids, making it a favorite for laboratory-scale creative chemistry. Companies draw on it for making antioxidants and fine chemicals, the colorless additives that extend shelf life in lubricants and even foods.
Handling this compound asks for care. It vaporizes at relatively low temperatures, and inhaling those vapors can irritate airways, so good ventilation and proper gear are absolutely standard—something I learned quickly after catching a whiff in a poorly vented storeroom. Regulations set limits so workers aren’t exposed to dangerous levels. Storage calls for well-sealed containers, away from sources of ignition. It’s flammable, and mistakes have led to headlines no one wants to read.
The challenge remains: balancing chemistry’s clever shortcuts with environmental safety. Some folks push for greener fuel additives, using bio-based alcohols and ethers to reduce dependency on synthetic chemicals. Still, developing and rolling out replacements takes time, money, and a commitment from both industry players and governments.
The experience of seeing breakthroughs in chemical labs only matters if the risks are managed and if communities aren’t left with the bill—or the cleanup. It’s no small task, but keeping an eye on compounds like 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene helps create smarter questions about what winds up in engines, air, and water.
In the chemical industry, questions about purity go beyond simple numbers on a specification sheet. For 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene, a compound used in specialty chemicals, purity affects not just lab results but also how well processes run. A typical lot from big chemical suppliers arrives with a stated purity near 96%–98%. Specialists who use this compound in synthesizing vitamin E or in certain catalytic reactions always pay close attention. Contaminants like other pentene isomers, or trace water, not only throw off reaction yields—they sometimes stop a process short, creating unplanned downtime or extra work. I’ve seen a batch with 95% purity that derailed a whole production run, so those percentage points become important quickly.
Suppliers don’t use a one-size-fits-all approach with 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene. Grades depend on need. Technical grade shows up most often in manufacturing, especially in large-scale plants where cost and scale matter more than minuscule impurities that won’t react under process conditions. I’ve worked with technical grade sourced from companies like Tokyo Chemical Industry and Sigma-Aldrich. They offer clear batch analyses. For high-stakes use—say, in pharmaceutical intermediates—engineers often request analytical or reagent grade. Analytical grades, often above 98% pure, come with stricter controls and more documentation. These don't end up in engine lubricant additives but rather in places where a single contaminant could cause massive downstream problems.
In chemical processes, even small differences in purity can mean the difference between a reliable product and expensive waste. Many additives or intermediates react in sensitive ways to contaminants. Research has shown that 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene often contains low levels of 2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentene as a byproduct of the synthesis route—a problem that can affect both yield and safety. In one pilot project I watched, a 2% contaminant not caught during quality control reduced the efficiency of a downstream alkylation reaction by about 15%. That translated to real money, spent not on feedstock, but on lost throughput and cleanup.
Tightening controls on incoming raw materials usually brings the best results. Routine use of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry detects small levels of isomeric impurities. Some labs set up protocols for re-purifying commercial lots if critical purity is non-negotiable. When buying, buyers lean into detailed certificates of analysis. They ask about the syntheses and previous batch performance, using data to pick the best supplier. It helps to foster relationships with suppliers willing to answer tough questions and provide transparency on each lot’s origins.
Scaling up also means reevaluating batch-to-batch consistency. Factory floor experience taught me that even reputable sources can turn out-of-spec material if upstream supply chains wobble. Teams who track results and raise flags early usually catch issues before they ripple through production.
Nobody wants recalls or failures, especially when working with specialty chemicals. Focusing on high purity, using reliable analytical methods, and maintaining close supplier relationships keep operations on track. For anyone involved with 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene, understanding purity and grade isn’t an academic detail—it’s a day-to-day necessity.
Many labs and industries use 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene in organic synthesis and as a starting material for other chemicals. Its role reaches into both research and manufacturing. The thing is, behind that chemical name sits a measure of risk. This liquid gives off flammable vapors and can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs. Chems like this don’t mess around, and neither should we.
After years spent in labs, some lessons become second nature. Never trust just any shelf or storeroom. This liquid runs the risk of ignition, so set it far from sources of heat, open flames, or even sparks. A friend once stacked some solvents too close to a space heater—a careless move that could have ended with alarm bells and evacuation, if not worse. A cool, ventilated chemical storage room stands as the only responsible choice.
Containers play a big role. Go with tight-sealing, chemical-resistant vessels made for organic solvents. Label every bottle clearly—no shortcuts. Some chemists get used to scribbling sharpie codes, thinking they’ll remember, but that opens the door to dangerous mix-ups. The simple step of using proper, printed labels makes mistakes a lot less likely.
Separation matters, too. Keep it away from oxidizers and acids, both of which can crank up risk fast. By keeping containers in secondary trays or spill-proof bins, you’re less likely to deal with a disaster if a bottle leaks. From experience: a few drops outside the bottle can go unnoticed until they turn into a slick, flammable puddle underfoot.
PPE isn’t optional—long sleeves, chemical splash goggles, gloves resistant to organics, and a sturdy lab coat. Gloves should stand up to hydrocarbons (think nitrile). Regular gloves can tear or allow liquids through, turning a minor spill into a medical incident. One slip, years back, reminded me why eye protection tops the list—fumes from even a tiny splash can make your eyes sting sharply and leave you blurry for hours.
Always open the container in a fume hood. Even a small draft helps keep vapors out of your breathing space. Use pipettes, syringes, or pour carefully—never just free-pour between bottles. This is no place for rushing; slow, steady movements prevent splashes, spills, and exposures. Make a point of double-checking that caps are on before moving bottles.
Spill kits with absorbent pads and appropriate neutralizers belong close by. Just last year, a colleague came close to a mess by assuming one kit would handle anything. Materials for organics and acids aren’t always interchangeable. Know which kit matches the liquid. Wipe up spills quickly, ventilate the area, and dispose of the waste in dedicated, labeled containers—not down the drain.
Waste pick-up might seem like a paperwork headache, but homemade systems for flammable liquids have led to corrosion, leaks, and even explosions elsewhere. Let certified waste professionals haul away old stock and residues. This is one place shortcuts never pay.
Accidents often start with confusion or overconfidence. Train new team members using clear protocols—not just policy handouts, but hands-on demos. I’ve seen junior staff skip PPE or store chemicals in the wrong cabinet simply because nobody explained the reason behind the rules. Only regular discussions and refreshers keep safety front of mind.
2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene may be a common lab companion, but familiarity can’t breed carelessness. Reliable storage, strong habits, and real attention to safety keep labs running and everyone healthy. Set the bar high, and make sure everyone reaches it.
Walking into a laboratory or industrial site, you catch the sharp scent of a hydrocarbon like 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene and know right away the air holds risk. This clear, colorless liquid sits among other reactive olefins and brings more than a strong odor—its vapors can irritate eyes, nose, and throat, even at fairly low concentrations. Some coworkers tell stories about sudden headache or nausea after a small spill or poor ventilation. I’ve seen firsthand how easy it is to get careless once you get used to the smell. But this isn’t like cleaning with vinegar or bleach—here, health hazards pop up fast.
Splash it on bare skin, especially where hands cracked from winter dryness, and redness shows up quickly. More worrying, the liquid strips away natural oils so rapidly that repeated or long exposure can dry skin, setting the stage for rashes and deeper chemical burns. The vapor irritates not just the skin but also eyes, especially if you stand too close over open containers without goggles. Even a short whiff on a busy production line can burn. And with inhalation, lungs can react, leading to coughing or shortness of breath. There’s always a temptation to “tough it out,” but ignoring symptoms risks long-term impacts.
2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene lights up easily, with a flash point far below room temperature. In workspaces that see a lot of action, static discharge or even the spark from a broken tool can trigger a fire or explosion if vapors build up. I once watched a small storeroom catch fire from a corroded light switch. Afterward, fire investigators pointed straight to a beaker of 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene left open. The accident burnt shelves to ash in minutes, reinforcing that this solvent never belongs near heat, sparks, or open flames.
Many workers skip gloves, thinking nothing of a five-minute job. I’ve found that even in quick transfers, chemical-resistant gloves ward off both splashes and contact allergies. Nitrile and neoprene resist permeation, while old, torn latex offers next to no protection. Goggles with side shields shield eyes from surprise splashes—a lesson learned after helping a coworker rinse out a painfully red eye. In places where vapor levels climb, like tight storerooms or poorly vented basements, a proper respirator pays off. Not every mask keeps out these organic vapors—only models with the right cartridge can hold the line.
Storage sounds like a background chore, but small choices count. Metal cans and containers rated for flammables prevent leaks and keep fumes contained. I keep flammable cabinets locked, labeled, and far from sunlight or heaters. In crowded spaces, even a single mislabeled jug or cigarette tossed nearby cranks up the danger. Routine upkeep on fume hoods, alarms, and extinguishers turns into the hidden foundation for everyone’s safety.
Training trumps panic in emergencies. Knowing the right steps for spill cleanup, eye wash stations, and fire escapes makes crews confident and keeps minor incidents from collapsing into disasters. Safety data sheets feel long-winded until the moment you’re searching for first aid info, and then you realize thorough instruction shortens the time between accident and solution. In my experience, talking through real accident stories—ones found in chemical safety bulletins—brings home how a few good habits at work can keep families from getting that late-night phone call.
Thinking about 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene, you don’t need to go far to realize that size, quite literally, matters. I’ve watched chemical buyers and lab folks argue over how much to order simply because working with too much of a reactive chemical can lead to all sorts of headaches, both in terms of handling and waste. It’s clear that the packaging on offer shapes not just how conveniently this chemical reaches your bench, but also the risks, regulatory requirements, and the total cost you carry.
For a lot of specialty chemicals like 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene, glass bottles and metal cans stand out if you’re after smaller sizes. Most suppliers offer 100 mL, 250 mL, 500 mL, and 1 L bottles. These usually come sealed, easy to store, and well labeled for safety. Convenience can’t be overstated here—many labs don’t need gallons, just enough to run a string of reactions or conduct a few tests. Companies like Sigma-Aldrich or Fisher Scientific, for instance, routinely sell it in 250 mL and 500 mL versions for lab use. That’s what most researchers reach for.
Beyond the benchtop, pilot plants and manufacturers go bigger: 2.5 L, 5 L, and up to 20 L metal cans or plastic jerrycans. I’ve walked through chemical storerooms packed to the brim with blue jugs, each carefully tracked and dated. For scale-up work, there’s rarely any sense in juggling ten tiny bottles when one solid 5-liter can does the trick safely. The management of hazardous chemicals like 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene pushes people to consider not just how much they’ll use, but also how to store leftovers, who’ll sign off the receiving log, and how to train staff around handling drums.
Real bulk work brings us to drums, usually 50-liter or 200-liter steel drums. Anyone who’s ever unloaded a shipment of chemicals knows these barrels aren’t for the faint of heart. You need forklift access, chemical-resistant gloves, goggles—the works. Large volumes lower the price per liter, but raise the stakes in case of spills, leaks, or improper storage. I’ve seen some companies use lined drums or nitrogen blankets to minimize peroxide formation, something 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene tends to do if stored carelessly.
Smaller businesses sometimes get stuck with limited packaging minimums. Regulatory bodies like OSHA in the US or REACH in Europe add layers of complexity. They require clear labeling, leak-proof seals, and transport documentation. This safeguards workers and reduces the chances of incomplete paperwork stopping a crucial delivery. Companies planning for safe storage need to understand the risk of keeping open containers, especially in hot climates—volatile organics have a way of making themselves known.
So what’s important here isn’t just size, but also how a particular size fits into your real-world workflow. Too much, and you’re saddled with headache-inducing leftovers; too little, and shipments multiply, with each one demanding its own safety protocol. I’ve learned that clear communication with the supplier goes a long way. Asking about available packaging, safety data, and delivery times can save days of delay and help plan for responsible chemical management from the point of purchase to final use.
Balancing the needs of safe handling, regulatory compliance, and minimizing waste is an everyday reality. The right packaging size and type for 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene isn’t just a technicality—it’s a decision that shapes lab safety, project budgets, and even environmental impact. Bigger isn’t always smarter, but buying too small can eat away precious time and money. Thoughtful planning—guided by real-world usage, storage limitations, and clear safety rules—stays the surest way to handle chemicals responsibly.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 3,3,5-Trimethyl-1-hexene |
| Other names |
Beta-isoamylene 2,4,4-Trimethylpent-2-ene Trimethylethylidenebutane 2,4,4-trimethylpentene-2 |
| Pronunciation | /ˌtuː fɔːr fɔːr traɪˈmɛθ.əl tuː ˈpɛnˌtiːn/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 107-39-1 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `/N=C(\C(C)(C)C)C` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1209247 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:89541 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL137347 |
| ChemSpider | 7862 |
| DrugBank | DB14096 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 100.008.967 |
| EC Number | 208-760-7 |
| Gmelin Reference | 60752 |
| KEGG | C08348 |
| MeSH | D011506 |
| PubChem CID | 11227 |
| RTECS number | RN8400000 |
| UNII | 6C76U3993A |
| UN number | UN1993 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID4020899 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C8H16 |
| Molar mass | 98.19 g/mol |
| Appearance | Colorless liquid |
| Odor | Mild odor |
| Density | 0.703 g/mL at 25 °C |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 2.8 |
| Vapor pressure | 2.3 kPa (at 25 °C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa ≈ 43 |
| Basicity (pKb) | no data |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -8.62 × 10⁻⁶ |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.405 |
| Viscosity | 0.674 mPa·s (25 °C) |
| Dipole moment | 0.73 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 329.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | –62.2 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -4811.8 kJ/mol |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H225, H315, H336 |
| Precautionary statements | P210, P261, P273, P301+P310, P331, P370+P378 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-3-0 |
| Flash point | -18 °C (closed cup) |
| Autoignition temperature | 220 °C |
| Explosive limits | 1-5.5% |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): 8750 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Oral rat LD50 8750 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | YN8225000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 100 ppm (OSHA) |
| REL (Recommended) | 50 ppm |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | IDLH: 900 ppm |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentene 2,3,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene 2,4,4-Trimethylpentane 2,4-Dimethyl-2-pentene Isooctene |
